Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

>OK everyone, I promised that from time to time we'd be posting some
>playtest ideas to this list to get some reactions, so here goes:
>
>Please note before we start: all the ideas here are _very_ provisional
-
>they are points for discussion, not finished rules! Some of this MAY
end up
>in FTIII (and probably in the Fleet Book first), but nothing is set in
>stone at this stage. I am actively seeking feedback, but the final
decision
>as to what we use will be made from a mixture of testers' responses,
>discussions here and my own preferences.

Well, with everyone else jumping on the bandwagon...  ;-)

Here's my (long-winded) 2 cents worth:

>NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
[...]
>1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between
Escorts,
>Cruisers and Capitals, and have a single "sliding scale" of ship
designs
>from smallest to largest; this will also mean that Superships cease to
need
>special rules - you can build something as big as you like under the
basic
>system. (Still figuring on how to best do the damage track and
threshold
>points - have been watching the last few days' discussions with
>interest...)

Hmmmm...I dunno. Yeah, there are valid points in doing this, but at the
same time I can see where things would break down to only certain mass
ranges being optimal and others totally avoided. The optimal ship size
problem has been around since at least Starfire and I've managed to live
with it there as is, and have been happy with the current method of
doing
things. It's simple, straightforward, and yeah, there are optimal class
sizes, but hey, I was never one of the (as one person coined the term)
'maximizer' types anyway. :-)  I like a diverse fleet.

>2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
in
>the design (probably = to total mass rather than 50%), but out of this
you
>will have to use mass for drives and other bits that are currently
assumed
>to be part of the "other 50%" of the ship mass. The thrust rating will
>depend on the % of the ship that you devote to the drives - preliminary
>ideas are for 5% ship mass per thrust factor. FTL drive will use 10% of
>ship mass. This means you can build a ship with very high thrust if you
>wish, at the cost of having very little weapons space - or a very
"slow"
>one bristling with guns.....
>(OK, I know this will change the ship designs considerably, but then so
>will a simple change like making A batts cost 4 mass....)

Maybe I need to sit down with this idea and actually work out numbers,
but
on the surface this seems to add a level of complication that I'd rather
not see.

>3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
small
>turret); B = 2, plus 1 per additional fire arc over first; A = 4 plus 2
per
>additional fire arc over first. The numbers may not be perfect (as I'm
sure
>all the armchair mathematicians will soon tell me:)) but I think
they'll go
>a long way to fixing the age-old problem.

I don't like it, but then I want all *my* A-batts to be Mass 1.  ;-)

Go for it; this'll fix the battery/mass problem. maybe heavy on the
A-batt,
but I'd have to sit down with the math. No time right now; I'll let
someone
else take a crack at it.

>4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but ONLY
in
>a turn in which the ship uses no thrust from its main drive... should
>change tactics a little and possibly help to avoid the "plughole"
effect of
>all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!

I agree that there should be rear-firing weapons - unless your universe
calls against it. Starfire uses this limitation and explains it away
with
the distortion field that the ion drives create behind ships. My
question
was then how do you target someone through a distortion field if you're
behind them?  ;-)

I recently ran a B5-related PBeM game, and certain ship classes (notably
the Omegas and Hyperions) were allowed rear-firing weapons mounts. It
did not seem to hinder the game any, and made for interesting decisions
for the players. They *knew* now some ships could fire rearward; how to
avoid Big Damage and still attack their target was their problem.  :-)

I would vote Yes to rear-firing weapons. However, I would also suggest
that perhaps you place a cap on the number of arcs weapons can fire in.
Say 3 arcs max. Ships I have designed and allowed rear-arc fire for I
restricted the number of arcs to be 3 tops. And I designed them so they
concentrated fire forward and aft, and partial fire to the starboard and
port. Basically half the rear-firing 3-arc weapons were mounted facing
port, the other half starboard.

Someone else mentioned a potential of 4-arc weapons, and allowing at
most one or two of these. I can see arguements in favor of this, and
would say 'sure' as long as you limited it to *only* one or two
batteries.
Otherwise, everyone'll have 4-arc weapons, and where's the tactical
maneuvering go?

So sure, I vote for rear-arc firing being permitted. I also vote 3-arcs
max on weapons, with *maybe* one 4-arc weapon - if you have the model
for it!  ;-)

>5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
>increased fighter move distances (24" or 36"?) and making the revised
turn
>sequence from MT a standard basic rule (ie: fighters move after order
>writing, but before ships move, so you have to anticipate the enemy's
>move). 

I've been trying to follow (in my copious spare time lately) the fighter
thread a bit and like the idea that fighters should/could be treated as
tiny ships with 12 thrust. It's simple, doesn't screw too much up, and
eliminates one (sub)step in the turn sequence.

I also am a proponent of fighters going *after* ships if they don't move
at the same time ships do (thus simulating their better ability to
follow
the larger monsters). However, at the same time, I am also a proponent
of
upping the damage potential of *DAFs - have them take out a fighter on a
4 or 5, and 2 ftrs on a roll of 6. Ditto against missiles.

>6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to fore/aft
>arcs of 60 degrees each and side arcs of 120 degrees - this brings the
arcs
>in line with the 12 course directions, and makes fire arcs easy to
judge
>from a hexagonal model base (1 base side = 60 degrees, 2 = 120). Do you
>think this will make a great deal of difference to the game, other than
>(perhaps) making broadside mounts a little more acctractive?

While this has appeal, I like the current 4-arc system. It's simple,
straightforward, and easy enough to deal with. You can get a general
idea of where your opponent is with respect to your ship, and simply
placing the template over your ship will verify which arc they're in.

>So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
reactions -
>either to the list or direct email (at this stage, please don't send
loads
>of alternative rules - I'd appreciate just reaction to the above, so I
can
>gauge feelings on it.)

There're mine! Hope it's of some help.

Mk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
I'm not giving in to security under pressure,
I'm not missing out on the promise of adventure,
I'm not giving up on implausible dreams -
Experience to extremes...experience to extremes....
					   Rush - "The Enemy Within"