Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

Ground Zero Games wrote:
> 
> 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:

First let me thank you for providing us all with such an enjoyable game.

> 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.

Understood and Agreed.

> NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
> I'm not giving rules and numbers here, because they haven't been
written yet :).
> This is simply the rough outline of the new 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...)

This means you'll have to have something to encourage small ships.
Otherwise a single large ship will be optimal. For example, the USS
Nimitz and a Boghammer both have about the same top speed. And probably
about the same proportion of tonnage devoted to propulsion. Yet one is
clearly more manouverable and difficult to hit than the other.
Care is needed or you'll have nothing but Death Stars beating balanced
fleets of equal
cost/tonnage.

> 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....)

No worries about ship design changing. See above for comments re speed
vs
manouverability. One of the really good things about FTII is the
lumbering
battlewagons vs the turn-on-a-dime escorts. I for one don't mind large
ships
being fast: but I would like them to be "looks like a fish, boosts like
a fish,
steers like a cow" to misquote Hitchhikers.
 
> 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.

Had a look at this one. I like it. The right mix of simplicity and
balance.
Better than my own 1:3:6 proposal.
 
> 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!

Needs playtesting! I'd have to see how this works in practice.
 
> 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).

1. Revised turn sequence standard => good, I like it.
2. Faster fighters => Playtesting needed. There's a problem with
fighters being too
slow to catch fast ships, but this may not be the solution, because in
every other
respect fighter combat is rich with subtlety in the current system.
 
> 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?

Dislike this. 4 arcs of 90 degrees sounds good to me still. I'd allow
ships
to have -O- arcs though ie port, stbd (no front). The current
restriction
that all firing arcs must be adjacent is, to me, either a hangover from
the
past or an unneccessary complication. One which rather restricts, for
example,
the accurate modelling of the Honor Harrington type and SFB type ships.
 
> 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.)

OK, hope I've provided what you were after.
-- 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|	    xxxxx	Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |	xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
100026.2014 compuserve o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo	 oo  
		    By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
See http://www.z-world.com/graphics/z/master/8856.gif for picture