Reactions...

Well, we certainly did open up the proverbial worm can, didn't we? As I
expected, the opinions of everyone out there vary widely, which is
exactly
why we can't please all the people all the time... 
Thanks to everyone who responded to the new draft ideas - there are a
few
where I can see a slight trend towards a consensus of opinion one way or
the other, while other ideas seem to have equally vociferous support
from
some people and loathing from others! I suspect that a lot of this has
to
do with the fact that many people play their own customised versions of
FT
anyway, so whether they like the idea of a new rule or not depends on
whether it fits in with their current universe. I definitely agree that
there should be a section in FTIII giving outline suggestions as to how
to
customise the game to your preferred background (though obviously I
can't
go into specifics) - there is a little of this in FTII/MT, but perhaps
there should be more.

Just to make a couple of points in answer to specific issues raised in
some
of the replies:
Fighter move sequence: the comment was made that the MT sequence allows
ships to avoid/outmaneuver fighters, and comparison was made with
nautical
carrier ops, where such an event is obviously ridiculous. However, the
reasoning behind it was that these are SPACECRAFT, not aircraft -
without
going deeply into the maths,the basic idea was that the fighters,
carrying
little fuel/reaction mass/whatever (and wanting to save most of it for
combat maneuvering anyway) would have to commit to an interception
vector
at the start of their move, depending on where their tactical systems
predict the target ship is most likely to end up; if the target in turn
has
anticipated this and taken evasive action, the fighters may find
themselves
too far away to attack this turn; this (to me, anyway) is all part of
the
guess/bluff/doublebluff, which is a major fun element of the game. 
One possible idea that has just come to mind - and I throw this in
purely
as a random thought - how about letting a player sacrifice one turn's
worth
of the fighters' combat endurance in order to get a (short) additional
move
to bring them in range of an evading ship, if they end up more than the
required 6" away? This would represent the fighters carrying out an
emergency course-change burn (extravagant on fuel) when they see the
target
slipping away from them...

Several people have commented that fighters should move like ships -
well,
in effect they do, but just on a much smaller scale, which is why we
have
abstracted their movement in the way we have. The reasoning behind a
fixed
maximum move for the fighters was largely a pure game mechanic, but I
have
always considered it reasonable in the light of (again) limited fuel in
a
small fighter - it is not that they CANNOT go faster, it is just that if
they accelerate to too high a speed they will not have enough fuel left
to
slow down again, to fight and to get home! I am VERY strongly against
the
complication of keeping velocity/course records for fighter groups as
part
of the core rules - however that does not mean you can't do it if you
prefer!

An interesting point was the few people that didn't seem to think there
was
a problem with the original beam battery mass figures; I guess that if
you
design "balanced" ships with reasonable weapons fits, as the "standard"
ship designs were supposed to be, then the problem really isn't that
important - it only matters to the players who want to maximise their
designs (and to their opponents...). However, I think the consensus
points
to a change along the lines of what I suggested.

The most difficult thing about asking for everyone's opinions like this
is
that whatever we do for FTIII we're going to p*ss SOMEONE off by going
against their suggestions! Well, we're just going to have to bite the
bullet on this one, but please understand that I've read and noted ALL
the
feedback and opinions, and they'll all help to shape FTIII and future
products in some way; as always, if we end up using something you don't
personally like then feel free to change it!!

I'll probably be putting some more thoughts out for discussion in due
course, but for now it may be a good idea if we get back to the "normal"
day-to-day correspondance on the list - if anyone else has any comments
on
the draft stuff it might be best to email me directly rather than
filling
the list, especially as one or two people seem to be having problems
with
the volume of mail each day.

All the best, and again many thanks,

Jon T. (GZG).