Multi-Grade FTL (Was Re: Launching non fighters (FTL drive))

>On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, laserlight wrote:
>
>> > The character of the game can be radically changed if the mass
>> > requirements for the FTL drive were changed (via a house rule)
>> > to 30% or 50%.

I personally like the idea of defining Civilian,Military, and Superior*
FTL
at different Mass percentages - while this may not make a decided
advantage
in a one-off game, I am more favor the one-off games that seem to
accurately encompass the 'feel' of a campaign, if nothing else.  With
these
systems (say, 5%, 10%, 20%)* things still stay pretty much abstracted,
but
can be easily fit into many backgrounds.  The Milennium Falcon
definately
has Superior FTL, and TOS series Trek ships, while definately FTL
capable,
are not as fast as TNG-era, and the Borg are faster still (in the same
era).  And why shouldn't military ships be able to outperform bulk
freighters in FTL?

* I have included Civilian,Military, and Enhanced instead of Standard,
Enhanced, and Superior. pick your poison.
** Military is set at 10% so all the current designs would not be
invalidated - it would suck if the ministry of defense suddenly realized
that after the massive cost layout their entire fleet was outfitted with
civilian drives.

Now if you stick with the GZG description for Jump drives, we are told
"The fastest cycle possible is around one jump per six hours, but this
requires _Military Drives_ and power plants along with thte most
sophisticated jump navigation software..."
So there exists an idea of graded drives in the descriptions.  Also,
since
there is a limited, but apparently variable range to jumps, and
increasing
inaccuracy with range, It may be reasonable to assume that more advanced
drives also reflect the special navigation software.

So strategically: (enhance those campaign games)
More advanced drives allow faster travel time, attributed to faster
turn-around and longer jumps.

Tactically:
True, there is not a lot of use for FTL in tactical game, but here's
some
ideas:

1) Leaving under FTL - FT p23 last 2 paragraphs say that on turn of
announcement ship may not thrust or use any weapons, but still moves
full
distance, next turn is half-movement and then leaves the board. 
Civilian
FTL could be full-movement for both turns (or even longer), while
Superior
FTL could be single turn of full movement with no second turn at all.

2) Dangerous translations (the suicide jumps) - FT p.24 says that
Anything
within 6" of translating ship force a die roll for problems. First of
all,
anyone that tries to deliberately use this tactic to damage enemy ships
as
anything but a dying ship's last gasp should be slapped.  But beyond
that,
Civilian drives could have a larger 10" radius, Superior drives a 4"
radius
(tighter, more controlled jump field, useful for squadron operations)

3) Entering the board under FTL - FT p24 - Civilian ship deviate from
intended position be 1d6x2, Superior by 1d3.

4) Towing Capacity - FB defines a Tug to the have 10% FTL for itself
(presumably a military grade tug?), and 20% of it's "Towing" capacity. 
So
maybe allow Superior FTL to be down-graded to Military level, and Tow up
to
50% of it's own mass.  You may not want to do this all the time, but the
flexibility would be nice.  OF course you could extend this idea to a
"Civilian grade Tug", at 5%/10% - which means that your standard
military
ships could tow 50% of their mass at civilian speeds. I don't think we
need
worry too much about standard civilian tugs in a campaign game - I know
I
don't want to track all my civilian traffic, but it does explain how the
battered survivors of Task Force 27 could limp home with their crippled
cruiser in Tow...

>>
>> Or points cost increased.

I'm not sure this is a solution, unless you increase it a lot, which may
make sense, but seems out of whack.  In the FB, you pay 1 pt for each
Mass,
then all Drive and Hull (Integrity and Armor) installations are 2 pts
per
mass, FireCon and ADFC are 4 per mass, and almost everything else is 3
per
mass.  at only 10%, you really need to jack the FTL up quite a bit to
really make a bite.  It also doesn't seem to encompass the flexibility
of
Multi-Grade FTL (but the again I could be biased...)

>
>I personally don't like this idea, as the FTL really has little
>effect on most FT games, so paying such high costs for it seems
strange,
>the increased mass seems to be more representative of different tech
>levels to me.
>In a campaign, of course, FTL provides much more significant advantages
>and point cost changes are appropriate.
>

Of course, I think "Most FT games" need to take in a broader world view
-
What is going on and why - With very little effort, it becomes easy to
encompass many other ideas:

"OK, Tom has pretty much decimated John's defending force, and your task
force follows the fleeing survivors towards the Nimbus 3 colony. John,
the
only units that can respond are the Rapid Response Force stationed at
Colos. For next week's game bring the ships for this Force, which must
all
be equipped with Superior drives to respond in time.  They will be your
only support for the fleeing survivors - I will determine what damage
control the surviors of can muster by then."

>>
>> >  I could see a campaign game situation where
>> > one race has different FTL requirements or if the FTL mass is an
>> > item available for research up a technology tree.
>>
>
>-----
>Chad A. Lubrecht
>lubrecht@udel.edu
>http://udel.edu/~lubrecht
>