Prev: [Repost] Schoon's EW Rules Next: Re: [erm] space mirrors

Re: Full Thrust : Electronic Warfare

From: Thomas Anderson <thomas.anderson@u...>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:24:22 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Full Thrust : Electronic Warfare

On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> > too late! doesn't MT use FMA rules somewhere? 
> No. Nor does the FB.

okay, my bad.

> > anyway, the FMA system is great. 
> FMA target lock-on procedures take an awful lot of time even in small
> engagments.

maybe. i have no hard data here, but i should think it would add
relatively little time compared to the time you already need for
and rolling all your attack dice. playtesting needed.

> The biggest strength of Full Thrust is that large engagments
> can be fought out in a reasonable amount of time (less than a single
> evening) - using FMA targetting reduces this strength a huge lot.

absolutely. this is indeed one of FTs best points ...

> This is the reason I prefer Epic 40K for large ground battles

... and DSs weak points. it's still not too bad, but die roll and chit
pull together take a while.

> > Psychic Tom predicts that full thrust II will use FMA.
> Full Thrust II was published in 1992 (check the front cover of your
> rulebook). It completely lacks any trace of FMA mechanics. I have
> indications that Jon T. thinks of it as the "true FT2" :-/

that rulebook says "Full Thrust" in big letters at the top, and "Second
Edition" in smaller letters at the bottom. it's Full Thust (implicitly
version 1) second edition: FT1.1. the current dirtside is dirtside 2,
when you look at the difference between 1 and 2 you'll see why; ft1.1 is
very like ft1.0, with a lot of improvements, but no truly major changes.

> The FB is "FT2.5" - halfway to FT3.

the fleet book is a big change - it is either FT1.5 or FT2.0 beta 1.
is all true de jure; as you say, ft1.1 is de facto full thrust 2.
this is all semantics and serves no real use.

i am wondering about how an FMA FT (even if it's an
branch from the main chain of development) would work; what if the main
effort in firing was locking you firecon on - and there was more
of firecons, more interplay of firecon and sensor, more importance for
and stealth etc - using an fma opposed roll, after which the actual
was handled in a super-simplified way? the point being that once you
on with fcs, hits are automatic - that is what fcs is for. you'd either
have to reacquire each turn or there would be a way for the target to
break the lock. i'm not sure how you'd tie in p-torps and missiles to
this; missiles could, to some extent, use the DS2 GMS rules when they
their attack run. p-torps might use the GMS rules straight. it would
different mechanics and a very different feel to FT1.1, but it might be
interesting. any ideas? i'm not proposing that FT should use FMA - i
wonder what the alternatives are.

my $20,000 (hey, it's inflation),

Prev: [Repost] Schoon's EW Rules Next: Re: [erm] space mirrors