Re: FT: ICEBREAKER

Thomas the unbeliever <g> wrote:

> i've not actually seen ft1.3 (as i will continue to call it :-)

OK. But convince Jon Tuffley that it *is* FT1.3 and not FT2.5 first...
I'll believe more in the author's opinion about FT generations than in
your :-) 

> ie the
> fleet book, but from what i've read i'm wary of it. it sounds like the
> design system has been overhauled to get rid of some of the daft bits,
> like the escort-cruiser-capital splits, 

And the total dominance of the A battery and MT missiles, and the
extreme
usefulness of screens for huge capital ships. While none of the changes
were necessary for players who design ships without thinking about
optimizing their designs, they were desperately needed for those who do
just that (or, at least, for their regular opponents <g>).

> but it also sounds like a lot of
> the other stuff has made balanced games where pure tactics are
important
> much harder; you have to spend more time thinking about how your
weapons
> match up againts the opponent's defences and vice versa.

Well... it is a lot easier to get balanced battles in FT2.5 than in More
Thrust. The main imbalance comes if one side uses fighters/salvo
missiles
and the other forgets his point defence at home, but this was just as
true in FT2 (and, I believe, in FT1). Even more true in FT2, in fact,
since the use of C/Class-1 batteries against fighters has been
formalized
and the FB point defence is more powerful than FT2/MT PDAF/ADAF
(especially ADAF).

As for the elegance of FT2.5, well... I consider them more elegant than
FT2. But of course I'm biased <g>

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry