Re: [FT]campign blues

By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends wrote:

> Funny, I was *just* e-talking with Noam 'Iceberg' Izenberg not even an
hour
> ago about doing a potential campaign FT game based in WarpWar. I've
been
> mulling this over for about 2 years now, but never got off my butt
beyond
> a very simple playtest run I did over the summer (which was left
unfinished
> as I ended up taking off on a 5-week adventure :). My take on this, at
least
> very initially, is to keep tech levels 'frozen', just to get a feel
for it.
> I was thinking of abstracting the economics to the limit (eg, all econ
points
> you collect in your empire are dumped into a pool at the end of each
turn
> for you to use as you see fit; also, enemy navy cannot attack the
merchants
> due to the level of abstraction, so the only way an empire could lose
their
> econ points is to have the enemy take over the system(s) giving a
given empire
> said resources). I wasn't going to do the WarpWar combat system, but
rather
> use FT to resolve battles in a contested system. On the map all the
other
> player sees is where you are moving your task forces/fleets (said
fleets can
> be composed of whatever you want them to be, from 1 ship to many), and
if two
> enemy fleets meet in a system, resort to FT to resolve the battle.
This will,
> no doubt, lead to some lop-sided, uneven battles, which is what some
people
> would like to see. These could then *easily* be converted into
stand-up
> scenarios.
>
> Naturally, movement of the Fleet counters would be pre-plotted each
turn.
>
> I would also abstract away ship construction and say once you have the
points
> to buy a certain ship or ships, and spend the points, you have built
it, it
> is ready, at your homeworld.
>
> To keep things very simple, I was thinking that each capital world
would
> generate 10 econ/resource pts, and each colony world 5 pts. Per turn.
This
> will tend to keep ship sizes also on the smallish end (you can play
with
> different numbers in this, too, if you want larger ships in your
forces).
>
> I also decided to abstract out ground combat and presume that whomever
> holds the system at the end of the FT combat phase controls the
econ/resource
> points for that system next turn (this *is* supposed to be a very
simple
> campaign sort of thing, after all). I won't tell you what Noam thought
> about the ground combat stuff; you can ask 'im yourself.  ;)	(you're
> welcome, Iceberg! :)
>
> Anyway, there you go, in a real brief nutshell, my thoughts on using
WarpWar
> in an FT campaign game. I'm hoping that Iceberg Noam and I can get
together
> here in the near future and put this to a test. After that, then
expand it
> to have varying tech levels and stuff, maybe less abstract merchant
trains,
> etc. The options are quite open; I just want to play with the initial
skeletal
> idea first. The whole idea here is just for doing naval engagements
between
> enemy forces. Other stuff can come or expand in it as one desires (and
time
> allows).
>
> If Iceberg and I ever get together and do this, we'll post a 'campaign
report'.
> Right now I'm kinda leaning to using the Fifth Frontier War map
instead of the
> WarpWar map. More systems, more options for attack, more fleets to
play with.
>
> (actually this could make a good multi-player campaign for the GZG-ECC
weekend;
> too bad I didn't think of this before! ah well, maybe next year...)

I thought about using twilight imperium (the board game by fantasy
flight games) to
play a FT campign.  Twilight imperium (for those of you who don't know)
already has
mechanics for economics, R&D, etc...etc... I was thinking of simple
assigning each
credit a FT point value in naval construction.	For example 1 credit
could be worth
50 points, making a typical light cruiser cost 3 credits

later
chris pratt
valen@gatecom.com