Prev: RE: correction for Encyclopedia project title. Next: Re: [FT] NAC Fleet Roster (unofficial, of course)

Re: ARRRGHHHH!!! ( Was Re: Rules for BFG/FT Conversion.)

From: "John C" <john1x@h...>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:52:09 PST
Subject: Re: ARRRGHHHH!!! ( Was Re: Rules for BFG/FT Conversion.)

>	Opps... Typo... I meant "fit correctly."  I've tried to use my
>conversion rules to convert several of the BFG ships to FT 2.5.  First 
>figure out the MASS of the weapons and systems.  Then I try to build 
>rest of the ship around it.  I quickly discover that no matter how much
>overal MASS I make the ship, I can't get it the way I want it.  Here's
>an example of what I mean:
>Lunar Class Crusier				MASS
>MASS 130, 39 DP, Average Hull			39
>Thrust Rating 4				26
>FTL						13
>2 Fire Cons					 2	
>3 Points of armor				 3
>Level 1 screen 				 6
>6x 2 arc Class 2 batteries			12
>Class 4 Lance system with 2 standard emitters.  16
>1 SML with a 4 load Magazine.			11	
>2 PDS						 2	
>						---
>				 Total Mass:	130
>	That is my final attempt at a Lunar Class Cruiser.  On it's
face, it
>looks fine.  But it doesn't seem to fit my vision of the ship.  First 
>all, I intended to give it a strong rated hull to give better chance of
>surviving ramming under my proposed damage rules (BTW, what does
>everyone think of those rules?).  I also wanted to give it more armor
>points than 3 and a level 2 screen.  
>	Know I think I can do a couple of things to help get me to this
>First, I can reduce the thrust rating to 2.  I can also change the MASS
>formula from 3 x Rating to 2 x Rating.  I figure the this will give me
>17 more MASS points to play with.  Enough to give it a strong hull and 
>more points of armor, but nothing for a screen upgrade.
>	Granted this is merely a playtest ship from WD 225, and we don't
>what the final version will look like.  Also I can scrap the
>construction system altogether and take JTs suggestion to put together
>the ships the way I want.  However, I confess that I'm a little anal
>retentive and I feel "dirty" if I can't use the construction system.
>	<SOB!>	I need help!  
>Mark A. Siefert

Doesn't it suck being a perfectionist?	I used to suffer from this 
myself...until I discovered the "It's Good ENOUGH, Dammit!" philosophy. 

It's amazing what this has done for my painting speed....

In any case, I see what you mean.  Reducing Thrust would be my first 
move--Imperial ships seem to be the very definition of slow and 
ponderous.  If it restricts their manuverability too much, you can just 
let them use all of their Thrust points in a turn--like the Kra'Vak.  
Playing around with the same design, I came up with:
  Lunar Class Cruiser
     MASS: 145		   
     Strong Hull (52 DP)	    52
     10 Points of Armor 	    10
     THRUST: 2			    13
     FTL			    13
     Screen Level 2		    14
     6xClass 2 Batteries	    12*
     1 SML with a 4 load Magazine   11
     2xPDS			     2
     Lance System		    16
     2xFireCons 		     2 

*These are 3 arc guns; the MASS could probably be shaved down a 
little--not enough to make much difference, though.

It's not THAT much bigger than yours; would it be workable?  That's 
without reducing the MASS of the Lance Emitter--that would bring it down

to 141...shave off a point of armor, and you are at 140.

I do, by the way, like your Ramming rules.  Using the Hull strength 
makes sense.  I'd still want to add some kind of Ram, to increase damage

a bit more (Too many years of Car Wars.  Gotta love those Ram Plates, 
don't you?), but that might be just guilding the lily.

I do hope that they do Tyrannid rules at some point.  If the ships are, 
in fact, larger than the orginial releases, it will finally give me a 
fleet with some capital ships.	Sixty ships is a decent fleet...but when

your largest ship is the size of an crusier, it can be a bit 

John Crimmins

Get Your Private, Free Email at

Prev: RE: correction for Encyclopedia project title. Next: Re: [FT] NAC Fleet Roster (unofficial, of course)