Prev: Re: [FT] Fleet design (Was Re: Alarishi Home Page) Next: RE: Stealth Re: [FT] Fleet design (Was Re: Alarishi Home Page)

Re: [FT] Wave Guns, Fighter Racks, Mass/Thrust, & Maneuver Oh My!

From: "John C" <john1x@h...>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:49:16 PST
Subject: Re: [FT] Wave Guns, Fighter Racks, Mass/Thrust, & Maneuver Oh My!



>From owner-gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu Wed Feb 24 10:11:19 1999
>Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
>	by soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.8/) via SMTP id HAA27259; Wed, 24
Feb 
1999 07:26:23 -0800 (PST)
>	 env-from (owner-gzg-l)
>Received: by soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 24 Feb 
1999 07:26:22 -0800
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
>	by soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.8/) id HAA27237
>	 for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:26:21 -0800 (PST)
>	 env-from (owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
>Received: from spacemsg1.jhuapl.edu (spacemsg1.jhuapl.edu 
[128.244.47.193])
>	by soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.8/) via ESMTP id HAA27231
>	 for <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu >; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:26:20 -0800

(PST)
>	 env-from (Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu)
>Received: by spacemsg1.jhuapl.edu with Internet Mail Service 
(5.5.1960.3)
>	id <FKS97G3V>; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:26:19 -0500
>Message-ID: 
<47FCB6DBADBFD211A36700104B95BD830D07A0@spacemsg2.jhuapl.edu>
>From: "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu>
>To: "'FT List'" <GZG-L@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
>Subject: Re: [FT] Wave Guns, Fighter Racks,  Mass/Thrust, & Maneuver Oh

My
>	!
>Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:26:08 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Sender: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>
>
>John L. wrote:
>>	Items 2 and 3 can be handled under the rules by buying 
>> a tug and allowing the parasite fighters to come and go 
>> as necessary.   The one big limiting factor on the parasite
>> fighters is that no special types with expendable ordinance
>> could be carried/rearmed.  (I.E. no attack or torp fighters)
>
>Ah, I had forgtten abut tugs. If you are tug to a single fighter group,
>do you need a tug capacity of 9 or 6?
>Are attack fighters armaments considered expendable?
>
>
>>	Item 4 will lose the ability of the 'K' to be an interesting
>> and dangerous enemy.   If you want a ship with Kra'Vak maneuvering
>> ability, play a Kra'Vak.   The logical extension of this line
>> of thought is that everybody can have anything they want.   Where
>> is the challenge in that?

Well, if you jump the timeline forward ten or twenty years, I'll bet 
that you would find plenty of human ships that use KV armor, weapons, 
and drives--especially if they really *are* superior to human tech.  
Sa'Vasku tech might be another story...or it might not, if you look at 
B5.

>Hm. How interesting or dangerous the KV will be depends alot on what
>happens to them in FB2. I like the freedom built in to FT to have
>ships/forces of my own choosing. I have no particular deisre to play 
the
>KV as I know them - I don't care for railguns or those shotgun things. 
I
>believe that with reasonable justification and work at play balance, 
you
>could easly find a way to add more design flexibility in human ships. A
>human ship with beams and torps and 'KV maneuverability' will likely
>fight differently from a KV with railguns and KV armor. Is that variety
>bad? I think there can be quite a bit of challenge in "everybody can
>have anything they want" as long as the play is balanced. Look at the
>bavarians - they've set up their history as capturing a KV ship. We'll
>probably see a few home grown bavarian designs with Railguns and/or KV
>armor as well as needles out the wazoo. That sounds pretty challenging
>to me ('Courese everyone knows the Bavarians don't really exist fnord).

Once the FBII is released, I'll probably add some Illuminati ships with 
Kra'Vak tech--not much, but enough to add some flavor.	I'll probably do

the same thing with the Sa'Vasku--hollowing out a few of the bigger 
ships and making some random attacks on shipping lanes might be fun....

In the meantime, I'm going to run a game sometime soon that will test 
some new weapons, including my variant Railgun rules--used by the 
"Kra'Mock"--against some of the Fleet Book designs.  It should be 
interesting, and bloody.  Balanced would be a nice bonus, but I'm not 
expecting it.  But then, that's why I'm running a test game....

>I wouldn't mind going after a time-travelling 27'th century frigate 
with
>360 degree waveguns and class 3 shields as long as I could take a
>possibly balanced force ( maybe a DN or three) against it.
>
>Long-winded eh?

Maybe, but sensible.  I like variety myself, and try to make my ship 
(and tank*) designs as distinctive as possible.  I'm going to be making 
my Imperial ships (yes, GW figures) something like your 27th Century 
frigate:  Class Three shields, Waveguns, Reflex fields....  But, on the 
other hand, they are not going to have any sort of missiles because they

no longer have the ability to replace the ones they fire, and fighters 
will be VERY rare.  I'm going to leave some empty mass on each ship, to 
represent systems that no longer function.

>Noam
>
>Noam R. Izenberg		 noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu
>

*The Illuminat ground forces use lots of Stealth, and are primarily 
armed with HELs--they want to engage from a distance, without letting 
the target see who (or what) is shooting at them.

John Crimmins
john1x@hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


Prev: Re: [FT] Fleet design (Was Re: Alarishi Home Page) Next: RE: Stealth Re: [FT] Fleet design (Was Re: Alarishi Home Page)