Re: [FT] FB2 Balancing Corrections Proposed

>* Does your group use player-designed ships, or only the published ones
>from FB1? (During the FB2 playtesting Alan said something about him
>very rarely using custom designs, though it does sound a bit curious in
>light of his ST-to-FT conversions... Alan?)

Basically, the FT grognards at the club only use FB designs. At least,
I've
never seen them use a non-book ship.

This can probably be traced back to the days of FT1 where it was just
too easy
to make UberShips far better than those described in the book (FT/MT).
The FB1
design system appears to have solved the problem, but broadside-rollers
and
other such 'gamey' designs are still possible. I'm not convinced that a
fleet
of 22-mass 1-hull FTL 1-thrust 2 Fighter Bay ships are particularly
balanced
either. Nor for that matter a vast quantity of 3-mass ships which do
nothing
but attempt to ram at speed 30+. And no, I don't claim that they are
unbeatable
winners under all circumstances. If your opponent knows what you're
taking,
then he can make a counter, which since you know what he's taking you
counter
etc etc.

I tend to use only FB designs myself, unless playing a Star Trek TOS
game, where
only ST-TOS designs are used that are consistent with the background.

One exception is my OU designs, which I've tried to make consistent in
style
with FB1 while retaining a distinctive feel. They are 'balanced' designs
(in
terms of weapons fit, thrust etc rather than play-balance). I've been
playtesting
these vs FB1 and FB2 ships, and they give as good as they get - losing
battles
about 60% of the time, but hardly ever losing a ship (they FTL out when
severely
hit - the OU has a low population base and losing whole ships hurts them
worse
than most opponents - if they stick around they'd maybe win 50% but lose
a lot
more ships).

The object of playtesting the OU ships was not to make the "best
possible ships
for that BPV" but to make designs that were neither creampuffs nor too
powerful
(while again being different from all other fleets). I tried to do this
by having
them somewhat under-armed compared with opponents, but making use of B2s
and
B1s (the most efficient weapons) exclusively. At 36 they have no
firepower to
speak of. At 24 they're about equal. At 12 they're somewhat superior
(though
in fact about equal, as they've usually taken a fair bit of damage).
The extra hull and armour that isn't being used for weaponry means they
can
take a lot of minor damage and still close to "decisive range", while
their
wide fire arcs means they don't have to worry about overshooting or
getting
into a turning duel. The Modular design means that they can retrofit
with PTs
or whatever for special missions or circumstances ( eg "Hunt the ESU
CV") but
losing a lot of effectiveness. They require their own tactics - getting
into
"knife-fighting" range.

Most player designed ships are an attempt to get the most effective ship
*under
some particular circumstances* possible for the BPV. Thus the
specialised anti-KV
ships with no shields, a layer of armour about 2/3 the size of a row,
Thrust-6
and lots of side-arc weaponry (for cinematic). This was not what I
wanted with
the OU.

So basically it's FB(or Tuffleyverse) vs FB or ST vs ST, no mixing, and
little
experimentation, except to add to the Tuffleyverse Canon.