Prev: Re: Swiss Confed DD Next: Ynot 6 sides? Re: [FT] A bizarre FT idea for the Friday topic

Re: "High Resolution" FT

From: "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@j...>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:15:20 -0500
Subject: Re: "High Resolution" FT

Schoon wrote:

> I don't mean this in a disparaging way, particularly since you've put 
> some effort into this, but why? I find that FT works just fine for 
> single ship battles, though it will make for a short game.

That's exactly why - too short IMO. A battle with a destroyer and two
frigates per side  is really un-interesting at the FT scale. Two
cruisers is
no better, and a destroyer or frigate duel is laughable. I started 20
ago with SFB, and while the ruleset quickly grew to hideous levels, I
had fun with single-ship duels. I wanted a way to make a satisfying
for that purpose without tearinng up the FT ruleset too badly. I didn't
what to have 100 mass frigates, because I think Frigates shouldn't be
to carry Multiple P-torps or Class 3 beams. Perhaps it won't work out,
but I
wanted to try it. In the back of my mind I also have an idea for a game
universe with _much_ smaller fleets than in FT canon - where each power
at most one DN or One BC as their flag, and entire fleets can be counted
the dozens of ships rather than hundreds or thousands. 

> It looks as if you simply doubled most things, and while it will tend 
> to average out the "luck" factor involved with small ship battles, it 
> wouldn't (to my eye) seem to produce different results.

The main object was to reduce the luck factor in small battles. If
luck and increasing tactical effects on small battles is all that this
accomplishes, then results _should_ differ. Plus, again, it's main
is to enable smaller battles and single ship duels, which is probably a
niche interest for most FT'ers, but I happen to like visiting that

>> [core systenms]
>>		  Sensors [symbol: icon of sensor dish inside a circle]

> What's the rationale for this? It wouldn't seem to have a parallel in

I liked the idea in the alternate core system rules, z'all.

>>	-Once attacking a target, fighters can expend an additional CEF
>>half turn to "maintain attack - basically an offensive screening
>>where the fighter automatically moves with the target.

>I'm make them move rather than use "offensive screening." Why? It 
>gives the ships a chance to force them to use another CEF, rather 
>than giving them an automatic follow.

"Maintain attack" also forces the additional CEF burn. I did it mainly
ease book-keeping and movement. I find the game can bog when players
the time to plot out and guess where to place fighters to catch the ship
they're currently attacking. if it's too much of an advantage, then
they should attack at 1-die less.per group.

> Why not just double fighter "hits" as well (takes 2 damage to kill 
> one) and leave PDS as is. That way no one gets screwed on the 
> rounding.

Record-keeping, mostly. You'd have to trak half-hits on each group,
could be a pain. I think the round-up on PDS is a balancing factor to
increased effective range of fighters.


Prev: Re: Swiss Confed DD Next: Ynot 6 sides? Re: [FT] A bizarre FT idea for the Friday topic