Re: [FT] Even more NAC ships

Hugh Fisher wrote:

>I've been designing and testing some new NAC ships (for
>Outworld Command, so mostly escorts and cruisers) and
>finally got around to creating some web pages:
><http://members.ozemail.com.au/~laranzu/fullthrust/OC/index.html>

Tacoma/C: NPV is 93, not 91. This was the only design error I could see.

Mosquito: Legal, but... there's a good reason why so few others use
screens 
on ships this small: they simply don't have enough hull integrity to
make 
the screens worthwhile. If I were the RN admiralty (not sure whose navy
the 
R*S*N is, but it ain't the NAC's!) I'd stick to the armoured version
even 
if the Solar War heats up again.

Vandenburg/AT: Legal, but I've never managed to understand why the RN is

still so fond of putting single-arc P-torps on thrust-4 tubs - this made
a 
lot of sense when the main threat consisted of the old-style thrust-2
ESU 
capitals, but there aren't many of those left in the 2190s!

Vandenburg/M: Completely wasted against the KV IME (the probability of 
hitting with the SMs is too low to make them useful for reducing the
KVs' 
scattergun loads), but could be very useful against Phalons -
particularly 
if the missile launch is combined with a close-range beam/torp attack.
(If 
you can force the Phalons to use their Pulser-Cs for point defence work,

they can't fire them at your ships... and if they hold them back to fire
at 
your ships, they tend to get rather badly hurt by the missiles before
they 
can fire.)

Vandenburg/HK: Looks like a good Kra'Vak killer.

Renown: If this was intended as an anti-Kra'Vak ship I kinda doubt its 
success rate - unless it gets lucky on its first attack run it is too 
clumsy to bring its P-torps and B3s to bear on the enemy.

Excalibur/M: Jack of all trades, master of none. Single-arc P-torps on a

thrust-4 ship again :-/

Wasp and Essex: Having a lightly-protected carrier with lots of fighters

makes good sense if the main threat against the carrier comes from enemy

fighters. Trouble is, with the short operational ranges FT fighters 
typically have (ie., the carrier is there on the table instead of a few 
blocks to the rear) the likelyhood of a carrier staying out of the
enemy's 
range for very long isn't all that high unless the fighters are able to 
take the enemy out first. IOW, the underlying doctrine behind the Wasp
and 
the Essex relies on the current imbalance where the fighters usually
*are* 
able to take FB1-style enemies out before they can hit the carriers :-/

***
Looking at your rule suggestions:

 >Aft attacks
 >Screens and armour have no effect against direct fire attacks made
from 
within the aft
 >arc of the target, unless from fighters. (Direct fire weapons include 
beams, pulse
 >torpedoes, K-guns, and pulsers, but not placed ordnance such as
missiles 
and plasma
 >bolts.)
 >
 >Placed ordnance weapons count as an aft attack only if the ordnance 
markers are within
 >the aft arc and the launching ship is within the aft arc and not more 
than 18 MU away. If
 >both these conditions are met, screens and armour have no effect, PDS 
rolls of 4 do not
 >kill a missile, and the effect of scatterguns is halved (round up).
 >
 >Fighters never benefit from aft attacks.
 >
 >The PSB reason: engines are large and vulnerable. It's difficult to
put 
armour on the
 >outlets, and the exhaust emissions disrupt screens. Long range
missiles 
and fighters
 >are not as precise nor as concentrated, and for obvious reasons
fighters 
don't fly directly
 >behind rocket motors!
 >
 >The real reason: to encourage sneaky tactics, especially flanking 
movements by light
 >ships, but hitting from the rear is too easy for fighters.

The main effect of this proposal is to make screens and armour less 
desirable than they currently are - very nice for the Kra'Vak and for
those 
lighter NAC and FSE ships which don't have either screens or armour, of 
course, but in my experience being able to shoot at the enemy without
him 
being able to return fire is quite sufficient to encourage sneaky
tactics 
already.

 >180 degree turn (cinematic)
 >This represents a roll or spin around the ships axis without a change
in 
course, the >engines fired to brake the ship and then accelerate in the 
opposite direction.
 >
 >Any ship with undamaged engines and a current velocity not more than 2

times its >maximum thrust level may reverse course (change facing by 6)
by 
writing "180" as its >only movement instruction. In that turn the ship
is 
moved straight forward by a distance >equal to half its starting
velocity, 
then turned 180 degrees in place. Its final velocity is >zero.
 >
 >The 180 degree turn is more difficult than regular ship movement, so
no 
offensive >weaponry may be fired by the ship making the turn. Defensive 
systems, including PDS, >function as normal.

Interesting concept, but this means that the ship effectively gets 2x
its 
normal thrust in the turn it uses this manoeuvre. If your engines are
that 
powerful when you flip over, why can't you use their full power to 
accelerate straight ahead as well?

 >Often used in Andromeda, and occasionally in Babylon 5 by even the
clumsy 
Earthforce >ships.

IME the EF ships are best represented by using EFSB-style
limited-rotation 
Vector movement, not Cinematic <shrug>

 >Turning while halted
 >Change the special rule for turning ships with velocity zero to:
 >
 >A ship with a velocity of zero (ie: stationary) may, in its movement 
phase, use up to its >full thrust rating to change course.
 >
 >The PSB reason: a halted ship is using the same push thrusters to
change 
course as
 >when it is moving. It may be able to turn a bit faster because the
hull 
is not being
 >subjected to simultaneous thrust in a different direction from the
main 
drive, but not that >much faster!
 >
 >The real reason: standing still is an effective tactic because such a 
ship cannot be >outflanked and can turn faster than any enemy to bring 
weapons to bear. It is especially >effective for slow warships because
the 
enemy will have invested mass and points in >thrust rather than weapons,

but cannot take advantage of this.

Being able to use the full thrust rating for turning instead of only
half 
*is* "that much faster", unless you of course have Advanced drives in
which 
case there's no difference at all - and by your "not subjected to 
simultaneous thrust in a different direction" logic *any* ship should be

able to do this "double-speed turn" no matter how fast it is currently 
moving, as long as it isn't using main drive thrust to change its speed
at 
the same time...

I agree with your real reason for this concept, but IMO you should go
all 
the way and say that a halted ship should only be able to turn as
quickly 
as it can when it is moving.

 >Entering battle under FTL drive
 >Change the procedure for jumping in to:
 >Ships entering the battle under FTL drive are placed on the board 
simultaneously at the >start of movement at their intended arrival
point. 
The player writes down the initial >velocity for the ship which must be 
between 1 and its maximum thrust rating.
 >Each ship then rolls 2d6-1 for direction of displacement, with 12
being 
towards the >enemy.

How do you define "towards the enemy" if there is more than one enemy
ship 
on the table? If there is more than one enemy formation present? If you 
arrive in the middle of the enemy formation?

[...]
 >After all ships have been placed in their final positions, any that
are 
now within 6MU of a >ship or other body that was on board before this
turn 
roll 1d6 and take that many points >of damage. The ship/other body
already 
on board is not harmed.
[...]
 >The real reason: the current rule is randomly destructive, and
encourages 
suicide jumps
 >by small ships into the midst of the enemy. In some settings this
might 
be appropriate,
 >but generally not for humans and almost certainly not just to inflict
1d6 
of damage!

ENTERING the battle under FTL drive isn't much of a problem IME, since
you 
have to note down when and where you're going to arrive at the start of
the 
game - so unless you drop out of hyper immediately in the enemy's 
deployment area, you're not particularly likely to hit him. 'Course, the

hit probability would be higher on a small table than on the 80x120 mu
ones 
I usually play on!

LEAVING the battle under FTL drive is a worse problem IME, particularly
if 
you use Mass 3 "FTL torpedoes" to do it. They're not as destructive as a

really bad FTL exit can be, but they're far more accurate.

 >Beam 3/4 damage (cinematic)
 >In cinematic battles Class 2 beams are generally regarded as the most 
cost effective. >Class-2 beams are generally regarded as the most
effective 
since the tables are >generally too narrow to allow the larger beam
types 
to take full advantage of their longer >range.
[...]
 >The class of a beam is the range band at which it does 1 die of
damage. 
At the next >closer range band (Class 2+) it does 2 dice, at the next 4 
(Class 3+), and continues to >increase by 2 dice for each closer range
band.

The B2s were deliberately designed to be somewhat more cost effective
than 
the larger beam types in order to keep the larger beam types from 
dominating the game completely on large gaming tables where the 
longer-ranged beam types can use their range advantage to the full. On 
smaller tables, such as those generally used by the Canberra club (at
least 
according to Alan and Brendan) the longer-ranged weapons can't use their

range advantage much since the table doesn't allow the opposing forces
to 
manoeuvre much outside B2 range, and this naturally favours the 
shorter-ranged B2s.

Because of this, while increasing the close-range firepower of the
larger 
beam batteries is a way of making them more useful on smaller gaming
tables 
it risks making too powerful on larger tables - not quite as bad as the
old 
A batteries used to be, but going in that direction. If I were you I'd
put 
in a note that this modification is intended for small-table games.

[...]

 >To prevent too many superweapons, each beam level above 4 has a mass 
*twice* as >much as the previous:

This is of course the standard beam mass progression, not a new rule.

 >If this is too drastic a change in the game mechanics, instead shift
the 
costs for heavy >beams down a little:
 >Class 3 battery (1-arc) Mass 4, +1 per extra two arcs
 >Class 4 battery (1-arc) Mass 8, +1 per extra arc

This mass reduction is a *more* drastic change to the game balance than
the 
above firepower increase. If you use the freed-up Mass to buy more small

beam batteries the mass increase gives *at least* as many extra beam
dice 
as the above proposal - but if a ship has multiple large batteries, it
can 
give even *more* extra dice than the above, and with wider arcs to boot!

 >Soap bubbles
 >Actually my suggestion is that we don't need a rule.

In that case my suggestion would be that you're either very naive or
very 
lucky with the selection of opponents available to you. Probably the 
latter, if you're a Canberra gamer.

 >The only real solution to the problem of "soap bubble" carriers is 
already written:
 >Play the game, not the rules
 >A thorough beating from the Narn Bat Squad is the only preventive
measure 
that works >on the type of player who builds soap bubbles. If it weren't

soap bubble carriers, they'd >be building soap bubbles with extended
range 
missiles, or, well something.

"The type of player who builds soap bubbles" can just as easily be a new

player who stumbles across them without knowing that it is "impolite" to

build them as an actual munchkin. How do you explain to such a newbie
that 
"you mustn't use these designs, they're too powerful"? Same with the 
large-ship balance problem - how do you explain to a newbie that he
mustn't 
put all his points into a single or a few very large capital ships? 
"Because I say so" is only marginally better than sending the NBS at
him.

 >Designing a set of tabletop rules that are both playable and cannot be

abused is a near >impossible task. [...] The immediate temptation is to
add 
new rules to restore balance. It
 >doesn't work.

Designing a set of tabletop rules where the potential rules abuses only 
give an advantage similar in magnitude to the effect of winning an 
initiative roll, or where "mainstream" designs (eg. like those in the
Fleet 
Books) are slightly more effective than the "extreme" ones, isn't all
that 
difficult - IF you aim for this from the outset. Unfortunately Full
Thrust 
wasn't designed this way, and adding balancing rules afterwards can be
very 
difficult if the basic rules structure is screwed up; in this case it is

often better to re-write the entire trouble area from scratch.

 >Full Thrust is simple and playable, which puts it ahead of 90% of the 
wargame rules on >the market. That it has loopholes does not
disadvantage it.

Full Thrust is steadily losing market shares to the space combat games 
among the remaining 10% of the wargame rules on the market. I'd say that

this makes FT's loopholes a fairly serious disadvantage, unless you want
FT 
to drop out of the market and get replaced by other games...

 >Certainly keep striving for a simple, playable, and perfectly balanced

game, but don't be >too disappointed if it's not.

Above you told us NOT to strive for a simple, playable and perfectly 
balanced game because "it doesn't work". Make up your mind.

 >There is a solution that does work and is universally applied in 
competitions, again all
 >the way from ancients to science fiction. Restrict the players choice 
through canonical
 >army/orders of battle, or fleet lists. Full Thrust needs more fleet 
books, not a rule against
 >soap bubbles.

In historical gaming, it is possible to write historical/"canonical"
OOBs 
because we know at least reasonably well what units were available to
the 
historical army/navy we're modelling. We also know from history roughly
how 
powerful the various units ought to be relative to one another.

In SF/Fantasy gaming OTOH we *don't* have any such knowledge.
Restricting 
players "canonical" forces is equivalent to saying "you may only use the

stats we provide" - and implicitly also "you may only use the models we 
provide" - which means that the game can't be used to play out battles
in 
any  background *other* than the Official (TM) one. "You want to use
Full 
Thrust to play Star Wars battles, or Star Trek, or BattleStar Galactica?

Sorry, you're not allowed to do that - none of them are in the Official 
(TM) background, and you're only allowed to play games set in the
Official 
(TM) background." Is this what you want?

Also, how exactly do you think any new Fleet Book fleets can be both 
balanced against and different enough from the existing FB fleets to be 
interesting if the game rules aren't balanced? With unbalanced game
rules 
you either get a GW-style "must have the latest official fleet" race, or
a 
game where all fleets are minor variations of the FB1 ones. Is this what

you want Full Thrust to become?

 >One last thought before you write new ship construction rules to ban
soap 
bubble >carriers outright: they do exist in Babylon 5.

Changing the ship design rules to ban soapbubble carriers outright has 
already been tried; so far all such attempts have either had no effect
at 
all or made the FB2 Phalon carriers illegal. This does not seem to be a 
practical solution to the problem.

 >On two occasions we see large, FTL capable raider motherships that
carry 
24 fighters
 >but are extremely slow, have no visible offensive or defensive
weaponry, 
and blow up >even more quickly than usual for ships in B5.

The reason why the Raider carriers got beaten is that the B5 battles
were 
not points-balanced. In the first of these battles the other side had
not 
only heavier large ships but also at least as many fighters as the
Raiders 
had, and of higher quality than the Raider ones (Starfuries are
explicitly 
described as being more effective in space dogfights than the 
atmosphere-capable Raider delta-wings); in the other case that the
Raider 
ship ran into a Shadow vessel capable of slicing up multiple Narn 
warcruisers just as easily as it diced the Raider carrier.

By bringing up these two examples, you're implicitly suggesting that the

cost of soap-bubble carriers be increased to allow the opponents to
bring 
more powerful units to an equal-points battle against soap-bubbles :-/

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry