Prev: RE: [GZG] Re: Ful lThrust Playtest? (SimonWhite) [SEC=UNCLASSIFIE D] Next: Re: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Re: [GZG] Re: Full Thrust Playtest? (Simon White)

From: "john tailby" <John_Tailby@x...>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:37:12 +1300
Subject: Re: [GZG] Re: Full Thrust Playtest? (Simon White)

Hi

We have been playing several campaigns of Full Thrust involving up to a 
dozen players over the last 2-3 years.

We use home brew fleets often inspired by a particular SciFi universe.

During this process we modified the rules and eventually codified them
into 
one version.
We incorporated a number of weapon systems from the websites and some we

made up as a group ourselves.

One thing that has become apparent is that the Organic tech ships as
they 
stand need some rework. Many of the systems are same mass as for a
standard 
tech ship but then require the same mass of generators to use. It's not 
economic to mount screen generators on an organic ship because ti takes
20% 
of the ships mass to make them work. So after several players have
designed 
ships in our campaigns no one uses screens at all.

The thing we found 2 powerful is the ability of organic ships to fire
all 
their power out of one stinger node in any arc. It's very powerful when
the 
ship can get 360 coverage for 4 mass and fire all its firepower
backwards 
while it cruises away from the enemy.

Has anyone done any battle reports with biotech ships that suggest that 
screens and other defensive systems are effective compared to buying
more 
hull, and generators. This is also an effective defence because if the
enmy 
dies quicker they can't fire back.

Thanks

John 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

Prev: RE: [GZG] Re: Ful lThrust Playtest? (SimonWhite) [SEC=UNCLASSIFIE D] Next: Re: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).