Re: [GZG] FT:XD changes, part 1

Doc <docagren@aol.com> wrote on 04/26/2010 04:28:19 PM:
>From: Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>

> I'm updating Full Thrust: Cross Dimensions to revision 1.1 and am
> asking for feedback.

I give response with real trepidation; differences from original rules
have
already started showing some resistance in other places to your rule
set.
Is any of this actual results of suggestions from the playtest group?

"Thanks. I just don't want to get shifting my thinking to these if they
will
change again. I don't enjoy reading rules as much as I used to."

On the other hand, if this gets FTIII on the way a bit faster, that'll
be a
GOOD thing. ;->=

And, we're delighted Remixed remains available.

> * Turns in cinematic: half drive rounded UP or DOWN?
> In FT 2, it was rounded up so a ship with drive 3 could turn 2
> points. In 2.5, it was rounded down so drive 3 could only turn 1. In
> FT Lite, it's back to rounding up which I copied for FT:XD. So, do
> you play round down or up?
>
>     We play here, with Round up, and I have a small Battle group
forming

I never noticed it went to round down in 2.5; dopey moi. First reaction
is
round up, old man does not do change well, but I think I'd prefer down.
Go
figure.

Probably a bit of Eric's logic...

I'm more interested in the whole how do you break up the distance
between
halves. I think that's been nailed down in XD as round up for the first
half.

If this is in the original books, could someone point this out, i.e.
give
page number(s), to me? In all the text, in all the examples, either it's
vague or using even numbers for velocity, at least as far as I can find.
We've always been happy with 'you can't do half a turn point, but you
can
do half an MU...'

Of course, I play inches instead of CM's. Could get finicky... ;->=

I'll go back again, but I've never found a clear statement or example in
the books.

> * Point defence
> In FT:XD I allowed ships with ADFCs to fire at fighter groups
> loitering nearby and not actually attacking. In 1.1 I'm planning to
> take this out. Will anyone notice?
>
>     We started doing that before you did the rule, because we found
> it odd that PDS couldn’t target any enemy squadron that flew within
> it range.

Close in weapon systems being modelled depended on throwing massive lead
at
oncoming fighters/attack craft who couldn't jink much coming in, right?
Made sense at one point. However, the little boys flying through dense
enemy formations without ANY danger is a bit weird.

Of course, SOMEONE will bring up stand-off capabilities; bit of a tail
chaser. This ends up being a multi-stage missile with high AI. Oh,
speaking
of multi-stage...

> * Multi-stage missiles
> Doubling the mass for one extra stage seems right, but keeping on
> doubling makes it really difficult to carry lots of long range
> missiles Honor Harrington style. So I'm planning to make the first
> extra stage double the mass, each extra stage beyond that just
> doubles the points cost.
>
>     Need to go look this up, as I missed it.	Could U send these
> rules to the list so more can look at it.   But I think U need to
> keep the mass as well.

Original probably better models how chem rockets work; each stage has to
push the remaining stages AND the payload, ergo, be a factor bigger. I
think they should still add some mass, and perhaps start slower. Or, be
called special 'Honor Harrington' missiles.

> * Fighters
> Planning to add that fighters with a higher move can break off from
> dogfights without opponents getting a free shot. This is mostly to
> provide a reason for using the fast fighter type.
>
>     Speed should give some advantage

The reason for fast fighters is to get there firstest with the mostest.
Do
you think they are overpriced for that capability?

> * Ship fire phase: before or after fighters/missiles?
>
> This is another that keeps changing. In FT 2 ships fired before
> missile and fighter attacks, after in 2.5, before in the beta fighter
> rules (copied for FT:XD), and FT Lite doesn't say.
>
> I'm thinking about going back to the 2.5 order.
>
>     I like Fighters and Missiles hitting before Ship Fire, but I
> have not worked on FT3

Is mixing these attacks into the ship initiative driven fire too painful
for words?

Doug
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l