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

Doug Evans wrote:
>I give response with real trepidation; differences from original rules
have
>already started showing some resistance in other places to your rule
set.

I've noticed. That's the reason most of the changes are "go back to
how 2.5 works."

>Is any of this actual results of suggestions from the playtest group?

No. Since I don't know who the playtest group are, maybe some of them
have commented, but as individuals.

>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...'

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

To make it clear, Doug is referring to the distance moved in each
half of a cinematic turn, not the amount turned at each half.

In XD I "nailed it down" as being half the total distance rounded
DOWN for the first bit half, UP for the second. Same rule as for
halving the turn.

And I did so because I never found a clear statement or example in
the books either. So I picked how I thought it ought to work and
wrote that in (and changed an example to match.) Figure 5, page
11 of FT:XD.

>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.

That's more for chem rockets escaping a gravity well though. It
should cost more to have really long range missiles, but I think
I overdid it a bit with doubling.

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

At the moment, they don't have that capability - any other kind
of fighter can intercept them on the way in. Yes, fighters in
space aren't really going to work like fighters in atmosphere,
but that's the "cinematic" convention we use. The aim is to give
the faster fighters more control over when to fight or not.

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

I don't know about too painful, but complicated.

We could alternate fighter/missile attacks with regular ship fire
in one extensive "combat" phase instead of having separate phases.

Problem is, how do you divide up fighters/missiles? The FT ship
rule is that one ship fires at separate targets at a time. OK,
but suppose you have salvos launched from two ships, or fighters
from two different carriers, attacking one target? Do you evaluate
them separately - which requires some record keeping as to which
PDS were used in which attack. Or do we change ship fire so that
you evaluate all weapons fire at a single target at a time?

I think this would, once worked through, be a genuine improvement,
and I'd be happy to discuss possible ways of achieving a unified
combat phase. But it would be too much of a change for this 1.1
revision.

Thanks for replying.

	cheers,
	Hugh

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