Re: Naval FT Variant

I knew this list would come through! Thanks, Doug. 

Allan, I am very interested in the rules you are developing and would
love to take a look at them.

Ken

Hemlock is what!? - Socrates

On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:00, gzg-d-request@firedrake.org wrote:

> Content-Type: text/plain
> 
> gzg-d Digest		      Volume 2013 : Issue 36
> 
> Today's Topics:
>  RE: Naval FT Variant 		 [ Douglas Evans
<devans@nebraska.edu> ]
>  RE: Naval FT Variant 		 [ Douglas Evans
<devans@nebraska.edu> ]
>  Re: Naval FT Variant 		 [ Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com>
]
>  Re: Naval FT Variant 		 [ Binhan Lin
<binhan.lin@gmail.com> ]
> 
> Administrivia:
> Administrivia:
> mail gzg-d-unsubscribe@firedrake.org to leave the GZG Digest
> archives at http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/
> in case of problems, contact listmaster@firedrake.org
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:22:53 +0000
> From: Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
> To: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
> Subject: RE: Naval FT Variant
> Message-ID:
<12C2DA60A560CD458936E29BE87186B464CD6D00@CH1PRD0511MB420.namprd05.prod.
outlook.com>
> Content-Language: en-US
> 
> Found a version called Full Steam for WWII.
> 
> http://cwintel.tripod.com/fsteam.zip
> 
> The unzipped rule set is entitled 'Wet Thrust'. Oh, you guys...
> 
> Not to be confused with Full Steam: 1889, of course.
> 
> I recall someone on this list announce an attempt for
pre-dreadnoughts, but I've gone blank. I seem to think they said it
didn't portray ships well. A lot of people say that about spaceships in
Full Thrust.
> 
> I disagree, but it's generally accepted to be so much fun.
> 
> Doug
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: K. Wang [mailto:azuredolfin@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 1:40 PM
> To: gzg@firedrake.org
> Subject: Naval FT Variant
> 
> Gents,
> 
> Does anyone know of a "Dreadnaught" or "Battleship" variant of FT? I
seem to recall seeing it on a now defunct website that was a repository
of alternative rulesets for FT, DS, and SG. Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ken
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:20:56 +0000
> From: Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
> To: "gzg@firedrake.org" <gzg@firedrake.org>
> Subject: RE: Naval FT Variant
> Message-ID:
<12C2DA60A560CD458936E29BE87186B464CD6D21@CH1PRD0511MB420.namprd05.prod.
outlook.com>
> Content-Language: en-US
> 
> *blush* Now THAT was embarrassing!
> 
> Sorry, Allan! Especially the part where I typed 'Allen'...
> 
> Share what you can, when you can. Remember, the perfect is the enemy
of the good enough. See my work table...
> 
> Wait, I have a work table? MORE THAN ONE?!?
> 
> Doug
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allan Goodall [mailto:awgoodall@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:31 AM
> To: gzg@firedrake.org
> Subject: Re: Naval FT Variant
> 
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> 
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I recall someone on this list announce an attempt for 
>> pre-dreadnoughts, but I've gone blank. I seem to think they said it
didn't portray ships well.
>> 
>> 
> That would be me.
> 
> I pulled it up a couple of months ago, and I want to drag it out
again. The big issue is that if you want fairly realistic naval combat,
you need non-linear weapon damage (i.e. the chance of doing damage at
close range versus long range is not linear). Full Thrust's beams are
linear. I think I have a way around this, but it needs some testing.
> 
> -- 
> Allan Goodall 	   http://www.hyperbear.com
> awgoodall@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:27:58 -0400
> From: Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com>
> To: gzg@firedrake.org
> Subject: Re: Naval FT Variant
> Message-ID:
<CABU2aECodnoJBXmCp3WP0E9LtpDYJFdj8FyDkzotGznJmkY0uQ@mail.gmail.com>
> 
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> 
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
wrote:
> 
>> *blush* Now THAT was embarrassing!
>> 
>> Sorry, Allan! Especially the part where I typed 'Allen'...
>> 
> 
> Could have been worse. You could have typed "Alien"...   ;-)
> 
> Mk
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:09:08 -0600
> From: Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com>
> To: gzg@firedrake.org
> Subject: Re: Naval FT Variant
> Message-ID:
<CAMOZhhax4-sMMJJ_HWN79r2WdNq5cC82bUjjkv5+fOzOMgVV6w@mail.gmail.com>
> 
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> 
> I did the original Flank Speed conversions, but I no longer have a
copy and
> only a faint memory of the conversions stats. For weapons there was
> something about large caliber (12" or up) and a combination of number
in a
> turret to generate the A-bats (class 1's), 8" to 11.9" were B-bat's
(class
> 2's) and less than 8" for the C-bat's (class 3). Also if the 5" were
DP,
> then they could also be used for anti-fighter.  Torpedoes are
torpedoes.
> Belt armor translated into armor and top speed into top speed.
> 
> Pretty much you'd have to build it from scratch now.
> 
> -Binhan
> 
> 
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
wrote:
> 
>> *blush* Now THAT was embarrassing!
>> 
>> Sorry, Allan! Especially the part where I typed 'Allen'...
>> 
>> Share what you can, when you can. Remember, the perfect is the enemy
of
>> the good enough. See my work table...
>> 
>> Wait, I have a work table? MORE THAN ONE?!?
>> 
>> Doug
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Allan Goodall [mailto:awgoodall@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:31 AM
>> To: gzg@firedrake.org
>> Subject: Re: Naval FT Variant
>> 
>> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
>> 
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Douglas Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I recall someone on this list announce an attempt for
>>> pre-dreadnoughts, but I've gone blank. I seem to think they said it
>> didn't portray ships well.
>>> 
>>> 
>> That would be me.
>> 
>> I pulled it up a couple of months ago, and I want to drag it out
again.
>> The big issue is that if you want fairly realistic naval combat, you
need
>> non-linear weapon damage (i.e. the chance of doing damage at close
range
>> versus long range is not linear). Full Thrust's beams are linear. I
think I
>> have a way around this, but it needs some testing.
>> 
>> --
>> Allan Goodall	    http://www.hyperbear.com
>> awgoodall@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>