Prev: Re: New Full Thrust point defence rules Next: Re: New Full Thrust point defence rules

Re: New Full Thrust point defence rules

From: John Tailby <john.tailby@x...>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:33:16 +1300
Subject: Re: New Full Thrust point defence rules

FullThrust is like many games that it needs an greenest between the
players about what makes a fun game. If you agree to restrict yourselves
to Fleet book ships or designs that follow that philosophy then you
won't encounter soap bubbles. Also if you are running a campaign where
people need to return to a planetary base to replenish expended ordnance
and fighters then the number of carriers verses low maintenance cruisers
might be different. 

If you allow players to select any designs they like without agreement
you risk getting some non who wants to play a different style of game
from another. The I take all fighters and missiles and you take all
beams can result in a very one sided game. 

Because FT says only anti ordnance weapons can attack ordnance and only
anti ship weapons can attack ships. You need to balance both in your
ship designs and the game can be won during the fleet design if someone
picks an edge case.

I am not really a fan of fighters I would like to not have the fighter
design and make people chose between interceptors and bombers.

Sent from my iPad

> On 24/03/2015, at 10:21, Damond Walker <> wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> For what it's worth...(and it isn't worth all that much)...I'd like to
> the following:
> 1) I love these conversations.  Reading them over the last 10+ years
> shown me that the GZG Gaming Audience is an eclectic bunch.  For every
> voice in the wilderness who says "I think I have a fix for X" you get
a few
> "I'll have to try that." (which is high praise indeed) and then many
> "I don't like this."	People keep trying.
> 2) Having only ever played FB games I never really had to deal with a
> soap-bubble.	It always seemed very odd to me to spend so much time
> back and forth over an edge case.
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Douglas Evans <>
>> Thanks so much for the effort, Hugh!
>> I will say, I think the direction is wrong, though. I still think the
>> problem is not the archie rules, but rather the fighter rules.
>> SML have never seemed to be the issue that fighters have, though I
>> remember thinking they were until I got the whole 'speed is life'
>> going. Heavies are closer to fighters, save for the whole 'one shot
>> you're gone' concept.
>> I've never hid my distaste of fighters in the game. There are a few
>> convenience aspects of fighters that handwavium them to great
heights. They
>> not only have magic movement, they have clairvoyance. Just a BIT
>> However, going with them as they are, has anyone played with my "What
>> hell kind of traffic control is this?" idea that only a limited
number of
>> craft could make a coordinated attack? I know in Star Wars, they
could only
>> get a few fighters in on the trench attack at a time.
>> Pretty sure I've seen similar examples.
>> Doug

Prev: Re: New Full Thrust point defence rules Next: Re: New Full Thrust point defence rules