Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: FTL

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the issue with the FTL system is that it is more intertwined
into
> campaign play than one-off play. One-off play does not encourage any
use of
> FTL unless dictated by the scenario. By far the vast majority of the
> players I've met/seen/played fight their ships Klingon style: "to the
last
> hull box, and beyond! Raaaaaaahh!!!!!", in whatever starship rules set
they
> are using (FT, SFB, SMITE, X-Wing, Starmada, Attack Vector, etc).
Further
> muddying the waters, to my knowledge, most of these games don't even
> encourage the option of fleeing the battlefield, reinforcing the
Klingon
> Mentality of starship combat. And finally when there is an FTL system
on a
> ship, most people see it as a 'free' critical hit, especially if they
are
> not planning on leaving the battle any time soon ("Whew! Only lost
FTL,
> nothing important."). Which makes the FTL drive, something that is
supposed
> to propel ships between the *stars*, a pretty damned fragile system. 
:-D
>
> I think the real question may be how do we change player perceptions
about
> starship combat and break them from the Klingon paradigm?
>
>
Of late again I have been (on a scenario by scenario basis) starting to
> enforce a rule that if a ship has been reduced to it's last hull row,
it
> must attempt to break off from the engagement, and not engage the
enemy
> unless shot at first in a given turn. I also worked up a scenario
where a
> fleet of freighters is attempting to flee from a mining station and
have to
> get to the jump limit before the marauding enemy force closes to strip
them
> from the sky. This gave the freighter player some incentive to not
lose the
> FTL drives on (at least) those ships. This rule was not meant to
replace
> the 'strike the colors' optional rule. Though one player actually
> voluntarily used that in a game I played earlier this week when he
found
> his ship 1 hull box from the last row, half his internal systems down
(bad,
> bad threshold check rolls!), surrounded by four enemy ships, and the
rest
> of his task force on the far end of the width of the table, unable to
help
> (or get around to helping for at least two more turns). As we were
calling
> the came over at that point, he announced that his ship was
surrendering. A
> move I don't often see in players (again, because of that Klingon
fighting
> style mentality).
>
>
I have issues with the Klingon model of starship battles as well - but
I've
had a hard time coming up with good general victory rules that
simultaneously encourage damaged ships to disengage/surrender, but at
the
same time make it so that the opposing side is encouraged to allow enemy
ships to disengage/surrender. If it's point advantageous to exit a ship,
then its advantageous to the opponent to prevent that from happening.

In a more realistic situation that isn't in the Klingon fight to the
final
hull box mode both sides have an expectation to be treated fairly if
captured and to treat their enemies fairly. Maybe something along the
lines
of the mission motivation rules from Stargrunt II would be good to use
in
Full Thrust. Actually one thing that I would love to see in a new
edition
of Full Thrust might be guidelines and suggestions (not necessarily hard
rules) for creating scenarios beyond just setting up two fleets with
equal
points and slugging away at one another.

Randy Wolfmeyer