Spaceship combat on /tg/?

Prepare to be swamped by 40k.

>>9640101
>>9640101
Well 40k is the better game

>>9640304
I'm sorry, say that again?

>>9640408
My god, don't fall for shit THAT OBVIOUS. Fucking christ man...

>>9640304
>>9640408

Goddamnit, not even 3 posts in and it gets derailed...

>>9640304

Not even the same type of game brosephine.

I'll try to get a list up after a bit... Don't have the models yet, but I did order the NSL starter fleet, so I'll base it off that.

ANOTHER FULL THRUST THREAD?

Give it a rest, this is the third one this week! Stop flooding /tg/ with this crap.

>>9640479
Trolling, not so subtle.

>>9640550
It's clearly some 40kid who doesn't understand this thread.

Making my list up as we speak!

Rough design for a Heavy task force that often fights FSE salvo missile spam.

>>9640928
It's scary how close yours looks to mine...

I'm a few points shy of the max, didn't feel like putting a Corvette in there, but I might, have it be the eyes and ears of the main task force. Or set it up as a weasel boat.

has that mediafire link got the beta fleets in it?

>>9641096
no.

>>9641046

That is very odd how similar they are. I'm guessing the reason your DDs are more expensive is that they have screens? Because otherwise the Lützow seems better than the Ural Fleet variant. Going to come up with a light patrol fleet in a bit.

precalculated CPV and the beta fleet lists can be found here:
http://fullthrust.star-ranger.com/CPV.htm

>>9641096
That's my bad, I'll add them to it.

>>9641179
The screens are a big part of it, but also the all round level 2 battery as well. Your DDs can't shoot behind them.

I'll read through it.

I've had an itch for a space combat game since watching LOGH....

>>9641280
Most people love full thrust, it's simple but not simplistic, has construction rules and pre-built ships, great miniatures, and the best part is the 'record keeping' is kept to a minimum. You could print out the two fleets posted already and play with those as is.

>>9641227

Matters a bit less with vector movement, which is what we've been using in the test games.

And I just relized that I haven't named any of the ships in either of these fleets. Oh well, the hulls still have to be built and painted, and they won't see action till then. For now it's more like an order form...

>>9641378
My own Task Force, pretty capable, and my guess as to what the largest offensive force short of full on Battleship confrontations would be.

I haven't designed a scouting/forward section yet, I should get on that.

Last fleet option within(or close to) the 1200 CPV limit. Overly heavy force, with one CT for scouting duties and ship-to-ship transfers if needs. Going to be able to take quite a bit of damage, but once a ship goes it will hurt. Completely the opposite of the light scout fleet from earlier.

Damn I love this game.

Wish they had a US distributor though.

Here's my light scout fleet option.

I figured that basing it around a Carrier would be cool, since I could see a Light Carrier being very effective in most patrol situations. Two CLs, probably one hanging around the Carrier, four DDs four FFs, and two scouts.

I love this thread.

total cost 1176

I decided on a UNSC fleet, just because I like their fluff. unfortunately with the new row and weapon rules, I'm not sure they're actually viable. I'm forced to choose between ships that have a lot of AMT or a lot of grazers, both of which have 18MU range. to offset the cost, they've reduced them to 3 rows of hull boxes.

So basically, I /have/ to engage at close range, and my hulls are weak, but on the other hand they are grazers, so they should kill capital ships pretty fast.

because I have to engage at close range all the time, I gave them traditional Royal Navy titles (traditional RN tactic, "engage the enemy more closely")

>>9641890
Fucking FSE, cheesey mode, easy mode.

>>9641905
oops, brainworms on my part. 3 rows is an /advantage/

>>9641949
Only one of your ships has shields. The ESU fleets in this thread will be pecking away at range for some time.

>>9641905
Woah woah woah.

Why did you put NAC names on UN ships? Warspite? Or better yet, a DD called "Dreadnaught"?

Rename those and the others to "Peacenik" "Ghandi" "Strongly Worded Letter" "Hans Blix" and other UN themed names.

>>9641851

I'm thinking one of my first purchases beyond the starter fleet will be a carrier. Not sure what size to get though, thinking the Wien class Light Carrier or the Donau class Strike Carrier. Either would work, and both put down as many fighters. Two Prinzessin Hannah class Escort Carriers might work as well.

>>9641905
DAMN, that's a lot of grazers. Would not be fun to fight that with the heavy fleet earlier...

>>9641906
They're the reason I always have at least one Emden with me. 4 PDBs and a ADF? Yes please.

Does anyone use wave guns or Spinal Nova cannons? Seems like the ScanFed ships are begging to have such a weapon installed in that spinal mount they all seem to have.

>>9641227
>Your DDs can't shoot behind them
maybe his can't, but neither can yours unless they don't use their engines...
>>9642003
yeah, the real battle for me would be getting in range and staying there while the other fleet tries to evade. only the capital ship with it's torpedoes and class 2 grazer has any real long-range ability.

my complete lack of ADFC is a bit worrying too, but at least everything has it's own PDS batteries.

Whatever this is... Looks really cool.

>>9642094
I know they're NAC-style names, but like I said, with all these class 1 grazers Nelson's famous order at the battle of trafalgar "Engage the enemy more closely" applies.

>>9642254
all my ships can fire out the rear arc...

>>9642300
I chuckle at the thought of the UNSC "Hans Blix" trying to run a blockade inspection...

>>9642283
It's full thrust, one of the better "Let's blow shit up" starsship wargames out there.

>>9641905
The only part of that fleet that scares me is the battleship. The destroyer screen will be long gone by the time you actually engage, and your entire battlegroup is forced to travel with the battleship, you have no ability to split the force, unlike the NSL and ESU fleets the other two have posted.

>>9642359

You can only fire out the aft arc if you didn't activate your main drives. This applies both in the cinematic movement rules. The vector movement rules do not seem to have a similar thing in effect, might be because of the distortions caused by the grav drives of the Cinematic ships as opposed to simple backwash from the reaction drives of the vector ships.

Of course, if your local rules permit otherwise, go right ahead.

This thread is stupid, take your spreadsheets and go do taxes somewhere else.

/tg/ is about WAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHhh!

>>9642359
ORLY?

Rear Arc
No ship may fire offensive weaponry through it's aft arc, this is due to spatial distortions of the ship's drive fields, which make it impossible to accurately track a distant target through the read 60 degrees of the ships's arcs.

Close range systems such as PDS are permitted to fire through the aft arc to engage hostile fighter groups or salvo missiles.

Optional Rule.
Players may decide to permit aft-arc fire by weapons that are mounted to bear accordingly on any game turn in which the firing ship did not use any thrust from its main drive to accelerate or decelerate.

>>9642486
>Implying that when flying through an enemy formation you aren't already travelling at ludicrous speed.

Also, is that rule in effect in fleetbook 1?

>>9642503
If this rule about the rear 60 holds true, then the guys at Starranger need to re-do the ESU ships, and the NACs or mention that the optional rule is not optional, since allround level 2 batteries are the ESU bread and butter.

>>9642489
piss off

>>9642548

Might be because there isn't a difference in FB1 (And I assume the other books) between a 5 Arc and a 6 Arc class 2 beam as far as points or mass are concerned. Class 3 and above, yes, but class 2 is as follows:

Class 2 BATTERY (3-arc fire)
Mass cost: MASS 2, +1 per extra THREE arcs
Points: Total MASS x 3

Firing to the rear is always acceptable if your drives are quiet.

>>9642445
Yeah, my lack of screens means I'd be fighting an uphill struggle, particularly vs the ESU fleet as it's screens affect my grazers.

Still, when they hit they should hit hard, with their torpedo damage and rerolls.

My second UNSC fleet, inspired by the needleboats in the 2300 point thread. This fleet is actually a terrible, terrible idea and would almost certainly be dead within 2-3 rounds. Their only chance is to kill the capitals in the first round...

>>9643773
Wow. That is an crazy number of grazers... And at hull each and that much thust, It would be hard for non-FSE to deal with it quickly enough. FSE would just salvo-whore that fleet dead...

Going to bump this before I go to bed, so that it might possibly be here in the morning.

HAVE NO FEAR, THE PHALON ARE HERE
with lv2 shields and beams that do 6d6 hits EACH+rerolls.

That's right, this wing of Phalon murder machines can fire 90d6 class 1 beams.

And yes, our class 3 Plasma Bolt Launchers are just as nasty.

>>9644459
I couldn't even be bothered to spend the last 201 points on escorts.

>>9643773
"We explode so you don't have to" is the best division motto ever.

>>9644459

The cheesmonger dick ships, in otherwords.

They're incredibly OP.

>>9644547
pretty much, yeah. the fluff has them as an ancient alien race that's meddling in the Human/Kra'vak war for the lulz.

they can use all their beam batteries as point defence, and Human ships can't use their beam batteries against Phalon missiles.

And this is the nerfed version.

>>9644497
thanks, it seemed...appropriate.

>>9644668

Not to mention they can basically have level 2 sheids whenever they like until they get close. All they need to do is charge fowards at max speed with sheilds up and then tear them apart with close range guns. Very little finesse required.

If anyone wants it, here a link to Full Thrust:Remixed.

It's an updated edition of the rules made in 2008, incorporating the revisions in Fleet Book 1 and the errata. You'll still need the fleetbooks for the fleets themselves, though.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ji1dqwownoz

>>9644784
yep, the phalon are very win-button. Good job their ships look like diseased turds, or more people would play them.

>>9644668
wasn't the Sa-vasker whatevers the ancient meddlers whose ships look like crab, and the Phalons were the literally amoral mercenary race whose ships look like turd?

>>9639988
>>9639988
HOLY SHIT I LOVE BATTLEFLEET GOTHIC

>>9646023
HOLY SHIT, TROLLING IS AWESOME.

No, really though, this is a little different - though you can use BFG ships for it, if you like.

>>9646011
just checked the fluff and you're right. The Sa'vasku are the meddlers. The Phalon are just wildly untrustworthy.

Because why bother with lasers when you can chuck hyper-rapid chunks of metal at the enemy?

That's always the thing about Full Thrust. Everyone claims how wildly overpowered X faction or race is, until you play against them. It's mildly balanced (the UNSC not so sure since that is an unofficial fleet at time of writing, people seem to have mixed results with Grasers)

>>9648567
They do? I never felt so, although basic FSE is actually under-powered IMO.

>>9648854
You've never seen the effects of FSE missile spam have you?

>>9648567
I'd agree with this. The only exception is the NSL which is underpowered, every other race has it'splusses and minuses.

I for instance thought the ESU sucked, until I went up against a player who showed me how tough they were, and how deadly beam spam gets in close quarters.

Skimming through it a bit and it indeed looks interesting.

Are fighter carrier fleets with escorts viable?

>>9648906
I'v played FSE. I've played against FSE, and "missile spam" means about one in 5 markers find targets in that 6mu radius. Of course we aren't playing easymode inches measurement, so it's a lot harder to guesstimate 6cm's...

>>9648949
Fighters are the only really unbalanced part of the game, although there are some unofficial fixes for it. To put it simply-few fighter flights won't do shit. But fighter spam is one of the most terrifying things ever, esp. if the opponent pays for torp fighters.

>>9648949
Short answer: yes, very much so.

It's sort of an all or nothing thing though. You either overwhelm the enemy with fighters or find yourself wanting.

what is this i dont even...

but i want to even...

>>9648974
>>9648986

Ahh okay, Hmmm.. maybe a ship of the line fleet with some fighter backup then...

Alright will read some more in depth when I got more time. Thanks guys.

>>9649001
Just a few interceptors is all you need to keep uncommitted fighter fleet setups on their toes.

I;ve posted them recently, but until I paint up some more, that's all I have.

This game looks pretty damn sweet. How are the rules?

>>9649084

>>9649091
>>9649091
>>9649091

I've skimmed through it. They seem a bit complex now, but what new game doesn't?

The ship creation rules seem awesome though.

>>9649136
Actually they're dead easy, far easier than any game I played, which includes almost all GW, FOW, Warmachine, a bunch of skirmish games.

>>9649091

Extremely easy to pick up.

>>9649136
Easy. Somewhere far under battletech in terms of complexity.

Also, rules are kinda old.

>>9644834
I'll add this to my .rar file I posted, thanks, nice compendium. Does it include the Star Ranger turn sequence and the fighter balance rules?

>>9649208
They are old, but so is Beethoven's music. The rules work, they need some tweaking as already mentioned, but they're very well balanced (unless you decide to break the ship design system, but it's your damn fault you manchild, not the author who, writing the rules in the early 90's, assumed adults will play the game). Jon IS working on 3ed, but he's working on it since 2000 or so, I wouldn't expect it before Obama sends his mission to mars in 2030.

>>9649216
Huh?

I use the FTRemixed. It's got the blessings of the original authors and combines, streamlines, and clarifies all the fleet books.

>>9648929

What's the problem the NSL have?

>>9649336
Slow, Very Slow, Extremely Slow.

And that's only their Destroyer and Frigate squadrons.

>>9651297

Damn, thought the ESU was as slow as they are... Would there be any way to make up for this problem? Besides just boosting the speed up.

>>9649243
Does he need help?

>>9651883
NSL isn't any slower than ESU or most NAC ships.

>>9651948
The ESU ships below cruiser size and above Battlecruiser size are all faster then their NSL counterparts.

NAC is only equal to the NSL in speed for the Heavy Cruiser, Battle cruiser, and Strike cruiser.

How common is it to play FT with all ships designed by the players from the ground up?

>>9652245
varies from group to group. We put a curfew on them for a while, as our ships quickly spiralled into "absurdly optimized". I mean "Thrust 2, twenty armor, fifty guns" space-fortresses or fifty Missilemarkers in one turn optimized.
>>9651297
That's their defining quality, change that and you no longer have NSL.

>>9652245
It depends. If you build your ships in an adult (campaign) style, then it works well. If you are playing the game with anyone less than 35 years old, restrict them to canon ship designs.

Bump

>>9652725
>>9652296

That problem is why the only design changes I would do would be swapping out some of the weapon mounts, like swapping a class 2 beam for a a few more PDBs, and only after a few battles prove that it really is needed.

>>9652992
Switching around weapons and/or systems on existing ships is 100% kosher. Hell, all that talk, I think I'll need to molest a few people to play soon again.

>>9653349
In our campaigns, we figure that it takes about 10+ weeks to refit a ship, so while you might want to make a change, you're better off repairing ships then refitting them.

>>9653612
In all honesty, if you have destroyed section of the ship that included weapons, it shouldn't be any longer to put a new weapon there than to put the same type it was. If you're going to patch up a hole in the hull, it odesn't matter what you're going to patch it up with, you're pracitcally installing it anew anyway.

>>9653696
You're thinking that all weapons systems on a vessel are modular, which is wishful thinking. You put in a new one, you need to rewire it, change the power feeds, the targeting solution, re patch all the weapon stations in CinC to ensure that they're up to speed. It's a big process to get a new weapon, or a different weapon on a ship.

>>9653752
Not to mention failure rates increase when you start messing around with original configurations.

Naval warfare, and ship design, is a lot different than aircraft. Every ship that comes out of dock is different, with different design features then the last one. There's a general plan, but each ship has improvements over the old one.

My favourite books, the Honor Harrington universe, modeled this quite well.

>>9653787
>>9653752

Of course, if you have a OUDF fleet then modular systems are perfectly normal and expected. But that's because they explicitly designed them to be like that. Otherwise I can easily see the problems with re-fitting a ship.

>>9653787
Actually I was going to bring HH as an example of moderate modularity. While there was time-lag in refitting compared to just repairing, it was usually a short one, in the order of ~1 week for small mods like switching graser for new version (Beam 2 to Beam 3 etc.). I'd say switching the weapon within it's "class"(beams and grasers, MT missiles, Scatters and SMS, with plasma and SML's forming separate classes as they are completely different weapons) should not incur any penalty within the campaign, or minimal. And that's of course provided we go by Weber's ideas, and ignore the other half of the SF writers who put stock with huge modularity and standarization.

>>9653900
Personally I think Webber is more practical.

Ships today are not modular, I doubt they will be in the future. The only people to ever build modularly are the Russians, and Weber covered that, with his description on how Havenite circuit boards get fixed (Pullit out, put in non-broken one) vs Manticoran (Patch the board itself due to skilled tehcnicians).

As to Graser upgrades, that's not the same as upping a class 1 to a class 2 in my opinion. It's more likea minor increase in some aspect, like a MkI vs a MkII engine, or something similar. No real modifications required.

Anyway, play as you want, I personally have a distaste for vast numbers of 'upgrades' refits and customs. the odd experimental I understand, but once a navy is flying vessels, very rare for them to try to refit the entire fleet, and very rare for them to do it quickly if they decide to.

So... there are campaign games?


Where has this game been all my life? D:

>>9654720
I'll write up our Campaign rules and post them at some point.

And yes, Full Thrust is awesome.

I think I'll try to come up with a set of rules for the ScanFed ships they've released so far... Likely to focus on Torps and Wave guns, to use the spinal mount they all seem to have. Likely using screens as defenses, average hull strength and speed. Might change hull strength and speed bits so one is better.

>>9655984
Wave Guns are not 'official' weapons. Same with Grasers.

>>9649084
Where are these models from? I have seen them posted but did see any on the full thrust site.

>>9657836
How are they not official? They are published by GZG in the main rulebooks. It it because they fit into the "Superweapons" section?

>>9658014
Try here:
http://z4miniatures.blogspot.com/2007/12/online-shop.html

>>9658125
The Superweapon section is described as 'use at your own risk'. No other fleet has superweapons, why would the Scan-Feds?

>>9658166

Was only planning on putting it on the larger ships. Just felt that it would work well as a primary spinal weapon for the big ships, with the Torps representing the scaled-down versions the other ships have.

>>9657965
Shit, I just nostalgia'd up a bit when I saw this, googled and noticed there are a couple of new novels out.

And a traditional game.

Anyone here have the rules for that? Are they on /rs/?

>>9658204
I see the Spinal thing as a keel, nothing more, nothing less.

>>9658215

I keep seeing it as this huge gun mounted in the middle, primarily due to the barrel-like protrusions at the end of all of them.

>>9658213
There is a game, but let me tell you, if you value your sanity, NEVER EVER play SITSS, it will destroy you.

Complexity goes to 11.

>>9658297
That's just the low tech FTL drive system they use. We used to use that in the FSE, like, 200 years ago!

*muffled snickering*

>>9658301
I'd just like to look at it.
And read it a bit.
In a brotherly sort of way.

It's not like you think it is!

Erm. . .yeah, so anyone here who has a link?

>>9658215

What would you have them do weapon-wise then? They certainly seem to have heavy forward firepower.

>>9658637
Do what the designer's did for the NSL FSE ESU and NAC, give them a particular ship design philosophy. Maybe they rely on missiles like the FSE but are better defended with shields, the downside, they are slow like NSL and have no armour, as well as having more limited missile loadout.

>>9658675
Or, like he already said, maybe they're an entire fleet of torp whores?

>>9658846
Torps seem to have their problems though... When they do hit, they hit well, but it seems like the odds of that happening are a bit low at longer ranges. Hm... they would be able to engage and range, but would prefer to close and actually land a hit or two. The ship design looks like it would mostly be forward arc torps, so they might use lighter beams to cover their flanks, likely not anything larger than a class 2 on the cruisers and such, maybe a class 3 or two on the larger ships. The ships seem like either armor or shields would work, with which one likely determining their speed.

>>9659029
I use the character system.

Every fleet has a character. If it is strong in one area, it is weak in another.

And yes, I am 42 years old.

>>9659727

Hm... Thinking giving them the shields and slightly higher than average maneuverability, but beams that cover more then the front arc will be rare and small when they do. combiner with a short range for maximum effectiveness, this will tend to make them rely on hitting hard and fast, then attempting to regroup after the attack run.

And why does your age matter?

>>9660313
Less than 35 was mentioned as poor at balancing custom made ships.

Shields and good maneuverability? Make their weapons suck then.

>>9660351

Shields would only appear on the larger ships, which would have average maneuverability (Thrust 4 seems average for BBs and up). The smaller ships would just have to hope their hull can take the damage as thy try to rush in close to effectively use the torps. And to hope that they can turn around for a second attack fast enough without side and rear guns.

Bump for great justice

>>9639988
Whoa I just want to say I REALLY dig these ship models! These are full thrust?

>>9663461
Yep. They're... better painted than most, but they're Full Thrust 'official' models -- NSL ships, to be precise.

Watched the first 2 episodes of Legend of Galactic Heroes. Iwannaspacetacticalsimomgomgomg.

My god... I need to finish reading the rules... <_<

Also Iron Man 2?

Eh, it was okay.

>>9663479
The 'new' Full Thrust designs look miles better than the originals. I'm not 100% happy with the ESU look, but I can live with it. FSE and NSL got the best look, even I'll admit to that.

>>9664759
Though the series looses its pacing from time to time, you should enjoy the next 5 or so eps.

>>9666362
And those are pricely the fleets I got in my beginners pack.

If the thread is still alive, I'll post pics of what they look like when I get them.

>>9666411
Pricely or Precisely?

>>9666435
Precisely.

>>9666458
Check that, form up with Task Force Baker and report your Ready Op to Vice Admiral Davis.

>>9666636
I love Fleet Actions!

>>9667106
Who doesn't?

>>9667170
NSL means BUSINESS!

How are you guys making the Ship design things. Is it just copy and paste or is there a form somewhere?

>>9667388

For the fleet format most of us just copy and paste them from here: http://fullthrust.star-ranger.com/index.htm

For making up-to date new ones, I have no clue what people use. There is an old Java program that does it, but it doesn't have the CPV in the final version, and it doesn't look as nice as the other ones. http://www.flakmagnet.com/ft_files/eric_f/shipbuilder.html is where I got it, bottom of the page.

>>9667416
Yeah, I'm talking about if I were to make my own ships.

>>9667461
There are rules in the FleetBook 1 (and 2 for aliens). They require use of...percentage. so you probably want a simple calculator. Basically you decide on how big the ship is by deciging how much MASS it will have(there are vague guildelines on how big typical classes are), then you decide how structurally strong it is(how many "wound" crates), then you add an engine and also decide how strong it is. The rest of the MASS goes to weapons, defenses and wierd shit. calculating basic point costs is also as hard as adding sums together.

>>9667388
Copy paste the image files of the weapons onto a grid.

What is /tg/s opinion of the Harrington books?

I'm considering reading them, since people say they are good.

>>9668912
good enough. They're really spaceship porn with super-heroic (as far as officership goes) main hero. You either love it or hate it.

>>9668912
Some of the best military sci-fi out there.

Think "Tom Clancy at his best, in Space"

>>9668912
They are. A little iffy recently according to others, but generally well written from what I've experienced.

It's scifi warfare pulp wankery at all levels though. Mary Sue-ness does occur and plot armor abounds.

The best tool I'm aware of for those who want to make custom ships is the spreadsheet available at
http://fullthrust.star-ranger.com/

It'll calculate everything for you, including CPV, and is generally up-to-date, but it won't make a pretty ship diagram for you, you'll have to assemble them yourself by cut-n-paste or using another tool.

I notice someone saying Grazers aren't offical - they are. Check http://www.groundzerogames.net and you'll find several official ships and weapons that have not yet been collected in a fleet book.

>>9669332
Grazer rules are not official, Star Ranger says so.

>>9669390
The're beta, in all honesty that means they probably won't change much. But be aware when building custom ships that grasers 1 are probably the best weapon in the entire game effect/price.

>>9669390
Star ranger says none of the designs are 'official' until published by GZG. The UNSC ships are beta, but the AMTs and grazers have been published.

>>9669624
IMO grazers are quite expensive in terms of risk.
Look at the UN fleet posted earlier, that is a very heavy concentration of firepower in very few ships...

>>9669731
i'm talking about deisgning a fleet from ground up. The ships will end up more point-expensive than equivalent in non-graser fleets, but...18mu range, hits on 4+, does d6 damage o 4,5, 2d6 on 6 with a reroll AND it's AP so half goes to hull ignoring armor. And class 1 is light enough to have a whole ship festooned with them, it IS rapemobile.

>>9669731
maybe, maybe not. either way I hope they publish Fleet Book 3 or FT 3 sometime this decade. I want to field my UNSC models with a completed, tested fleetbook...

>>9669758
certainly they make level 2 screens a lot more important on key capital ships...

>>9669758

What really annoys me about grazers is that they seem to be definitively better then pulse torps, and they cost less. Just doesn't seem right.

>>9670225
it's true a pulse torpedo cost 50% more than a class 1 grazer, but remember pulse torpedoes are not affected by defences and have nearly twice the range. basically, everything is equally weak against pulse torpedoes so they're a good general purpose weapon.

>>9669689
If it is not in:
Full Thrust,
More Thrust
FB1 or FB2 it is not official.

>>9672251
the rules for grazers are on GZG's site, can't get more official then that

>>9672251
>>9672333
I has a question...who the fuck cares? No, why would you care if it's official or not, if it's fun? Next thing you'll be saying japs waveguns should be banned.

>>9672349
Yah, just play what's fun, and most importantly, ask if you can use it first.

That way there is no hurt fatguy feelings.

>>9672580
>Captain, the enemy has hit a vital location, we are now entering state Butthurt, I repeat, we are entering state Butthurt.

>Damn grasers....

>>9672786
>>grazers

So, any phalon players?

>>9673419phalon

from the planet Phallus

You may now commence to hurr.

>>9673451
I can never respect the flying turds, despite how awesome the ships are.

>>9673451
Oh, god. Those really are phalluses.

>>9674028
And an actual explaination from the company:
OK, let me lay this one to rest (oo-er, was that some unintentional innuendo there…?) with an "OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE TRUE FACTS"(tm):
The original inspiration for the Phalon ship designs did come from Outlanders, one of my favourite Manga at the time, and was definitely more "snails" than "phallic" in intent. Dave (Garhnhamghast here, so he DOES know what he's talking about on this!) did the sculpting for us. At this point the fleet/race had no name, I just wanted a fleet of biotech starships made.
Once Dave had done the first few ships, it became quite obvious that there were certain, shall we say, "symbolic influences" that some people would pick up on… so we decided to run with the joke, hence the name was chosen. Look on the bright side, they were very nearly the "Nobberonians"….
The rest, as they say, is history (or biology, or something).

Played this last night, shit was fun as hell.

>>9673451

THOSE SHIPS MAKE ME CRY.

Looking over the rules, think I could make ships out of Lego?

>>9676350
ALL is measured from the center of the flight base. You could carve them out of wood and as long as you know what is what it'd be okay.

yep, absolutely no reason at all to use the official models, unless you like them. None of this GW-style "you must have the model to field the unit" stuff. The rules explicitly state that they don't care so you can use whatever you like, even for tournaments..

also, the rules use "measurement units" or MU, instead of a specific unit. Inches are recommended for the standard scale, but you can use miles or mm if you like.

>>9669768
Hells yeah. I want to officially declare space-jihad with my Islamic Federation ships.

Also holy shit, this thread is still alive.

This thread shall not die. It has come to far to be killed off by space muslims.

On topic, is there any method to make directional defences? Or would you have to make up such things yourself?

>>9680621
No, you'd have to house-rule them in. screens, armour and point defense systems are all omnidirectional as far as I can remember...

I agree, the thread must live on, regardless of astrohadjis.

>>9680748
Hm... how would you do that? Allow them to purchase armor that works in only one arc at 3 for the mass and points of one normal unit? And just having one-arc screens cost 1/3 the normal amount in points and mass?

>>9676787
Rent a football field and use yards / meters as MU for... i don't even know, it'd just be crazy.

i can't play, huh.

>>9684970

Crazy FUN you mean. Shit, I'd play that on a sunny day.

Pic related.

>>9685017
sure you can! the rules just require a model with a base that has a center stick to measure from. So long as that's there, you can make a whole fleet out of sprue, for all anyone cares.

...

Has this thread been here for three days now?

jeez.

>>9686163
Yes, yes it has, thanks to the tireless efforts of people who like bitty spaceships.

>>9686193
Wankers,all of them.

>>9686229
well, there are rules for starbases too but for some reason they're just not very manouverable...

personally I think the planetary assault and bombardment stuff's pretty cool but I've never played a scenario that called for it.

Pic related: an assault ship with drop-pods fitted, and the circular starbase template

>>9680876
that seems ok, but only as class 1: if someone wants class 2 shields they need to buy 2 full shield generators.

>>9687200
Planetary Assault missions are awesome, especially when you throw in reinforcements, sensor rules, etc.

>>9687817

What's the problem with having a directional class 2 shield? Might make the second shield generator cost 2/3 instead, so the whole thing is a class 2 directional shield for the cost of a full-ship class 1 shield.

>>9690087
yeah, I just don't like the idea of someone buying a class 2 front-arc shield for less than the price of a normal class one shield.

Firestorm Armada anyone? How does it compare to this?
ANd does anyone have a scan?

>>9696991

Only things I know are things I picked up second hand:

Upper speed limit of the ship's move speed. (IE: Non-vacuum space)
Squadron rules.
Lot more dice rolled.
MUCH larger models than nearly any other range.

Other than that, I know nothing, and even that is second hand.

>>9696991
the ship designs are very nice (see pic). Other than that, I don't really have a lot good to say about this game. It's not really a starship combat game at all, in fact it's a re-theming of "The Uncharted Seas" which is Spartan Games' fantasy naval game. All ships have fixed min/max movement rates, and the ships even do broadsides and fast boarding actions. It's nearly as good as GW's Man O' War, Battlefleet Gothic beats it, and it's a awful compared to Full Thrust. Basically, it's hyper-newbie level.

and no, there are no scans because it barely qualifies as a wargame and also it's got a card-based mechanic.

tl;dr ships are sexy, but the game's shit-tier.

>>9697935
Those models are pretty big, up to 7" long. But beware - Firestorm Armada ships are basically short run resin casts and are not preassembled.

This means warping, miscasts and HUGE THICK EXTRA PIECES OF RESIN FLASH YOU CAN'T BREAK OFF and have to carfully cut, shave and file away are par for the course. If you've never had to fix a badly shaped multipart model before, you may have difficulty

>>9658338
Here's a link to the Saganami Tactical Simulator game. I haven't played it, but if it is anything like Attack Vector: Tactical, it's hard as shit at first, but oh so fun when you actually get it.

http://www.genreconnections.com/shop/index.php?p=catalog&parent=121&pg=1

Fuck yeah spaceships!!

>>9698511
wow, that shit is pretty cheap

>>9658301
>>9698511

Both games are pretty damn awesome, and most of the real difficulty comes from actually comprehending HOW to maneuver in 3d. Both games have what seems to be a complicated system, but actually works out VERY elegantly when you actually get a hang of them.

Only tip with them: PLAY THE GAME!
Don't just read the rules. You'll regret it if you just read it. You pretty much HAVE to play the rules in order to understand them. That being said, the actual mechanics are quite simple, and there are very few exceptions to how they work, which makes playing quite nice.

Oh, additionally? If you've played Saganami Island v1, TRY v2. It literally is about eight times faster. More fun too.

>>9698906
The models are, the game...not so much. But Weber himself has had a lot of input on the game and the databooks so that means it kicks ass.
>>9699898
Since you've played both anon, which would you recommend?

>>9699957
It's a bit of a hard call. If you're a real big fan of Honor Harrington, then SITS is the way to go (Fleet book 3 is out now, so you have all the ship classes needed to take you into the first couple novels, at least to novel 4, perhaps 5 except for the lack of the PN battleship).

If your tastes for combat go to the harder sci-fi then I'd suggest Attack Vector. Personally, I like Attack Vector more. It's perhaps only moderately more complicated, and you do end up running smaller fleets (it takes a real pro to fly more than 3 ships independantly in that game) but it gives far more "you remember when..." moments, and also rewards you for some creative thinking. Movement in Attack Vector is more complex, but that's because it actually does stuff like displacement during accelleration (which Saganami Island and the other game below don't do).

Now, in the entirely opposite end of the spectrum is a third game called Squadron Strike. Same basic movement mechanics like Saganami, but it comes with the ability to customize ships and weapons, so you can design your own navies like Full Thrust. Downside to that is that it currently uses a very well built spreadsheet to do it. Upside is that you can do just about any universe, any weapon, and make it feel right. Double upside is that a more powerful and sleeker design setup is under development.

>>9700292
The principal of Ad Astra is a pompous ass, second only to Paladium's Kevin "I poop sourcebook gold" Sembieda.

So none of that for me.

>>9700451
Heh yeah, I admit Ken Burnside has a bit of an ego about such things, and he's quite firm in his beliefs, but in fairness he's managed to herd enough cats (creative, somewhat antisocial people) in one place long enough to actually do something that a LOT of people would denounce as being completely impossible. And made it at least reasonably playable. I'm willing to give him his ego :P

Full Thrust seems to be getting a lot of /tg/ attention.

>>9700901
Plus his games are actually fun. If you've got that, I could care less if you walk around town with a cane and crown, smiting people as you call them commoners.

>>9700451
I've only read some of his posts on projectrho, why is he an ass?

>>9701103
Anyone whose "ramming rule" in a game is "Make a speech to everyone playing and watching the game, citing the importance of the battle to the empire etc etc". Once done, eveyone who listens takes a vote. 50% +1 agree to ram, you get to ram. Otherwise, the crew mutinies and you lose control of the boat.

So even if you succeed in ramming, everyone's entertained.

bump

Day five in the Full Thrust house and the conversation is still going...

>>9702705
Ohhh.. FSE ships!

Sure is lack of stats for the ScanFed ships I bought in this game :<

>>9705785
Stat them out yourself, it's fun and educational! or use them as ESU or the New Israeli, or any other fleet you fancy. Hell, my ships have been israelis, french, kra'vak and ESU in different games.

Also, my god is the topic long-lived!

Is it acceptable to count the turning angle of a ship by just using the hexagonal bases? Me and the guy I play it with found it's a hell of a lot quicker than messing around with the thing. What's it called, dammit, the ring with the course marked around the edge and you put your ship in the middle to see its heading.

Anyway we just ended up putting one finger on one corner of the hex base and counting round in increments, does anyone else do that?

>>9705901
I do sometimes. I still find the ring useful for mutliple or complex course changes, but for simple one or two-degree course changes it does speed things considerably.

You now wish to have this ship in your fleet

>>9706146
Not really, it'd probably cost a bomb and all you need to do is stay in it's rear arc. And with Thrust 1 it aint gonna go anywhere.

>>9706146
That is one slow bastard of a ship. Imperial Star Destroyer?

>>9706230
They didn't have missiles. Well, photon torps (or whatever it was called), but they were really just direct fire weapons too, not guided.

>>9705901
>>9705953
>>9705953
Yeah I only ever use hex bases to work out my turning. If you want to make sure you do it accurately, you just make sure it's always aligned with one of the table edges. and it'll always be accurate.

BTW that thing is called the turn gauge.

>>9706277
>turn gauge.

Aha, thanks

>BTW that thing is called the turn gauge.
So you can gauge your turn, ingenious!

I want to introduce my university's RPG/wargames etc society to this now...

Wonder what's best for an introductory game - give 4 - 6 players two ships each and let them have at each other?

>>9706371
Explain the rules (esp. move) in short. Give one ship to each player. Help where needed. Give cruisers, escorts are too easy to one-shot, and above batcrus it takes very long to kill the ship.

>>9706384

I guess cinematic movement is also better to start with than vector movement.

Which one's more popular, anyway?

pretty much yeah. If it's a demo/trial game, you might like to try running Full Thrust Lite. It's just the basic rules and weapon systems so it's really fast to pick up. If you/they like it you can move onto the faction fleets, advanced weapon systems

it's available for free (like all the full thrust rules)at:
http://www.groundzerogames.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=110

>>9706430
I have only limited experience, but my group prefers cinematic, it's just a game and it's less hassle.

>>9706430
I generally play cinematic movement. I don't know why. probably because it's easier to work out quickly what I'm going to do in my head and have it actually work.

definitely do not let anyone field fighters in a first game. They're murdermachines (you may notice all the point-defence on the ships posted earlier, it's there for a reason) but it makes the movement phase about 3x more complex.

>>9706581
In one or two wings they're harmless really. It's when you field six to eight wings of torp fighters that shit is getting silly. Like, midway silly.

>>9706599
But I agree, no fighters (and possibly no salvo missiles) in the first game. Keep it to beams and plasma torps.

Not only is this thread still going, but it's sister thread is underway...

>>9698510