Page 3 of 3
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:45 pm
by mjwest
pinecone wrote:Destroying one today mean one less in the better protected convoy tommorow
No, destroying a freighter in ballast today means one less loaded freighter to prey on tomorrow.
Quite frankly, unless your goal is to do general destruction to the local economy, attacking a freighter in ballast is not only pointless, but actually counter-productive. For Orions, the only reasons I can think of for attacking a freighter in ballast is:
1) You want to capture the ship for future use later.
2) You were hired by an enemy empire for commerce disruption raids.
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:27 pm
by pinecone
Hmm, maybe you're right...
EDIT: Your are right. guess I sdidn't think to hard about my earlier post. sorry
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:41 pm
by djdood
mjwest wrote:ballast is an "unstable" configuration for freighters. It is doable and used, but doesn't gain a movement gain. So, no change to the movement rate.
This seem like an effective way to make them not show up in FedCom. I don't recall how the movement costs played out in SFB, but the "not getting any benefit from not having a pod" could easily make "in-universe" sense. The freighters have tiny engines, "geared" to moving a huge mass, efficiently (if somewhat slowly). They're tuned for that one job and would pretty much suck and be inefficient at any other. Note how a big-rig truck is still a slow-poke pulling away from a red light, even without a trailer (big, high-torque engine and a tranny geared for pulling, not "Gone in 60 Seconds").
There's a lot of "rules crunch" we don't need. Freighters in-ballast is one of them. If folks want that kind of crunch in their gaming cereal bowl, they can go eat SFB any time they want to (and enjoy the full-day's nutrition of a 100-page rulebook).
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:45 pm
by Scoutdad
djdood wrote:... If folks want that kind of crunch in their gaming cereal bowl, they can go eat SFB any time they want to (and enjoy the full-day's nutrition of a 100-page rulebook).
Hmmm... that's funny, my MRB is 498 pages... I must have the extra-large print edition - with extra wide margins for those copious notes that SFB'ers tend to write in the margins.
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:10 pm
by djdood
I've never compiled my SFB stuff and don't own the Master Rulebook, so I was guessing.
I originally typed 400, figured it was probably wrong and changed it to 100, so I wouldn't upset any hard-core SFB folks. I also figured some wag would correct me...
It didn't take long
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:59 pm
by Bolo_MK_XL
All depends on what you consider rules --
Weapons, movement, shields, shuttles, Ship descriptions, race descriptions, scenarios etc
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:43 am
by Mike
Descriptions and scenarios are not in the MRB.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:16 am
by Hod K'el
Scoutdad wrote:djdood wrote:... If folks want that kind of crunch in their gaming cereal bowl, they can go eat SFB any time they want to (and enjoy the full-day's nutrition of a 100-page rulebook).
Hmmm... that's funny, my MRB is 498 pages... I must have the extra-large print edition - with extra wide margins for those copious notes that SFB'ers tend to write in the margins.
All I know for a fact is that my SFB rules take up (2) 3" 3-ring and (1) 2" 3-ring binders. I have a 1 1/2" 3-ring binder for each race SSD's and they take up two complete shelves in the library I have in the garage.
I am currently designing a work bench system for the garage so I can move my ship construction out there.
And I agree with DJ on the concept he is applying to the propulsion system. Just like a tug boat also, due to engine RPM and prop pitch and size. Dead on DJ.