On 19Sep2021 1115, Kurt Feltenberger - kurt at thepaw.org (via tml list)
wrote:
> On 9/18/2021 7:06 PM, Rupert Boleyn - rupert.boleyn at gmail.com (via
> tml list) wrote:
>>
>> On 19Sep2021 1103, Kurt Feltenberger - kurt at thepaw.org (via tml
>> list) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> While I liked the potential of the FFS rules (Both TNE and T4), I
>>> found them too difficult to use without computer assistance, overly
>>> complex, too detailed in some areas but lacking detail in others,
>>> among others.  It was, IMO, a noble effort, but the actual impact it
>>> had on the game was to give it an air of "too complex" without
>>> really adding anything.  CT and MT allowed good modeling without
>>> diving into complexity that pretty much demanded some form of
>>> spreadsheet or dedicated development application.
>> Aside from having a limited range of pre-built weapons (thus
>> requiring you to design your own for big military ships), FF&S1 was
>> about as complex as MT. OF course, compared to CT (even Striker) they
>> were both rather more fiddly.
>
> I would seriously disagree; neither CT or MT had anything close to the
> complex formulas or steps that FFS had.  In the end, it's a matter of
> personal opinion; I found them complex for complexities sake and felt
> like the people involved were trying to show the world how smart they
> were.  For a small percentage of the players, this was a great
> supplement; for the majority (based on those I've talked to), it was
> overkill.  It's like buying a car; most people just want one that does
> what they want it to do and don't want to get down to the nittygritty
> and custom design the engine, transmission, body characteristics, etc.
>
> YMMV and that's cool.
MT had some fiddly rules around sensors (which IMO FF&S cleaned up), and
some very fiddly rules and formulas for controls and displays which FF&S
cleaned up and greatly simplified (by removing having to by every
display and gauge separately). It also had rules for reactor efficiency
based on size which could do some odd things around the break-points

That said, the biggest flaw of MT, IMO, was that a huge number of
traditional Traveller ships had to be built at TL15 to work at all, and
many others required some fancy games around what you'd power up and for
how to long to get a reasonable endurance because they were so tight on
space for reactor fuel.

FF&S's great flaw, to my mind was the introduction of HEPlaR as the
standard manoeuvre drive. Not because of it limiting manoeuvre - that
part was fine. The problem was that because it used the same fuel as the
jump drives, and vast amounts of it in combat (and very little
otherwise) ships with lots of manoeuvre capacity could in time of peace
make several jumps without refuelling. Also, sensibly designed merchants
(i.e. ones that didn't carry huge reserve of fuel for combat) could have
very large cargo to hull size ratios, which threw the base economic
assumptions out the window.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>