 September 17, 2012 - 8:08pm | I found this today - it's a system for space battles. I thought it looked interesting. Especially in light of the wonkiness of the KH ship system. http://www.groundzerogames.net/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=9&id=29&Itemid=50 |
 September 17, 2012 - 8:34pm | I've never played FT. I do have all their 1st printing books and the free updated PDFs and read them periodically (hoping there were local players). It is very much a ship combat system geared toward math geeks. It seems fairly compatable with Star Frontiers, well other than the ship/fleet size, the size of SF feels more like Firefly with many individual ships and small groups rather than large fleets with 20+ larger vessels. |
September 17, 2012 - 8:48pm | I've never played FT. I do have all their 1st printing books and the free updated PDFs and read them periodically (hoping there were local players). It is very much a ship combat system geared toward math geeks. It seems fairly compatable with Star Frontiers, well other than the ship/fleet size, the size of SF feels more like Firefly with many individual ships and small groups rather than large fleets with 20+ larger vessels. Yeah, I just saw it for the first time today. I like their take on acceleration and maneuvering better than the ADF/MR system in KH. That's as far as I've gotten so far... |
September 17, 2012 - 9:25pm | I often thought about FT when reading the Lost Fleet series (by Jack Campbell). The descriptions of fleet tactics read like some group was playing the encounters and writing down every turn. :) |
 September 18, 2012 - 7:52am | I'll have to take a look. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 September 20, 2012 - 7:00pm | It's a mighty good system, I enjoyed it when I had some people to play it with back in the late '90s. I also recommend Ground Zero Games' ground-miniatures systems, Dirtside (for midsize games) and Stargrunt II (for skirmish-level games). I never got around to adapting FT to the Frontier, but that should be easy-squeezy. FT (and the others I just mentioned) are intended to be generic systems that can be adapted to any setting. Hmm, now I know what I'm staying up to do tonight! |
September 27, 2012 - 11:05am | Try this for a first pass at a conversion: Knight Hawks to Full Thrust: a quickie conversion Full Thrust, by Ground Zero Games is a generic space miniatures set of rules, meant for use with many science-fiction settings. It has expanded to include its own setting that can be dispensed with for this article. My intention is to make the FT rules adhere as closely as possible to the KH rules and setting. 1. Alterations to movement 2. Alterations to weapons and combat 3. Construction of ships 1. Alterations to movement. Full Thrust, as a miniatures game, uses inches across the tabletop as its measurement of movement, and has rings with 12 evenly distributed points for 30-degree increments of travel. Knight Hawks, as a boardgame, uses a hexgrid that delineates 60-degree increments of direction. While inches of movement can easily be translated to hexes of movement, the difference in directions can be tricky. Either one must stick to the 60° divisions of the hexgrid, or devise a way to travel across hexspines. Units in KH have both ADF and MR, and these can be directly translated into FT. ADF becomes FT’s Thrust, and MR becomes a limit to the number of 60° direction changes that can be made in a turn. Note that in FT, a unit makes half of its intended direction changes at the halfway point of its move, and the remainder at the end of its move. FT units have a separate FTL drive system, but this can be ignored in KH, as ships can achieve FTL speeds naturally by accelerating to speed 200 (0.01c). 2. Alterations to combat. FT’s ranges are in 6” increments, with some weapons reaching out to 24” or more, while KH’s weapons max out at 12 hexes. I recommend sticking to the shorter ranges, which will require adjusting the statistics for the various weapons as understood in FT. When dice are rolled to attack, use d6. A roll of 1-3 means no hit, a 4-5 means 1 hit, and a 6 means two hits.
Defenses In Full Thrust, Screens reduce the effectiveness of attacking weapons, as shown below:
In Knight Hawks, there are Electron and Proton Screens (very effective against similar beams, but harmful against the opposing type of beam), Reflective Hulls (effective only against lasers), Stasis screens (slightly effective against Proton, Electron beams and very effective against Disruptor cannon, but attractive to torpedoes, mines and seeker missiles), and Masking Screens (very effective against lasers, less so against other beams), and interceptor missiles (effective only against torpedoes, mines, rockets and missiles)
3. Construction of ships Both systems contain rules for constructing ships, which should be mergeable. So far, I think that if one uses 2 MASS (FT) for one Hull Size (KH), it may work out. Many systems will need tweaking, such as Reflective Hull should probably count as a Screen-1, but with 0 Mass. At that rate, an Assault Scout becomes: Mass Cost Hull (10) 20 5 damage points C battery 1 4 Reflective Hull 0 5? Thrust-5 0 12.5 4 submunitions 4 12 5 58.5 And a heavy cruiser: Hull (46) 92 23 damage points Thrust 1 46 A-battery 2 3 3 C-batteries 3 12 4 torpedoes 20 60 8 rocket batteries 8 24 Reflective hull 5 Masking screen 9? 75? 8 ICM 1? 3? 43 356 Note: so far, I have not playtested this at all. |
