This weekend we played a game with the beta-test fighter rules and I
think we broke it, so I thought I would report our results. I had not
commented on them earlier because I wanted to give them a try in a normal
fighter game first.
First, what and how we played: 4'x6' scrolling table
1/2" = 1MU
Narns vs. Centuari (4 players)
Narns: 2x Bin'Tak Dreadnoughts (TMF 403), 4 fighter groups each 8x Starcruiser
variants (TMF 291), 6x 4 groups, 2x 2 groups
16x various escorts, no fighters (TMF 94-101)
total 36 Narn fighter groups
Centuari: 2x Octurion Battleships (TMF 401), 6 fighter flights each 4x Primus
Battlecruisers (TMF 283), 4 fighter groups each 8x Light cruiser variants (TMF
143), 1 fighter group each Total 36 Centuari fighter groups
Why did we play this? Well, our games fall into one of two categories as far
as fighters are concerned. Either a) no fighters, or b) tons of fighters. The
"tons of fighters" are all based on established backgounds such as SW, B5,
etc. We don't use fighters at all in our own setting. Additionally, we have
played this specific scenario before, using our house rules, so it would
provide a reference.
Conclusions: 1) The new rules may work OK for small numbers of fighters, but
they slowed the game down a LOT for the numbers of fighters that we use. This
is were I think the rules broke. The primary problem here is that the player
has to decide on level of evasion for each fighter group, plus this has to be
remembered or recorded to be used latter in the turn. Just one player who
devotes a lot to such descisions really hold up the game. More than one such
player would bring the game to a halt. You also have to remember to refer to
the records for each group attacked. A better system is to have a fixed
modifier so the player doesn't have to make such choices. This could either be
constant,
depend on the type of weapon firing, and/or depend on the size/class of
the weapon.
2) The new rules make heavy fighters much more resiliant. The change
from level-1 defense to a -1 DRM effectively gives them level-2
defense. There are several problems with this.
2a) Cost. Either they were over-priced before or now they are
underpriced. The new rules did not address PV.
2b) We like the "Heavy = defense-1" because it allowed us to add
"Extra-heavy = defense-2" for things like TIE Defenders or Imperial
Assault Shuttles. If we now give TIE/Ds a DRM of -2, that will make
them tougher than we want.
3) The new rules do not address the problem of fixed movement values for
fighters. With the shift in FT standard to small MUs, this is much more
critical tobe fixed. This problem is relatively easy to address, but has not
been. We never liked the FB system, and any new rules which require its use to
balance fighter operations are bad. See also #4 below.
4) The new rules require the use of CEF in the combat resolution. It is no
longer possible to disentangle the CEF rules from the fighter rules if your
group does not want to use them. This is bad. Many settings (SW, B5, BSG,
etc.) do not have limits on fighters' combat endurance in the scale of the
battles. Another example is that some on the list have argued that "fighters"
are fully scalable, so can be used, for example, to represent LACs in the HH
setting. Again, these have unlimited endurance on the scale of the battle.
Any "fixed" fighter rules should function perfectly well without the CEF
rules, and CEF should be an option, not mandatory. I would suggest also
seperating "Ordnance Factors" (e.g. torpedoes, missiles, etc.) from CEF, so
that "ordnance factors" rules can be used even if you chose not to use
"endurance factors" rules.
J
Thanks for the comments :-)
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> Conclusions:
At least in my group, deciding on evasion levels and remembering to refer to
the records for the various groups was something that speeded up very
considerably after the first couple of games - ie., as soon as people
got
used to it and learned what the trade-offs were. Granted, our biggest
battle to date with this system only had 52 fighter groups total compared to
the 72 you had in your battle, and most of our playtests have averaged around
40 groups, but those are nevertheless fairly high number of
fighters... and we play such battles faster with the beta-test rules
than we used to do using the Fleet Book fighter rules.
We also find record-keeping pretty simple. Due to far too many accidents
where record-keeping dice on the fighter base have been overturned by
accident, we already used fighter group SSDs with two rows of check boxes: one
for the number of fighters, and the other for the group's CEF. With the Fleet
Book rules we crossed out the CEF boxes as the CEF is spent; with the
beta-test rules we put letters in them instead - E for Evasion, A for
Attack, S for Secondary move. If necessary we draw a vertical line after
the last CEF box used up this turn - though we've found that that's
rarely needed, since any "S" or "A" boxes usually make it pretty obvious which
boxes belong to what turn anyway.
> 2) The new rules make heavy fighters much more resiliant.
Much more resilient to *point defence fire*, correct; and if that were the
only change their points value would indeed have been increased.
However, that *isn't* the only change to them. Their *other* change is that
they can now be hit by a lot of anti-ship weapons which previously
couldn't hit fighters at all, and against *that* fire the "heavy" modification
doesn't give any protection whatsoever - thus diluting their overall
protection level, and bringing their value back closer to that of
non-heavy
fighters. That's one cost increase and one cost reduction; so far in the
playtests these two changes seem to cancel each other out fairly well -
which is why the heavy fighter points cost doesn't seem to have changed.
> 2b) We like the "Heavy = defense-1" because it allowed us to add
I'm sorry, but rules revisions can't afford to consider keeping individual
groups' house rules intact. No matter how the rules are revised, there's
always *some* group whose house rules get violated by the changes.
> 3) The new rules do not address the problem of fixed movement values
And if we don't come up with a fool-proof PSB for defending against
extreme-range hyper-velocity missile strikes against planets and other
fixed locations, I don't think that any official Full Thrust rules ever will.
If fighters can build up velocity from turn to turn, so can missiles
- and if hypervelocity attacks on fixed locations are possible in the
game,
it pretty much turns any space war into mutually-assured destruction...
resulting either in extinction or in a cold war, but either way removing
the need for fighting ship-to-ship battles. Game rules whose logical
extensions remove the reason for playing the game at all are seriously bad for
the game.
However, since the fighter movement rules are effectively independent of
the fighter *combat* rules, you shouldn't have any problems importing
whatever fighter-movement house rules you're currently using into the
beta-test rules. Just pray that no-one in your group catches on to the
hypervelocity strike concept :-/
> 4) The new rules require the use of CEF in the combat resolution.
Yes. In that respect they're no different from the More Thrust or Fleet Book
fighter rules; they too required the use of CEF in the combat resolution. (OK,
More Thrust "strongly recommended" it and FB1 calls it a "recommended standard
rule", but that's as close to "require" as *anything* gets in a game where the
first rule is "If you don't like it, change
it!" :-/ )
> It is no longer possible to disentangle the CEF rules from the fighter
On the contrary, it is very simple: just go to a fixed DRM for the fighters.
Sure, doing so will upset the fighter points costs, but so does removing the
CEF rules from the More Thrust or Fleet Book rules <shrug>
> Any "fixed" fighter rules should function perfectly well without the
They should, and in an ideal world they probably would too. Unfortunately
our world isn't particularly ideal :-/
More seriously though, the fighters' tactical choice of sacrificing
something - either movement range (as in StarFire) or combat endurance
(as
in the Full Thrust beta-test rules) - to make themselves harder targets
for
the enemy's defensive fire is something all of the fighter-heavy
backgrounds you listed show on-screen (and IIRC BSG:TOS and B5
occasionally comment on it in the dialogue as well). Paying for it with CEF
means that we already have a simple way to track it in Full Thrust; trading
movement
for evasion (like StarFire does) would increase the record-keeping quite
a
bit more (just like it does in StarFire :-/ ).
> I would suggest also seperating "Ordnance Factors" (e.g. torpedoes,
Hm? Fighter-carried ordnance (currently only Torpedoes) is separate from
the CEF in all of the More Thrust, Fleet Book and beta-test rules.
Later,
G'day,
Thanks forletting us know how it went.
> 1) The new rules may work OK for small numbers of fighters, but they
Was this because you had deep thinkers or were getting used to the new rules.
The moreoften we've played with these rules the faster they go and we nowplay
games in a 3rd of the time itvtook with the old fighter rules.
> You also have to remember to refer to the records for each group
I must admit to being a stochast rather than determinist so an biased on the
fixed modifer side of things. As to remembering to refer to the sheet you had
to do that under the old CEF system anyway. Moreover I think this also a
familiarity thing and becomes second nature fairly quickly.
> 3) The new rules do not address the problem of fixed movement values
Do you mean they should be able to have "ship-like" movement with regard
to accumulating speed?
> 4) The new rules require the use of CEF in the combat resolution.
Derek and I have dealt with this by giving fighter types/settings where
fighters hang around for longer more endurance (and if you're in a setting
where main guns can't target fighters fullstop give them unlimited endurance,
that will mean the points aren't as balanced but you'll get the effects you're
after and often are wars evenly balanced
anyway? ;))
If its not too much of a stress I'd try giving it a few more goes, see if the
speed picks up and whether you can get "around" the bits you don't like for
the settings you like to play by revising your house rules to match. I'd be
surprised if anyone's houserules survived intact through the revision, but as
the fighters play now more like little ships I think that the improved flow
and easy way to fillin between "fighter" and "scout" without too sharp a
discontinuity might open opportunities for more small craft like bombers
(which may be a good opening for the ordinance stuff you brought up).
Cheers
I wrote in my reply to Jared:
> 2b) We like the "Heavy = defense-1" because it allowed us to add
That said, if you make the assault shuttles etc. take *2* PD hits to
destroy and "level-0" protection against PD-mode fire, you get a similar
effect as giving them a -2 target's DRM against PD-mode fire but only
one single "hit point". OK, it makes them *soak up* the damage rather than
*deflect* it, but the amount of extra firepower the enemy has to throw at them
to destroy them is about the same. (They'd still be destroyed by a
single anti-ship mode hit, though!)
Later,
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> > in the turn. Just one player who devotes a lot to such descisions
In particular, we have one player who spends a lot of time making what I would
call "tactical detail decisions". For example, when playing Warzone, WH40k, or
Battletech he agonizes over decisions about the exact position and facing
(LOS, fire arcs) each time he moves a figure. Since Stargrunt places much less
emphasis on the facing and position
of individual figures, concentrating more on the squad/fireteam as a
whole, this runs much faster with this player. This player is very good at
"position unit here and do XYZ" decisions, but gets bogged down
when presented with minutia-type decisions. I have encountered other
players like this so I know ours isn't unique, but we have just one in our
group.
> > 3) The new rules do not address the problem of fixed movement
Sort of. We use two versions of fighter movement; one "simple" and one
"complex. We like both and use them depending on what we feel like on a given
day.
The simple version, cherrypicked out of the internet some years ago, is that
fighters have a T value and a "radius of movement" which accumulates turn to
turn. E.g. standard fighters have T 12 and accumulates V. If it moves 6 MU on
one turn, then on the next turn it can move up to 18 MU. If it does move 18
MU, then on the turn after that it will have to move at least 6, since it
can't decelerate more
(18-12=6). At higher speeds, this gives a donut-shaped area of possibl
movement.
The complex verion is: fighters have T and accumulate V. Fighters follow the
same movement rules as ships (cinematic for us). Movement is NOT preplotted,
rather the player is free to expend his T "on the fly". One change to the ship
movement rules is that turns may be made at any point in movemet.
> > 4) The new rules require the use of CEF in the combat resolution.
I guess the problem is that endurance RAW is connected to both movement and
attacks. E.g. SW fighters are effectively unlimited endurance for
movement and energy-weapon based attacks, but also might or might not
be equipped with concussion missiles or proton torpedoes (ordnance). So for
movement and regular attacks there is no expenditure of endurance, but might
have a limited number of special attacks available (CMs vs fighters, PTs vs
ships). A similar situations presents for B5 and Honorverse LACs.
Simply put, my view is that since FT is supposed to be "generic", I expect
whatever modified rules to be easily adapted to either Starfire
type one-mission strikes or unlimited endurance equally well. If the
system presented emphasizes one system over the other, then FT must drop the
pretense of being "generic" and admit that it is becoming a system to support
the GZG setting and the specific vision of only a few people.
J
> Simply put, my view is that since FT is supposed to be "generic", I
Fair enough, and I think it would also be fair to say that the Test List would
be happy to see a viable and generic alternative to the Beta UFP rules. Things
that need to be considered to be generic (not necessarily a complete list): a)
Fuel use or not b) Ordnance use or not c) Fighter morale or not d) Fighters
having to stay within range of a carrier
e) anti-ship weapons firing on fighters or not
If you (or anyone else) has a set of proposed fighter rules which cover these
options and *which have not been posted to the main list before*, feel free to
write them up.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
And also against other fighters, since they count as "PD fire".
> >2b) We like the "Heavy = defense-1" because it allowed us to add
That is true, but it is not just us. I have seen similar solutions in many
places on the web.
Additionally, I would maintain that it is the responsibility of those
developing rules revisions to keep as much as possible of the flexibility of
the genericness of the FT rules.
> >3) The new rules do not address the problem of fixed movement values
That is BS.
First, under the current rules, if a ship comes zipping past at 1000 V,
a missile volley with arrive at a fixed target at 1000 +/- 24, yet
there is no modifier toany rules for their velocity. Thus this is not a
consideration under the current rules.
Second, those long range HV strikes are only an issue if you set up your games
so that they can be an issue. If you don't want them, you don't have to
include them in your games.
Third, HV missiles only build up velocity turn-to-turn independent of
the launching ship if they have the feature of multiple turn persistance. Is
there such a system in the works for FB3? If not, then it is not an issue yet.
Fourth, there is a segment of FT players, including yourself, that are
proponents of transforming the original FT system to be tailored to the use of
small MUs and high speeds. In my view, the responsibility of getting the
fighter rules to work with these high speeds falls to this "Ecole de TGV"
since it is that style which causes the problem.
> resulting either in extinction or in a cold war, but either way
So, if the IJN or IFN can find self-sacrificing pilots to fly cutters
in hypervelocity strikes against planetary targets, then the "build V from
turn to turn" rule is "seriously bad for the game"? I don't think either is
correct.
> However, since the fighter movement rules are effectively independent
That is true for the FB rules, but not for the Beta rules. Since the CEF rules
are central to the Beta "capital weapons vs fighters" rules.
> Just pray that no-one in your group
We simply don't set up games to involve them, and campaign games don't use
planetary destruction strikes by mutual agreement.
> >4) The new rules require the use of CEF in the combat resolution.
> calls it a "recommended standard rule", but that's as close to
Not the way I see it. The MT and FB CEF is "attack or don't attack", but the
Beta rules are "use of capital fire against fighters requires CEF". In order
to disentangle CEF from the Beta rules, one has to change both movement AND
"attacked by capital weapons" rules.
> >It is no longer possible to disentangle the CEF rules from the
So then have both a fixed DRM and a CEF-influenced DRM in the rules as
two choices depending on whether players use CEF or not.
My point is that the published rules should allow players to use CEF or not
without either side of the decision unbalancing the game, nor requiring the
players to independently do the work of the game designers. Comes back to
whether FT is still a flexibly generic game or not.
> >Any "fixed" fighter rules should function perfectly well without the
Incorrect. CEF is not an issue in SW, B5, or HH. They may talk about endurance
in terms of life support in units of days or weeks, none of them run out of
fuel during a battle or are completely unable to attack due to CEF limits, as
all three have energy weapon armaments as well as expendable ordnance.
Both BSGs have addressed fuel limitations, but neither has shot their guns dry
as far as I remember (the new BSG is still in first run on the
Sci-Fi channel).
> Paying for it with CEF means that
I am a proponent of making it a fixed value as part of the basic
abilities of fighters/capital weapons, rather than a feature determined
by the player on a fighter group by fightr group and turn by turn basis. I
think such decisions are made by the pilots below the level of the player's
decisions. I.e. the commander (player) says "attack target A" and the pilots
evade (or not) as nessessary.
> >I would suggest also seperating "Ordnance Factors" (e.g. torpedoes,
For example:
TIE/F is classified as a light fighter, and attacks normally vs both
fighters and ships. It may carry concussion missiles equal to 1 ordnance
factor for X points.
X-Wing is classified as a heavy fighter, and gets a +1 in all regular
(laser) attacks against both fighters and ships. It may carry either 3 factors
of concussion missiles for X points each or 2 factors of proton torpedoes for
Y points.
TIE/B is classified as a light fighter, and suffers a -2 when
attacking both fighters and ships with guns (lasers). It may carry either 6
factors of CMs for X points each or 4 factors of PTs for Y points each.
J
> First, under the current rules, if a ship comes zipping past at 1000 V,
Your comment isn't entirely clear but I think you mean "the missile volley
will arrive with the ship and thus have a velocity of 1000" etc. But the point
in this case is that the ship has to arrive within 30mu (if using standard
SMR) and survive a turn's fire before launching.
> Second, those long range HV strikes are only an issue
...if you want your PSB to be consistent, you have to account for the
absence of fraction-C strikes, and you can't rely on "we're all too, too
civilized, old boy".
> Third, HV missiles only build up velocity turn-to-turn independent of
True but if they retain the launching ship's velocity, it's still a problem.
> That is true for the FB rules, but not for the Beta rules. Since the
Oerjan is saying that it doesn't affect how fighters attack each other or
ships; you're right that it does affect how fighters receive attacks.
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> >>2) The new rules make heavy fighters much more resiliant.
Correct. Still only makes them break even when the AS fire is weighed in.
> >>2b) We like the "Heavy = defense-1" because it allowed us to add
Of course; but we are *not* required to maintain the exact form in which
each particular gaming group has chosen to utilize that flexibility -
particularly not since many groups has chosen their own unique ways to do it.
Since I in my previous follow-up post already mentioned an alternative
way
to get roughly the same result as your "level-2 protection" for small
craft, I would contend that we have already taken our responsibility in this
respect.
> >>3) The new rules do not address the problem of fixed movement values
Nope. It is a very real problem which has already wrecked several Full Thrust
campaigns.
> First, under the current rules, if a ship comes zipping past at 1000 V,
Yes, it is. The problem is not that the hypervelocity makes the *missiles*
difficult to intercept, but that it makes the *launching ships* invulnerable
to the fixed target's return fire by allowing them to launch 1030 mu away from
the target instead of 30 mu away.
> Second, those long range HV strikes are only an issue if you set up
Tell that to the munchkins. Better still, tell them that they can't spend
several turns on-table but outside the fixed target's weapons range
accellerating up to speed 70 or so before they launch against the fixed
defenders - with FT's current weapon ranges 70+24 mu is just as much
outside the defenders' effective weapon range as 1000+24 mu is.
> Third, HV missiles only build up velocity turn-to-turn independent of
Such a system has been in the game since 1993. It is still in the game.
> Fourth, there is a segment of FT players, including yourself, that are
Since I haven't changed any single rule in the game to tailor it for
high-velocity games, I must say that I find your calling it "transform
to
be tailored..." to be a rather impressive exaggeration :-/
> >resulting either in extinction or in a cold war, but either way
It is, yes. I know several FT campaigns which has ended in almost exactly that
way, the only difference being the size of the ships used.
> >However, since the fighter movement rules are effectively independent
The "capital weapons vs fighters" rule is part of the fighter *combat* rules,
not of the movement rules.
> >Just pray that no-one in your group
IOW, all of your players are too reasonable to use this potentially
war-winning tactic. You're very fortunate compared to many other
players.
> >>4) The new rules require the use of CEF in the combat resolution.
Which has nothing to do with the fighters' *movement*. Weapons fire is part of
the *combat* rules, no matter how large the weapons are.
> In order to disentangle CEF from the Beta rules, one has to
Why would you have to change the movement rules? The only CEF used for
fighter movement in the beta-test rules is the single point paid to make
a secondary move, and that is identical to the CEF usage in the Fleet Book
fighter movement rules. All other CEF uses are in the *combat* rules, not
movement.
> >>It is no longer possible to disentangle the CEF rules from the
Once we've determined the proper points value for effectively infinite CEF,
sure. Better pray that it doesn't turn out to be too high for your taste,
though; if it has to be paid exclusively with points it is rather expensive.
> >>Any "fixed" fighter rules should function perfectly well without the
Re-read what I wrote. I didn't claim that *CEF* was the issue in those
shows; I stated that *sacrificing something* to gain the protection is. In
these backgrounds the sacrifice usually consists of forward movement speed or
manoeuvrability rather than combat endurance; but since Full Thrust already
tracks CEF and *doesn't* track fighter movement it is much easier
both rules-wise and game-speed-wise to implement a CEF sacrifice than a
movement sacrifice.
> >Paying for it with CEF means that
And they have to sacrifice something to evade. If the sacrifice consists of
combat endurance or movement distance the player/commander has to track
it even if the pilots do it automatically (because the evading fighter groups
behave differently than the others); if the sacrifice doesn't consist of
either combat endurance or movement it has to be paid in points cost -
ie.,
starting numbers - instead.
> >>I would suggest also seperating "Ordnance Factors" (e.g. torpedoes,
And it tracks its concussion missiles in exactly the same way as Torpedo
fighters have tracked their torpedoes ever since More Thrust was published,
ie. separately from its CEF.
If you want more variety in fighter weapon types, it really would be better
if you asked for that instead of starting to talk about a book-keeping
mechanic (tracking fighter-carried ordnance separate from CEF) which has
already been in the game for twelve years. FWIW there is an alpha-test
set of custom fighter design rules, but it isn't cleared for public
beta-test yet.
Regards,
G'day,
> Sort of. We use two versions of fighter movement...
They sound pretty good, I particularly liked the simple one (elegance of
effect for effort expended). Could be tricker if you wanted to keep vectors as
well (thinking of the move system we use here).
Thanks
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:27:47PM +0100, Oerjan Ohlson distributed
foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
> >>And if we don't come up with a fool-proof PSB for defending against
> Thrust campaigns.
It's a problem of vector movement, because if you have vector movement, you
can always use hypervelocity scout ships for MAD strikes. Either say they're
unmanned or join the Islamic Federation
and train suicide pilots ;->
This problem is unsolvable by game rules, because it's a problem of
physics - if you have vector movement, you can acumulate speed.
Having game rules that artificially prohibit it is akin to having a game of
global diplomacy and warfare in 21st century that has no nukes whatsoever.
[...]
> Yes, it is. The problem is not that the hypervelocity makes the
If I use a small suicide scout ship to ram a large immobile fixed
installation, and it has a speed of 100 mu, it will also be invulnerable to
fixed target's fire. Artifact of game mechanics.
[...]
> >So, if the IJN or IFN can find self-sacrificing pilots to fly cutters
So, it only proves that it's not a problem of vector fighter
movement. I fail to see how eliminating the 'hyper-vector strike'
capability for fighters while _still leaving it_ for ships that are
slightly larger (scout ships, frex) is good for the game.
It isn't. Vector movement leads itself to hyperkinetic strikes. People who do
not want hyperkinetic strikes should not play with vector movement, QED.
But people who want to play with vector movement should have the option to
treat their fighters in the same way they treat their ships, instead of having
the fighter craft mysteriously stick to the
space-time continuum (unless they manage to grab a piece of a
space-time continuum of a passing larger ship, "escorting" it and
being suddenly yanked into the realm of vector hyper-speeds).
[...]
> IOW, all of your players are too reasonable to use this potentially
This argument has no relevance whatsoever to the problem of non-vector
fighters in a vector-ships universe.
Yes, vector movement is a problem. Removing vector movement capability from
figthers when other spaceships have it is not a solution to this problem in
any way.
[...]
> Oerjan
> Leszek Karlik wrote:
Well, if I may be allowed to interject my two cents here, it is solvable or
unsolvable the same way hypervelocity ships are in the real world.
You see, unlike the real world, Full Thrust ships have no fuel limitations.
NASA does not build 0.1c space probes because they do not have the technology
to build a probe with a large enough mass ratio (which is partially due to the
pathetic specific impulses of current propulsion systems)
Keith Watt had an amusing fuel system for Full Thrust,
From: "Leszek Karlik"
> It's a problem of vector movement,
In the FT context, it is equally a problem with cinematic movement.
The solutions would appear to be: a) put a speed limit on everything (eg
because of the density of the luminiferous aether) b) allow gravel clouds or
similar defenses c) break the turn's fire and movement into increments so that
high-speed ships aren't miraculously immune to fire
Of course, the first two are non-generic
The only other way to deal with this is no fixed structures? Any other
solutions present themselves?
Magic
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 05:25:22AM -0800, Robert Makowsky wrote:
A manoeuvre drive on every planet and a chicken in every pot? :-)
R
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 07:48:18AM -0500, Nyrath the nearly wise
distributed foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
> >This problem is unsolvable by game rules, because it's a problem of
[...]
> Well, if I may be allowed to interject my two cents here,
[snip delta-V constraints]
Of course. However, this has no bearing on the vector- vs non-vector
fighters in a vector universe problem. :-)
> Keith Watt had an amusing fuel system for Full Thrust,
Downloaded and saved. Nice. :-)
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 05:25:22AM -0800, Robert Makowsky wrote:
> A manoeuvre drive on every planet and a chicken in every pot? :-) <
Is this using the background from the Lensman series or Cities in Flight? <g>
Phil
> > It's a problem of vector movement,
I've always used minefields.
To quote Full Thrust - "...the detection range of a Mine is 3"; any
enemy vessel that enters this radius from the Mine marker (at ANY [emphasis
St.Jon] point during its movement, not just at the END [ditto] of its move)
will be detected and fired upon..."
A very plausible PSB is that most important governmental facilities, if not
all military installations, are surrounded by a very dense minefield -
and that either they have excellent IFF systems (as stated in the rules), or
are
set to go off when items of x-mass or larger moving at x-speed pass by,
or both.
Frankly, I've never seen this as much of a problem in a campaign setting
-
except when someone has a great attachment to the idea and then doesn't want
to allow the group to look at the rules and come up with a logical
extrapolation of the 'technology' to explain why such a thing doesn't occur
regularly.
The above solution is a simple and elegant, as well as resolved within the
rules. There's the chance that a ship can make it through the minefield
unscathed, if a small chance, so it's still a viable option especially if used
as part of a wave of suicide attacks.
> A very plausible PSB is that most important governmental facilities,
Except that it's not especially plausible, a ballistic asteroid doesn't care
unless you have really, really big mines, and it's not generic.
That is sort of what I was thinking. If you can't stop them then how do you
move a planet or asteroid etc.
Magic
> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> A very plausible PSB is that most important governmental facilities,
> Except that it's not especially plausible, a ballistic asteroid
Well, it's as generic as you can get since it's an inbuilt part of rules. And
what prevents it from being plausible? We used to stretch big huge chains
across harbor entrances to prevent ships from entering, that doesn't
sound plausible to me - but we did it.
And my argument with ballistic asteroids would be that then you're playing
on the wrong scale- these things should be visible from a *very* long
way
off (what the hell happened to your sensor pickets? Or scout sweeps?) -
if
you're trying to stop it on the table-top, this would indicate to me the
failure of a whole series of other measures that went into trying to either
stop it, or divert it.
When the book talks about asteroids it's discussing chunks of rock large
enough for a Mass 300 ship to hide behind - the one number given is a
Billion tons...
In Fleet Book terms that's something like 10,000,000 Mass. Would you mind
giving me an explanation of how in the heck you managed to get that much Mass
moving in the direction you want? And manage to accurately guide it?
Hell, lets make it a baby at a 1/100 of the size, a 1/1000?
Where in the heck are you going to get a tug to move that?
There's also the option from Full Thrust that says that Asteroid can be
assigned a Damage Point value. I'd have to say that if the asteroid in
question is small enough that you can mount a drive on it or maneuver it well
enough to be a weapon is also small enough to be destroyed...
If it's small enough to be moved and guided, it's small enough to be blown
apart by weapons fire.
And if it's too small for that, then we're just talking about a really big
freaking K-gun - and there are rules for that also.
Frankly, the rules say that *ships* are destroyed when impacted by an
asteroid - last time I checked, a facility isn't a ship...
;-)
Admittedly, that's sort of rules-jurymandering, but then since we're
making up an attack form that doesn't otherwise exist in the game...
I'd also be tempted to treat a ballistic asteroid attack as ramming attempt
- just like in FT. So either you can look at the at need to roll a 6 on
a d6 to successfully make a ramming attempt (because there's a 'crew' on the
Asteroid) or you need to roll the 6 because of the inherent difficulties in
setting up the course for a Ballistic Asteroid. Just because a station is
stationary on the table doesn't mean that it's stationary in relation to the
universe.
And if it's a 'homing' Ballistic Asteroid - then throw a Weasel or a
Bogey out on the table.
> --- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
<snip>
> If you (or anyone else) has a set of proposed fighter rules which
I have posted bits and pieces of ours, but not all of and never all together.
If you are interested, I will put it all together and post it.
I am going out of town tomorrow, and will be back on the 3rd. I can post it
after that if you want.
J
> --- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Yes.
> But the point in this case is that the ship has to arrive within
OK, Yep.
> >Second, those long range HV strikes are only an issue
We rely on "you blow up my planet, I blow up 5 of yours". M.A.D. kind of
thing.
> Oerjan is saying that it doesn't affect how fighters attack each
It does affect their attacks, since when out of CEF, they are no longer
allowed to make attacks. Though this is probably the easiest part of CEF to do
away with.
J
From: J L Hilal
> I have posted bits and pieces of ours, but not all of and never all
The main problem with RAW is that fighters can gang up on ships, so you could
see, say 25 squadrons munching a single BB; they take a few hits from PDS and
then swarm the next ship. The UFP gets around that by allowing
other ships to shoot at fighters with anti-ship weapons, but some people
dislike that idea and it does sort of demand CEF.
Therefore, if you do it in sections, the first section should cover "fighter
vs ship" and "ship vs fighter combat".
> We rely on "you blow up my planet, I blow up 5 of yours". M.A.D. kind
It turns out the ship had your registration and the crew was all your
citizens....according to the documentation. Forensics can, of course, not help
you very much in this case.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
OK.
> >Second, those long range HV strikes are only an issue if you set up
For a game of strikes against planets or orbital facilities, we set it up as a
running battle with the attacker's victory condition to get a
number of ships/PTL/SMLs free of the defender off of a certain table
edge with a scrolling table. Successfully evading the defenders is taken to
result in a successful strike.
> >Third, HV missiles only build up velocity turn-to-turn independent
none of the multi-turn weapons from either FT2 or MT build up velocity,
just fixed-move. Nor are any with a relation to the parent vessel's V.
Therefore none "build up velocity" to make HV strikes.
> >Fourth, there is a segment of FT players, including yourself, that
You have said that the longer-range weapons (such as beams 4+) are
"priced" in terms of MASS and PV for large playing areas in the FB1 & 2
"FT2.5" system, which is a departure from the published standards in favor of
large playing areas (in trms of MU). You have also said that such systems are
"overpriced" for 4'x6', 1"=1MU play. I understand that you were one of the
primary proponents of these changes.
> > >resulting either in extinction or in a cold war, but either way
So then why aren't you arguing for a change to the movement system to
put a stop to this game-wrecking disaster of a rule?
:)
> > >However, since the fighter movement rules are effectively
So if I use our movement rules, which don't involve CEF, then the combat
abilities of the fighters will be exactly the same, even though they are not
expending CEF on movement? I doubt that.
> IOW, all of your players are too reasonable to use this potentially
If lording over a glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot is
"winning".
> >For example:
The PT fighter mechanic is limited as it is simply a one-use weapon.
"Ordnance Factors" implies, at least to me, the possibility of multiple, but
limited uses. What I talked about also included having both regular
(unlimited) attacks as well as Ordnance.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> Second, those long range HV strikes are only an issue if you set up
[...]
> For a game of strikes against planets or orbital facilities, we set it
Which works very nicely until the attacking player asks you to explain *how*
the defenders managed to intercept the attacking force and force them into a
running battle. Just saying "they do" is usually not a sufficient
answer for this kind of player; you'll have to describe the initial
deployments and subsequent manoeuvres used by the defenders to create the
converging interception necessary for a running battle. It is... a
non-trivial problem, shall we say.
> Third, HV missiles only build up velocity turn-to-turn independent
<sigh> We were talking about why it is a bad idea to allow fighters (and as a
side effect also missiles) to build up velocity. You stated out that (salvo)
missiles couldn't build up velocity even if fighters are allowed to do so
because the (salvo) missiles do not have MULTIPLE TURN PERSISTANCE. Then you
asked if there is "such a system" in the works for FB3.
In the very post you were replying to, I stated that allowing fighters (and as
a consequence also missiles) to build up velocity from turn to turn is a bad
idea, and that I thought that no such rule will be introduced into the
game unless we manage to come up with a solution for the hyper-velocity
strike problem. In other words, you already knew perfectly well that no weapon
system able to build up velocity from turn to turn is in the works for FB3, or
at least none that I'm aware of.
Since you knew that, the only reasonable interpretation of your question is
that you were asking whether or not there is a weapon system with MULTIPLE
TURN PERSISTANCE in the works for FB3 - ie., a weapon which would
*become* capable of building up velocity from turn to turn if fighters were
given
that capability - rather than asking about a system which already *is*
capable of building up velocity.
I therefore pointed out that Full Thrust already has a weapon system with
MULTIPLE TURN PERSISTANCE, and has had that system since 1993. If fighters get
to build up speed from turn to turn, the same PSB applies to this
particular multiple-turn weapons as well.
Clearer now?
> Fourth, there is a segment of FT players, including yourself, that
were one
> of the primary proponents of these changes.
Ah, the dangers with careless paraphrasing :-)
If you check it up, I think you'll find that what I said about the
longer-ranged weapons was that they are overpriced on small *fixed*
tables
- ie., not just on small tables in general, but on those specific small
tables where ships that leave the table aren't allowed to return allowing
the enemy to crowd long-ranged ships up against the "impenetrable" table
edge.
On a *floating* table OTOH, you can fly quite fast and maintain quite long
combat ranges even if the table is small - fast enough and long enough
that
long-ranged weapons *are* able to take full advantage of their long
range (or almost full, if you're talking about really extreme ones like B8s
and larger)... provided of course that you're prepared to float the table
often enough. Playing on a larger table (in mu, at least) like I do merely
means that you don't need to float the table quite as often, but apart from
that it gives pretty much the same game effect as floating a small table often
does. Similarly, on non-floating tables where ships that leave *are*
allowed to return eventually long-ranged ships are able to withdraw
temporarily if the enemy attempts to crowd them; and while this doesn't
allow the long-ranged weapons to use their full potential it
nevertheless makes them quite a lot more useful than they are on a small
*fixed* table.
Now, here's the fun thing: of these three table set-ups, only the
floating
and the return-allowed ones are actually described in the basic FT2
rulebook. The fixed table set-up OTOH is only mentioned in the MT
supplement, as a suggested special rule for speeding up tournament
games...
so which of these set-ups is "the standard", and which is "a departure"?
More importantly, for which table set-up do you think the Fleet Book
points
system should have been designed - the floating and return-allowed
set-ups
described in the basic FT2 rulebook, or the tournament-specific fixed
table
set-up described in the More Thrust supplement? Since the FB points
system wasn't intended exclusively for tournament play, we designed it with
the
FT2 table set-ups in mind.
Yes, my experience of what kind of weapon restrictions the FT2 table
set-ups require if the players actually use them certainly influenced
the FB1 ship design rules; but I find it rather hard to call using an official
rule from the basic rulebook "a departure from the published standard"
:-/
> resulting either in extinction or in a cold war, but either way
Because there is already a rule in place against ramming by crewed units,
which works reasonably well for curbing this type of attack (thwarts
five-sixths of them after you've gone through all the trouble to set
them up). Unfortunately that rule doesn't apply to crewless missiles or rocks
:-/
And, of course, as I said in the previous post the main problem isn't ships
ramming planets but missiles launched from outside the defenders' weapons
range so the attacking ships are safe from retribution.
> However, since the fighter movement rules are effectively
<sigh> Of course they won't. That's why changing the movement system will
upset the fighter points costs, which is exactly what I said in my first
post in this thread.
Thing is, the fighters' combat abilities under the *Fleet Book* rules
*also* aren't the same if you use your own CEF-less fighter movement
rules
than they are if you use the CEF-using Fleet Book fighter movement
rules.
If you use a CEF-less movement system together with the Fleet Book
fighter rules, you have *already changed* the fighters' combat abilities and
thus *already upset* the fighter points costs (such as they are). Why, then,
do you make such a big deal out of changing the fighters' combat abilities
and game balance a *second* time by using your CEF-less movement system
with the beta-test combat rules?
> IOW, all of your players are too reasonable to use this potentially
There are quite a few people who think it is; and not all of them are
gamers - I know several who are real-world politicians or high-level
military commanders :-( In some game-related situations I can even agree
with them, eg. if the alternative is having your own species exterminated or
turned into food animals for an alien enemy.
> For example:
So? You asked for tracking fighter ordnance separately from the CEF. The
only current fighter ordnance available in FT, ie. the fighter torpedo, *is
already* tracked separately from the CEF. It wouldn't be tracked any less
separately from the CEF than it is now if each fighter had two torpedoes
instead of a single one; nor would the torpedo(es) be tracked any less
separately from the CEF than it is now if the torpedo fighter had more
substantial unlimited-shot weapons than its current "hits enemy fighters
on rolls of 6 only" guns. In other words, the exact game mechanic you asked
for is already in the rules.
If what you actually did ask for wasn't what you *intended* to ask for,
then it would be better if you re-phrase your question so that it asks
about what you intended. In this case, the examples you gave in your previous
post made it quite clear that your intention was *not* actually to ask about a
new way for tracking fighter ordnance, but to ask for rules for designing
custom fighters and rules for greater variety in fighter ordnance.
Regards,
Finally laying aside the adage that it is better to remain silent and allow
others to think you a fool than to speak and remove all doubt...
***
Except that it's not especially plausible, a ballistic asteroid doesn't care
unless you have really, really big mines, and it's not generic.
***
Fortunately, as I've mentioned before, ballistic asteroids of a size that
don't care about minefields, take years to DECADES to aim, i.e., adjust orbit,
with the target probably doing SOMETHING all the time.
***
> It's a problem of vector movement,
In the FT context, it is equally a problem with cinematic movement.
The solutions would appear to be: a) put a speed limit on everything (eg
because of the density of the luminiferous aether) b) allow gravel clouds or
similar defenses c) break the turn's fire and movement into increments so that
high-speed ships aren't miraculously immune to fire
***
d) admit that FTII is a tactical game, and HV attacks, being outside the
scope of any reasonably-sized playing surface, is a
campaign/operational/strategic issue.
In cinematic, which I refer to as 'vector in a limited range', extending to
'ludicrous speed' the same turning points as
it'll-keep-you-on-the-table-speeds gives results that just break down.
I'm happy with cinematic as an approximation, just not with folks that say it
should stretch to all circumstances.
Anyway, how do you know the end points of an HV move, "the turn's
fire...",
aren't outside the table?
At speeds more than twice the MU of the playing surface, odds are they aren't.
If different rules for shooting would apply, different rules for movement
SHOULD apply.
c) They aren't immune; they aren't there.
***
Which works very nicely until the attacking player asks you to explain *how*
the defenders managed to intercept the attacking force and force them
into a running battle. Just saying "they do" is usually not a sufficient
answer for this kind of player; you'll have to describe the initial
deployments and subsequent manoeuvres used by the defenders to create the
converging interception necessary for a running battle. It is... a
non-trivial problem, shall we say.
***
I thought it was trivial; if you wish to approach, I will stand between. If
you do not engage, you do not approach.
Dopey moi.
I always thought that you could avoid the fight, just not if you were
committed to a destination.
The_Beast
Had a thought about it and came up with the following (first draft):
*****
Generic Fighter Rules for FT Rebuild from ground up.
Assumptions: d6 system 1 fighter = 1 mass
Beam => 4-5 = 1kill; 6 = 2 kills + beam reroll
Non-Beam => 6 = 1 kill + beam reroll
Turn order is still the same as FB1&2.
Movement: Fighter movement is conducting in initiative order during the "Move
Ordinance" phase. Secondary moves are during the "allocate ordinance" phase
Cinematic: Fighters move using the same rules as Salvo Missiles. They can move
24 MU
anywhere in their FP/F/FS arc (based on their facing at the start of the
turn). Facing at the end of the move can be in any direction.
Secondary moves (of 6MU) can only be used to move into base-base contact
with an enemy ship, enemy fighter group or enemy missile salvo. They can
choose which direction to attack the target from, but must face the target
(which determines their facing for the following turns movement). Fast
fighters have a 36 MU primary move (as ERSMs). Vector: As per Cinematic, but
primary move 24 MU per turn with a 3 MU secondary move. As an optional rule,
fighters can be moved using vector ship movement and are considered to have a
MD12. They still receive the secondary move of 3 MU to attack.
Endurance/Ordinance:
Fighters can purchase one or two ordinance chits to expend during combat (uses
for ordinance are noted in the appropriate section). This represents
missiles/bombs and other expendable munitions not integral to the
fighter. If the fighter group does not have an ordinance chit to expend, it
can only use the base attack abilities.
Fighters may expend ONE ordinance chit to gain the benefits of Screen-1
for
the turn (or increase their screens by +1 if they already have them).
Furballs and engaged fighter groups:
Whenever two or more enemy Groups are in base-base contact, the entire
dogfight is resolved immediately when any squadron is activated by a player.
If the fighters are also in base-base contact with a starship, then
groups attacking the starship can be split off as a separate combat, but all
enemy Groups must be engaged by at least one friendly squadron each. Eg. 3
Fighter Groups attack a starship defended by two enemy Groups. At least two
Groups must engage the enemy squadron and the third can either attack the
starship alone, or assist in the dogfight; it cannot do both. Allocating
Fighter Casualties:
When taking fighter casualties in a furball or anti-ship attack, then
the defender may allocate which squadron takes the damage. Damage must be
applied in full to the same squadron (until destroyed) and any left-over
damage is allocated to the next squadron of the defender's choice. This may
result in groups that have already been activated taking damage, but both
simplifies fighter combat and represents defensive formations and other
factors abstracted in the game.
Anti-fighter Combat:
Fighters attack other fighters and missiles as follows (in initiative order):
If in base to base contact (see Furballs and Engaged Targets above): roll 1
beam die per fighter. If the fighter group expends their ordinance chit,
they receive a +1 DRM to their roll AND ignore any screens on the
fighters.
If not in base to base contact, but within 6 MU of the FP/F/FS arc: roll
1
non-beam die per fighter.
Anti-ship Combat:
Fighters attack starships as follows:
If the group is in base-base contact with the ship: Roll 2 non-beam die
per fighter. If the group expends ONE ordinance chit, they roll 2 beam die
instead. If the group expends TWO ordinance chits, they roll 3 beam die AND
ignore any screens.
If the group is not in base-base contact with the ship (but still in the
FP/F/FS arc and within 6 MU): roll 1 non-beam die per fighter. If the
group expends ONE ordinance chit, they roll 1 beam die instead. PDS & Ship
defences: PDS:
If the fighter group is in base-base contact: Roll 1 beam die per PDS;
each point of damage destroys 1 fighter (see Allocating Fighter Casualties
above).
If the fighter group is not in base-base contact, but within 6 MU: roll
1
beam die per PDS, but the fighters benefit from having level-1 screens
(or
increase to level-2 screens if they already had screens).
Non-PDS weapons:
Regardless of whether a fighter group is in base-base contact or not,
any ship weapons that can fire and have not fired at another ship (beams,
pulse
torpedoes, railguns etc) may roll 1 non-beam die for each weapon
against any unengaged enemy fighter group. Using weapons in this way requires
the use of 1 firecon (regardless of the number of fighters targeted) that
cannot also be used against ships. Morale: Optional rule: If your campaign
requires the use of morale the following can be used. For fighter vs fighter
attacks, no morale roll is required. When attacking a starship, count the
number of friendly Groups attacking the same ship AFTER PDS fire is resolved.
Roll 1d6 per group and total the roll. This roll must EXCEED the number of
casualties taken by the entire group allocated to attack the starship. If
there are defending fighters, the attacker must detach an equal number of
Groups to "protect" the rest. These Groups cannot attack the starship, so do
not count as part of the morale roll. (See Furballs and Engaged Fighter Groups
above.) Eg. 5 Groups are attacking a freighter. Having previously taken 12
casualties (amongst the various Groups), they roll 5d6 and must roll 13 or
more or break off the attack. Alternate morale:
If using FMA die-shift morale (where Yellow=d4, Green=d6, Regular=d8
etc),
then use the appropriate die type instead of a d6. This may result in mixed
die being rolled, but the principle is still an all-or-nothing attack.
Fighter costs:
Including hanger bay/cargo space, a basic fighter costs 5 points with no
ordinance or upgrades.
ONE endurance = +3 points (Attack/Interceptor fighters)
TWO endurance = +7 points (Long Range or Torpedo fighters)
HEAVY (level 1 screens) = +5 points
FAST (36 MU move) = +3 points
This makes FAST/HEAVY/TORPEDO fighters 120 points per squadron.
****
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
> Brendan Robertson wrote:
> *****
That much we agree on, at least ;-)
Some comments and questions:
> Assumptions:
IOW, it retains the book-keeping problems with the FB1/FB2 turn
sequences :-(
> Movement:
Sounds reasonable, except that you make it rather difficult for fighters to
move into base-to-base contact with *friendly* ships (eg. to act as
fighter screens or to land aboard a carrier).
> Endurance/Ordinance:
Hm. If ordnance chits represent missile/bombs/expendable munitions, how
does launching/jettisoning ordnance make the fighter harder to hit?
PSB-wise, I mean - I know the game-balance reason for this rule.
(Note that this is directly opposite to Jared's wish for *separate* ordnance
and endurance loads.)
> Furballs and engaged fighter groups:
Each fighter group can be activated up to three times during the game turn:
once for primary movement, once for secondary movement, and once for combat.
In *which* of these activations are furballs resolved? I'd expect it to happen
in the combat activation, but in that case what happens if a fighter group
which starts its *movement* activation in a furball attempts to move away from
it?
*How* is the furball resolved? Simultaneous fire (as per the FT2 rule which
applies when there's only one fighter group per side involved) or alternating
fire (as per the FB1 for when there's *more* than one fighter group on at
least one side in the furball)?
> If the fighters are also in base-base contact with a starship, then
IOW, you retain the FB1 quirk which allows a single defending fighter to
tie up an entire full-strength attacking squadron and vice versa.
> Allocating Fighter Casualties:
Who is the "defender" in an anti-ship attack - the ship defending itself
against the fighters' attack, or the fighters being shot at by the ship's
point defences?
> Damage must be applied in full to the same squadron (until destroyed)
and
> any left-over
> may result in groups that have already been activated taking damage,
If the "defender" is the fighter player, choosing a screened (or
double-screened) fighter group as the initial target allows him to
ignore any rolls of '4' (or any rolls of '4' and '5') fired by the defenders.
If the "defender" is the player of the ship under attack, he'll strive to
target non-shielded fighters first and save any '5's or '6's for the
shielded ones.
Either way, this rule allows a great deal of gamesmanship.
> Anti-fighter Combat:
roll 1
> beam die per fighter. If the fighter group expends their ordinance
roll 1
> non-beam die per fighter.
This seems to mean that an attack fighter with a maximum load of
anti-ship
ordnance is simultaneously the best anti-fighter interceptor you can
get?
> Anti-ship Combat:
> If the group is not in base-base contact with the ship (but still in
This hurts small numbers of fighters which need to make multiple attacks to
take out a single target, but massed fighter swarms which can take out a
target in a single pass don't suffer much.
> PDS & Ship defences:
each
> point of damage destroys 1 fighter (see Allocating Fighter Casualties
Can a PDS fire at *any* (one) fighter group not in base-to-base contact
with the firing ship, or are PDSs without ADFC still restricted to shooting at
fighters that actually attack the firing ship itself?
Note that the FB1 and FB2 turn sequences both require the players to track
which weapons fired at fighters in phase 7 and which are still available
for shooting at enemy ships in phase 9. For PDSs and single-shot weapons
this is trivial, but for dual-purpose and anti-ship weapons it is not.
This
is why the beta-test rules resolves all of a ship's weapon fire for the
turn at one single time (to remove this particular bit of book-keeping)
and
moves fighter-vs-ship attacks to *after* the ships' fire phase (to
ensure
that the anti-fighter defences still get to fire at attacking fighters
*before* the fighters themselves get to shoot at the ships).
> Non-PDS weapons:
The FB turn sequences resolve anti-fighter fire in an earlier phase than
anti-ship fire, so *no* direct-fire ship weapons have fired at another
ship this turn by the time they fire at attacking fighters. (Unless of course
your intent is to have the ship weapons fire at attacking fighters *after* the
fighters have already attacked, by which time it is usually too late
-
but I don't think that that's what you meant!)
Allowing non-PDS weapons to fire only at fighters in base-to-base
contact with the ship makes them relatively useful against small numbers of
fighters (ie. those which are too few to be able to use stand-off
attacks
effectively and/or take the target ship out in a single attack), but
without a stand-off range of their own the non-PDS weapons won't have
any noticable effect on massed fighter swarms which can overwhelm the target
ship (particularly not with the double-rate anti-ship fighter fire when
in
base-to-base contact).
IOW, just like the Fleet Book fighter rules this concept makes massed PDS and
massed defending fighters) the only effective defence against massed
attacking fighters - which is precisely the feature in the Fleet Book
fighter rules which causes the current all-or-nothing "game balance" (or
rather lack of game balance) for FT fighters.
> Morale:
This morale rule has at best a marginal effect against the massed fighter
swarms which need toning down - either the defences are powerful enough
to kill lots of them in a single turn in which case the fighters will lose in
a couple of turns even without the morale rule, or the defences only manage to
kill a few of the fighters making it very unlikely that they'll fail the
morale roll (since there are many squadrons and thus many dice, making extreme
morale rolls unlikely). OTOH it is very harsh on those smaller fighter numbers
which are already underpowered, since they both take proportionally higher
casualties from the defensive fire and are more likely to roll extreme morale
dice.
> Fighter costs:
Including the hangar bay *itself* that is; its supporting engines and (in the
NPV system) the basic hull structure still have to be paid for separately.
> ONE endurance = +3 points (Attack/Interceptor fighters)
> This makes FAST/HEAVY/TORPEDO fighters 120 points per squadron.
You mean "FAST/HEAVY/TORPEDO/SUPER-INTERCEPTOR" :-/
Regards,