Brian's fighter idea

Post of the year. Tomb defines the points of controversy, and then defines a
metasystem to accomodate them all, causing the controversy to vanish like a
term which has been factored out.

> Tomb wrote:

> One interesting thought would be to try to define things which fit in
<snip>

> But maybe that's a too revolutionary thought... that there should be a

Brian,

I'm fairly certain that if I only had 1 strike coming off each run, suddenly
attack fighters or (even moreso) torpedo fighters come off looking much
better. This is because the latter particularly were optimized for this kind
of fight and the former make their one strike that much worse. It also would
do a poor job of simulating some genres where people repeatedly attacked
larger ships without returning to the carrier. It also, as you noted, doesn't
do a lot for small fighter
formations or to nibble away at the non-linearity of fighter value. That
doesn't make it bad, but it should be recognized for where it may help and
what it may not address.

Also, unrelatedly:

Part of the whole mass/cost controversy, and why big ships rule, stems
from the mechanics of breakpoints in FT. Firing breakpoints (if my ubership
wins, I fire 1000 points before you fire) and threshold breakpoints (causing
thresholds in smaller ships disables systems faster than you can on a big
boy). With simultaneous fire (not very tactically interesting, some say) you
kind of take away one of those two issues. But the other still remains. There
is still a marked economy of scale, which is what the correction formula was
envisioned to address.

My own experience with fighters falls in two categories: 1) getting eaten
alive by the locust swarm and being unable to fire
2/3rds of the fleet at them
2) flying them and watching them either eat the enemy alive (no need to rearm)
or get killed (no need to rearm)

As it stands, my carriers are closer (with the exception of the
Konstantin) to freighters - their rearming capability is absolutely
unused. There are rarely survivors from fighter missions (more than 2 or 3
lone ships anyway) in an equal point roughly balanced fighter count battle
anyway. And in the other case, I don't have to really worry about rearming as
the other side is usually dead dead dead from the locust plague.

One interesting thought would be to try to define things which fit in
different fighter genres. That might give us an idea of how each genre
balances.

Human pilots (morale) vs. Robotic fighters (no morale)

Overwhelmable PDS vs. PDS that can attack any number of targets any number of
times

Large beams able to engage fighters vs. Not able to (Star Wars Star Destroyers
main guns)

Ships require ADFC vs. All ships have ADFC like ability automatically

Weapons that engage beyond PDS ranges (for fighters or ships) (modern day
fighters tend to outrange their targets many times)

Fighters with long endurance (star wars) vs. Fighters with one good attack
(some modern fighters)

Fighters with FTL (B5, SW)  -- these can deploy to a game SANS carrier
vs. Fighters without (standard FT)

Area effect anti fighter weapons (Pulsers, Scatterguns, E-mines)
vs. a lack thereof

Fighters that can't cause much damage (Leviathan) vs. Very Dangerous fighters
(some anime, Luke's Xwing...)

etc.

By trying to build genre rules combinations, it should be possible to suit
everyone who wants to play modern carrier ops or WW2 carrier ops, those who
want to play star wars or B5, etc. It should not be required to shoe horn
everyone into the same mould. HOWEVER, having said that, one genre should be
"the canon Tuffleyverse" and thus a baseline set of rules balanced by NPV for
one off games with standard designs should exist.

But maybe that's a too revolutionary thought... that there should be a way to
get the beast of all worlds....

Tomb said:
> there's a way to get the beast of all worlds

a. "yes, you use an ox as bait", referring to Thor going fishing and catching
the Worm Ouroborus. b. some sort of supreme Sa'Vasku c. Old Squidface
d. All of the above--they're all the same.  Isn't that an icky
thought?

But it does allow a reason for CoC figures in the GZGverse. They're Sa'vasku
combat organisms.

[quoted original message omitted]

> On 10-May-02 at 05:53, Eric Foley (stiltman@teleport.com) wrote:

> From: "Tomb" <tomb@dreammechanics.com>

You know, this just triggered something.  What are you reading/watching
where there are repeated attacks on large ships without carrier resupply? I
can't think of any with traditional (1 or 2 seat) fighters. Anime? I don't
watch much of that.

The only thing I can think that might be a problem is HH LACs. It still feels
odd calling something with an 8(?) man crew a Full Thrust fighter.

> Tomb wrote:

> I'm fairly certain that if I only had 1 strike coming off each run,

Absolutely, specialized fighters become more important. Interceptors also come
into their own, because now you want saome fighters out there to meet and
greet the attack and torp fighters. It means what fighters you employ becomes
one more tactical consideration you must make, and I like that.

> It also would do a poor job of simulating some genres

And for those genres it could easily be ignored without much trouble.

It also, as you noted, doesn't do a lot for small fighter
> formations or to nibble away at the non-linearity of fighter value.

A little, but not much, you're right.

> Part of the whole mass/cost controversy, and why big ships rule, stems

I agreee. and have always preferred simultaneous fire games.

> There are rarely survivors from fighter missions (more than 2 or

Although if you can create a fleet with fighters but not in swarm quantities,
and keep it alive through that first wave, this rule does make things
interesting, since it makes carrier survival an issue.

> One interesting thought would be to try to define things which fit in

That would make far too much sense.

> By trying to build genre rules combinations, it should be possible to

You always were a heretic, Tom.

One other suggestion for PDS modification that's minor but significant:

Allow PDS to attack any fighter group that passes within a certain range of
the ship, whether it attacks that ship or not. Even with only 1 attack per
turn, this makes PDS in a formation much more effective.

3B^2

> At 8:44 AM -0700 5/10/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:

I've always thought the PDS can't shoot unless it's attacking rule was a bit
odd. The ADFC justification was always peculiar. I'd still like to see an
additional layer of Air Defense that is separate from

[quoted original message omitted]

> -----Original Message-----

I suppose that's to simulate the last ditch attempt to bring down incoming
fighters on their attack run, although it is a pain when your opponent loiters
in your formation until all his groups arrive and you can't do a damn thing
about it if you have
no fighters of your own. PDS or at least ADFC/PDS combos should
be able to stick some barrages up to deter the fighters from getting close.

We experimented in our group with allowing ADFC-equipped units
to fire on groups within 6 MU whether they were attacking or not which has the
effect of changing the fighter tactics a little in that they need to stand off
from ADFC until they're ready to

> Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 00:28:50 -0700

> > > Perhaps what is necessary is to have two different sets

Starblazers ships can use thier main energy batteries to engage fighters from
outside the fighters attack range.

> > You know, this just triggered something. What are you

The Last Starfighter game disagrees. The titular unit uses the rules for
capital ships rather than fighters.

> In the former in particular, fighters were every bit as

Not really a good example of a scenario one would wish to play as the Colonies
though. Note that the Cylons brought a signifcantly larger force to the ambush
than the humans. Because thay had an empire several times bigger. And the
humans were under orders to safe all thier weapons. the only way the Cylons
could have had more advantages would be to have the Humans agree to have bombs
preplanted on board the Battlestars.

The later fights are more even and involve no more than 3 or 4 squadrons on
the human side and a lot of B1 anti fighter fire.

It should be notice that carrier resupply was very important in that universe.
Balter manages to run his squadrons out of fuel at least once by ordering them
to return for a second attack.

> Which... all things considered, leaves me wondering if

Only If you want the only strategy to be massive fighter attacks. What some of
us would like is for balanced ship designs to have a chance on the table.

And ship designs with much of thier mass in PDS are not balanced designs.

> > The only thing I can think that might be a problem is HH

Why, you just called Three man crew cylon attack craft fighters. They fufil
the same role. Thus use the rule that fits.

> I don't really consider the LACs to be true fighters.

And a fighter is a small gunboat in a deep space game.