Curing the fighter blues

I finally figured out what bothered me about FT fighters, and possibly how to
fix it. Fighters are powerful systems with high attrition rates. Most
engagements I have seen have them cripple a ship or two before being
completely wasted. Recovery/survival of pilots and fighters is left to
the post combat campaign story, if there is one, and refuel/resupply
during combat is basically a non-issue.

20th century analogs aside, I think fighter attrition is too high in FT
for the _feel_ I would like. But their combat effectiveness is just
fine, IMHO. In order to have the feel I'd like, I need to keep overall fighter
power similar, but reduce attrition.
I see two ways of doing this - one more cosmetic, the other a game
variation.

Cosmetic: Fighters are  only _destroyed_ on rolls of 6 by the various
antifighter systems (including on rerolls). Other rolls simply render a
fighter damaged or combat-incapable. For added detail, allow another
roll for damaged fighters to see if engines are down to allow the
fighter to return to its carrier: 1-2 Engines OK, 3-5 1/2 thrust
6-engines out (rescue required after combat).

Variation: PDS and Dogfighting fighters kill one fighter on a 6
(including rerolls). PDS, however can 'tie-up' fighters without
destroying/damaging them. If a PDS rolls a 4, the attacking fighter
groups strength is reduced by 1 (one fighter must break off its attack to
evade PDS). If a PDS rolls 5, strength is reduced by 2. On a 6, it is reduced
by 3 (two disrupted attacks, one destroyed fighter). Individual fighter
atttacks are less effective this way, but more fighters survive to attack
later turns.Playtesting, as always, is needed for this variation.

> 20th century analogs aside, I think fighter attrition is too high in FT

[snip]

There's actually another, simpler way of going at this. After the battle,
simply roll a d6 for each fighter that was destroyed to determine its ultimate
fate. That messes with the rules least of all, and still gives the possibility
the the pilots punched out before the big kablooey.

> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

I must agree with the option presented by Schoon. Even if only implemented as
a 'house rule', it is the cleanest method of dealing with the concept of
reduced 'lost' fighters.

Bye for now,