Jon,
Just out of curiosity...
In the Earthforce sourcebook you went back to the Full Thrust method of moving
fighters rather than the More Thrust method. It's generally held (and is even
stated in More Thrust) that moving fighters before ships move as in MT gives
better play balance.
Was the change back to the FT method precisely because fighters in Bab5 seem
to be very deadly? Or were there other reasons?
> Jon,
Actually, this was one of the few editorial changes that CE made to the stuff
I wrote for them! My original draft used MT movement for fighters, but they
decided they wanted the old FT system! Personally, I agree that the MT version
is better.
> Was the change back to the FT method precisely because fighters in Bab5
Thanks!! :)
> Now if only we could get you the license to produce the miniatures!
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Jon, CE did it right. You're wrong in MT for making fighters move
before ships. Why??? How agile is a ship? How agile is a fighter?
Get the picture? Fighters are fighters because they are so fast and agile that
they operate inside the descion loop of starships. They can see what a
starship is doing and then change their course and speed to chase it down. You
should have made other changes if fighters are out of hand. This also applies
to missiles.
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> Jon, CE did it right. You're wrong in MT for making fighters move
Ahhhh... But there is a question of game balance. A couple of
well-placed fighter groups can obliterate escort vessels and seriously
cripple a medium to large ships. Having the fighters move before the ships
will balance out the destructive capabilites of fighters by having them have
to "guess" where the ships are moving. If I remember correctly, Jon gave a
pretty good technical explanation of why fighters can move before ships. For
the life of me I can't remember what it was. Does anyone care to refresh my
memory?
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> Jon, CE did it right. You're wrong in MT for making fighters move
Ahhhh... But there is a question of game balance. A couple of
well-placed fighter groups can obliterate escort vessels and seriously
cripple a medium to large ships. Having the fighters move before the ships
will balance out the destructive capabilites of fighters by having them have
to "guess" where the ships are moving. If I remember correctly, Jon gave a
pretty good technical explanation of why fighters can move before ships. For
the life of me I can't remember what it was. Does anyone care to refresh my
memory?
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
[snip]
> Jon, CE did it right. You're wrong in MT for making fighters move
Sorry, I don't agree with you. I won't say you are "wrong", because this is SF
after all and we can all do pretty much as we want anyway. If you feel that
the original FT (and EFSB) fighter movement is a better model for B5 games,
then use it by all means. However, in FT itself the use of the MT fighter
movement gives (IMHO) a better balance to the game, and requires more tactical
thought on the part of the player; if you play well and anticipate your
opponent's actions, it is quite easy to place your fighters
within their 6" reaction distance - of course, he is trying to outthink
YOU at the same time....:)
To me, this is the kind of thing that makes play more interesting, rather
than just a die-rolling exercise.
If you want PSB to "justify" it, then yes, fighters are faster - but
they also have much smaller reserves of fuel, and once committed to an attack
vector thay may not have enough to radically change it in response to some
sudden evasive move by the target ship.
> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I wouldn't say "wrong" either, but the game does get quite "fuzzy" (i.e.
lacking hard rules) when both sides emply several fighter squadrons.
I've found that no one wants to move the first fighter group, because it
then becomes a prime target for interception (since it already moved). the
advantage, ofcourse, ultimately going to the guy with more fighter squadrons.
Sorry but I don't agree with you on this. This may be applicable for FT and MT
but it falls down for B5. Fighters make radical vector changes as standard
procedure. Cap ships are so cumbersome they have virtually NO chance to dodge
fighters nor do they have any problems with fuel for the short time it takes
for a B5 battle. In fact in "Severed Dreams" they have squadrons out for I
believe (I'll have to look back and check on that) 2 hours doing manoeuvres
before they were rotated to prevent using more than half their fuel. Cap ships
must rely
on their own fighters or anti-fighter weapons to keep them off their
backs. If you are afraid of upsetting play balance then you should
change fighter strength or increase anti-fighter strength or even
shorten fighter firing range but I don't think I would change them. Change
anything but fighters should move last.
I think Jon has done a good job with these rules and I like them. I also like
B5 Wars as a different type of game and plan to play it too.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
The big problem I have is that I don't see this "sudden evasion maneuvering"
happening in Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Battlestar
Galatica, Robotech, Starblazers, or Babylon 5. In fact, the only Sci Fi I know
where it can happen is Star Fleet Battles. This is also one of the reasons why
I don't play SFB. I like fighter endurance. I see this in Sci Fi. If fighter
defenses were beefed up, fighters wouldn't be out of line. Take the gloves off
the PDAF's and ADAF's. Let them shoot at any fighter squadron in range. This
will force opponents to pick off escorts first before sending the fighters
after what the escort is defending, or face massive fighter loss.
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> Jon, CE did it right. You're wrong in MT for making fighters move
Imre, it seems your observations are not based on game play or balance, but,
are rather based on your conception of what 'Space Fighters' actually
represent. That concept is of course supported by much of the genre.....Star
Wars, Battlestar Galactia, SAAB etc....etc....but just how realistic or valid
representations do you think they are?.
The fighters in Full Thrust don't necessarily represent those popular
conceptions, so when Jon, (based on a lot of player input) changed the
sequence of play in MT to help tone down the effect of fighters, he wasn't
'breaking' any laws regarding what Space Fighters can or can't do (I mean they
don't really exist....do they?)
However if your conception of the B5 universe means that you prefer the CE
sequence of play then more power to you. I have played FT now for many years
and I have played a lot of EFSB spaceship combat over the last couple of
months. I have used both sequences of play and I can say IMHO (and the rest of
my gaming group) that the MT sequence provides a much more challenging game.
If you haven't given it a try, then suspend your disbelief and do so, I'm sure
you will be pleasantly surprised.
> Sorry but I don't agree with you on this. This may be applicable for
If you read my post re: Imre's original message again, you'll notice that I
WAS actually referring to FT/MT rather than to the B5 situation, as that
was partly what Imre was commenting on (at least that's how I read it). I'm
not suggesting that you (or anyone else) should change the EFSB rules, simply
that I believe the MT sequence gives a more exciting and involving game. For
what it is worth, I wholeheartedly agree with your interpretation
of the way fighters operate in B5 - but sometimes, ESPECIALLY when
trying
to simulate something shown on-screen, compromises and alterations have
to be made to make the game work better as a game (the Minbari ships and
weapons, for example, are quite massively toned-down in the EFSB - if
not,
they would be unplayable - or at least impossible to play AGAINST).
For the fighters, I proposed one way; CE decided to go the other. This is fair
enough, as both methods work in their own way. If you think the
version as written in the EFSB works best, then stick with it - nobody
is going to make you change from the one you prefer!
> [quoted text omitted]
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Some changes to the way ADAFs/PDAFs work are already in the pipeline for
the Fleetbook and later for FTIII, as the people who are in the playtesting
groups will verify. However, I think you are reading too much into the MT
fighter sequence. Given that, using the EFSB fighter move distances (24" or
36" according to race), your fighter group can be placed anywhere you wish
within a very large circle, the chances of a major ship being able to avoid
them completely are slim (especially with reaction-drive ships, whose
maneouvre envelope is much more restricted that normal FT movement) unless
the ship captain is very good/lucky and you make a serious mistake in
predicting his intentions. Besides, if you make him change his course (and
probably his plans to attack your ships) in order to avoid your fighters,
haven't you already achieved part of the fighters' mission without firing a
shot? The use of this move sequence makes both players have to plan ahead a
little, rather than simply reacting to events; OK, so it may not be exactly as
it happens on TV, but if you think about it most of the space battles in
TV shows and movies would simply not work very well as games - they are
simply impressive plot devices to advance the storyline.
If you want to accurately simulate Star Trek battles, for example, "as seen on
TV", then you would have to have a Technobabble Table that is rolled on in the
last turn of the game, all the results being things like: "Geordi LaForge
manages to reconfigure the Captain's Bidet into an
emergency trans-photon-tetrion-mogrifer-emitter, links it to the main
sensor dish with a roll of duct tape and a pair of Deanna Troi's tights, and
immediately destroys all opposing ships in wonderful CGI effects. End of game.
Roll Credits...."
[It's late, and I've just got back from the pub, OK?]
We could probably argue this one round for ever, so I think we'll have to
agree to disagree on it.;)
Ha! OK, that makes me feel better.
I thought for a second there that you had had a sudden attack of
schizophrenia! <Grin>
Ahem. Attention, ship captains. Our first house rule for EFSB follows.
. .
Thanks for the reply,
Nick
> At 09:04 AM 2/3/98 +0000, you wrote:
<snip>
> Jon (GZG)
> Jon (GZG) wrote
Is there a chance you can expand in regards to which way it could have been
better? and the suggestions from the playtesters??
> Thanks for the kind comments. Glad you like the system. Agreed, B5W is
A number of playtesters (I headed up one group, and did the PBeM testing for
them) proffered up a number of suggestions on the B5W playtest list that AOG
basically either ignored, or went the opposite direction on (one suggestion
was to reduce the amount of armor around various systems, but instead AOG
upped the damage potential of the weapons).
Now mind you, to be fair, some they took ideas and expanded on them
(originally they were doing a percentage 'to miss' system; most people
suggested going to a 'to hit' system, and I hit on changing the whole thing
over to a d20 instead of d100 system; AOG took the charts I made up for
playtesting, made some modifications, but the basic overall idea is still
there)
There has been a lot of grumbling about the movement system that was
presented, ideas suggested by the playtesters to make it better, and the
movement system mostly went unchanged. Chris Weuve came up with a vectored
movement system (that I haven't tried playing with yet) which I have been
hearing people say they like a lot.
Now that we've gotten quite off-topic from this list, you can prolly
find more information from the B5Wars email list. A lot of the original
playtesters are on there (well, this is my impression; could be wrong
;).
Mk
On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 15:32:07 -0500, "Imre A. Szabo"
> <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> The big problem I have is that I don't see this "sudden evasion
This is, in fact, one of the neat things about FT and FT players. Play it the
way you want. I can see your point. In a game where fighters are all powerful
(Star Wars, B5), moving fighters after starships may feel better for the
genre. In Jon's own background, moving the fighters first may feel better.
I personally prefer fighters moving first as it adds a tactical complexity
without adding a rules complexity. I like it and find it fun. On the other
hand, the fighters in B5 seem to be able to vector right onto the capital
ships without any problems, so I can see your point about having them move
second.
I'd probably keep the B5 rules as written (not as Jon intended) to more
closely mimic B5's fighters. However, in games with my own backgrounds I'd use
the MT rules.
The fighter movement issue is the closest thing I've seen to a "holy war" with
regard to FT. I met a few people at GenCon this year that grumbled about
placing fighter movement before ship movement. It didn't stop them from
playing OR having a good time...