> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Phillip Atcliffe wrote:
> before the horse. Surely it's simpler to have the targetable fighters
> rules as optional add-ons in the way that they are now
Nor is my playgroup.
One idea we've tossed (and the playtest group too, I gather) is to
somehow allow anti-ship weapons to engage fighters at range with reduced
effectiveness, of course.
I just thought of the following today, and maybe this has been advanced as an
idea, maybe not:
Stop thinking of PDS's as a distinct weapons choice and instead start using
them like a level of protection, like shields. After all, how is ONE PDS
system able to defende ANY ship of any size from attack that comes from any
direction? IMO, it only makes sense that PDS be abstracted from discrete
"weapons" into networks of guns that cover a ship's hull.
Instead of stocking up on massed PDS, PDS are bought like shields, in
"levels". The die roll that each fighter makes on it's "attack run" is used to
determine no only whether the fighters attack is successful, but
also it's evasion of the attacked ship's fighter defenses.
For each fighter that misses, if the die roll is =< the attacked ships
PDS-level then that fighter is destroyed.
PDS Level 1-3 - effect as noted above.
PDS Level 4 - effect as noted above, plus acting as level 1 shields vs.
fighter attacks.
PDS Level 5 - effect as noted above regarding misses, plus acting as
level 2 shielf vs. fighter attacks.
PDS of this type could be linked with 1 firecon/level to be "shared out"
in an area PD role.
Like shields, the idea is to cost/mass a PDS "network" on a ship's hull
like this on a percentage of hull/ points per mass basis like shields,
though the actual math I'll have to leave to others.
Also, I haven't thought this through to try to figure out how a system like
this should interact with SMs.
--Tim
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 06:16:54PM -0400, Flak Magnet wrote:
> One idea we've tossed (and the playtest group too, I gather) is to
Oh. Right. Have you not seen the "officially unofficial" version of this
posted last year?
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00286.html
This is something that several people are very fond of (and others despise).
It definitely should be part of your mental background when talking about
fighter balance, though.
> Flak Magnet wrote:
> One idea we've tossed (and the playtest group too, I gather) is to
Pretty much, yes. See eg.
<http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00286.html>
> Stop thinking of PDS's as a distinct weapons choice and instead start
Sounds like you're reading this straight out of the FT2 description of beam
batteries (FT2 p.9)... they too are networks of projectors rather than single
systems. Most other weapons can be abstracted in the same way too.
> Instead of stocking up on massed PDS, PDS are bought like shields, in
is
> used to determine no only whether the fighters attack is successful,
This is essentially the same as Starmada's "anti-fighter batteries"
(except that you allow more than one level on each ship whereas a Starmada
ship can only have one set of AF batteries), and shares its basic problem: if
you
allow too few levels it usually won't be enough, and if you allow too many
levels it makes the fighters useless instead. FWIW we've tried several
different variations of this theme, but none of them survived past the
first playtest battle :-(
Regards,
> Roger B-W wrote:
> >One idea we've tossed (and the playtest group too, I gather) is to
Don't be frightened off by the turgid prose, BTW. That file is as huge as it
is because it explains just about everything in detail thrice... I tried
to get some of the native-speakers on the playtest list to clean it up,
but to little avail :-/
Laserlight, is your "beta-test light" file available on-line somewhere?
IIRC you condensed the beta-test fighter rules down to about two pages,
including the complete revised turn sequence.
Later,
Has anyone played with how fighters work using vector rules? Not just for the
big ships, but for each fighter group.
A long time ago we tried this, and the couple of games we played had the
fighters close quickly, make a single attack, then spend the next few rounds
slowing down and returning for a second pass.
With more experience it's probably possible to get the fighters to stay around
for longer, but it may reduce their effectiveness, especially since there's no
reason they have to be faster than ships (maybe an acceleration of 8, with no
cost for turning).
> I tried to get some of the native-speakers on the playtest list to
G'day,
> Has anyone played with how fighters work using vector rules?
We did a few years back, due to the typical numbers of fighters you'd get on
the board even from a FB match it up it got
sllllllllooooooowwwwwwwwwwww very quickly - at least for the fleet
engagement sizes Derek and I prefer.
Cheers