Hi, I would like to know what you think: Super heavy fighters: These fighters
act as if level 2 screens screen them. Cost: 4 Eff: 3 Ultra heavy fighters:
Level 3 screens screen these fighters. Cost: 6 Eff: 4 Mega heavy fighters:
These fighters act as if they had level 4 screens, that is they can't be
damaged by any beam weapons on a modified roll of less than 6. Cost: 8 Eff: 5
Advanced propulsion: For those who want more variation with there fighter's
speed and endurance.
Cost: (((Endurance+1)/2)*(Speed/6))-3
Eff: ((Endurance+1)/2)+(Speed/6)-3
Example: A person is designing an ultra long range SWAC (Endurance 11, speed
6)
Cost: (((11+1)/2)*(6/6))-3
(((12/2)*(1))-3
(6*1)-3
6-3
3
Eff: ((11+1)/2)+(6/6)-3
(6+1)-3
4
Internal fighter weapons: For those of you who want lots of firepower:
Cost: ((average damage)*3-1.25)*(Range/6)
Eff: ((average damage)*2-1.5)*(Range/6)
Example: The NAC scientific community has come up with a missile that can lock
onto enemy fighters, it has 66% chance of killing a fighter, it has a range of
9 MU.
Cost 1
Eff 0
Bye Stephen
> Hi,
[mega-snip]
I have one comment here: over the top. Level 4+ screens ?!? This would
make them more effective than ships by a large margin.
As for Anti-Fighter Missiles, I once posted an idea about treating them
as a PDS, perhaps with increased effectiveness, when they go boom.
In a message dated 99-01-22 23:09:29 EST, you write:
<< I have one comment here: over the top. Level 4+ screens ?!? This
would make them more effective than ships by a large margin.
What I figured by that is: there are two ways to live: nimble and week or slow
and strong.
As for Anti-Fighter Missiles, I once posted an idea about treating them
as a PDS, perhaps with increased effectiveness, when they go boom.
Schoon >> I have not thought about that. One way to do that is have fighters
that are attached to the ship and move with it, the would automaticaly screen
the ship.
-Stephen
Too much. Too many fighter types. What I would suggest would be that
traditional fighters
are changed to light fighters---no change in points or capabilities,
heavy fighters are
changed to medium fighters--again no change in points or capabilities,
and a new heavy fighter with level two screen is created.
I would also like a to see a change in Attack and Interceptor fighters. The
attack value on
non-optimal targets is too weak. Interceptors should score one point of
damage on ships with a roll of 5 or 6, and Attack fighters should be able to
kill on fighter on a roll of 5 or 6.
In a message dated 99-01-23 00:13:06 EST, you write:
<< Too much. Too many fighter types. What I would suggest would be that
traditional fighters
are changed to light fighters---no change in points or capabilities,
heavy fighters are
changed to medium fighters--again no change in points or capabilities,
and a new heavy fighter with level two screen is created.
I would also like a to see a change in Attack and Interceptor fighters.
The
attack value on
non-optimal targets is too weak. Interceptors should score one point
of damage on ships with a roll of 5 or 6, and Attack fighters should be able
to kill on fighter on a roll of 5 or 6.
IAS >> Maybe, but there are a lot of fighter types in the world today, some of
us like to try thing out with fighters, like checking out the tactical
advanges of int attack, or having an attack fighter with two torps or tring
fighters
that have standard anti-fighter with no anti ship.
-Stephen (BTW the UBW force is 25% CVL/CVA)
If you can get players, have fun. But I don't want the rules changed that way.
Too many fighters types; too SFBish. Sure there are a lot of fighters types in
the world today; but how much different do they perform? Not as much as your
making them out to.
> Hi,
I fought against Iceberg's Stealth-2 Fighters (from his New Isreali
stats)
last night. 3 squadrons of these damned Stealth-2 fighters, which acted
as
if they had level-2 screens, mauled me hard, and I *barely* managed to
take out 2 of the three squadrons before they ran out of combat endurance!
> Ultra heavy fighters:
Aside the fact there are no level-3 screen anythings anymore, these
sound even more ugly and ugly. One'd almost never be able to defend against
them.
> Mega heavy fighters:
I'm not going against these!
> Advanced propulsion:
Maybe. Maybe not. It's adding, for me at least, a layer of complication I was
assuming had been originally abstracted into the game system already.
I'm mostly happy with the current FB/MT fighters (except Noam's d*mned
Stealth-2s :P ). But that's just me. Let's see what everyone else has to
say...
Mk
> << Too much. Too many fighter types. What I would suggest would be
Aye, but overall how varied are their capabilities? Except for a few
specialized, they *essentially* are similar. A fighter is a fighter is a
fighter. A bomber is a bomber is a bomber.
Besides, one trap people keep falling in is that of trying to compare
directly current naval/airforce assets/capabilities to those in FT. You
can draw analogies, but direct comparisons I don't think always work that
well. There's sea/air combat, and then there's space combat.
Also remember to abstract, not bog yourself down in the details. (well, okay,
you don't have to, but I'm going to stay in the abstract and leave the detail
options like the ones you suggested to SFB playing:)
(I don't mean to slam SFB, it has it's place, and I like to play it -
when I
have a week to play a scenario - but it ain't what I'm looking for
necessarily in FT)
> some of us
Well, there are already fighters that have standard anti-fighter w/no
anti-
ship capability - they be called 'interceptors'. :) The MT book has
torp fighters already.
Mk
> Too much. Too many fighter types. What I would suggest would be that
I'd say keep it as is, with "standard" and "heavy" fighters. The real world
seems to work that way, eg among American forces F16 and 18 are pretty clearly
Light, F15 and F14 are Heavy. Now, I might agree with larger
craft--occupying twice the space of a normal fighter--for some purposes,
such as Large Attack or ECM birds, but I wouldn't let them get Screen 2, much
less 3 or 4. How would you get Screen 4 on fighters when it isn't available
for ships? Doesn't make sense to me.
In a message dated 99-01-23 16:37:25 EST, you write:
<< I'd say keep it as is, with "standard" and "heavy" fighters. The real world
seems to work that way, eg among American forces F16 and 18 are pretty clearly
Light, F15 and F14 are Heavy. Now, I might agree with larger
craft--occupying twice the space of a normal fighter--for some
purposes, such as Large Attack or ECM birds, but I wouldn't let them get
Screen
2,
much less 3 or 4. How would you get Screen 4 on fighters when it isn't
available for ships? Doesn't make sense to me. >> They way that I think about
that is this: Is it harder to hit a Kestral than
a humming bird, in this case the Screen-4 is the fact that it is
maneverable rather than acual screening. Or you PBS that fighter screens take
less engergy to work and thuse can be brought up to higher levels. But I don't
think that I want to go there.
-Stephen
I agree that over-complicating the fighter rules too much will cause
problems. FWIW, my fighter construction rules are mostly about combining
existing fighter
capabilities in any way you want - and then paying for them. I did add
in Large fighters (1.5 spaces, or 4 per group) that allow you to more easily
carry additional abilities, but offset by the fact that your squadron size is
reduced.
Quick run-down of fighter frames:
Standard - nothing more to say
Heavy - same size & capacity, but built more solidly to absorb small
damage better
Large - umm, bigger.
Large Heavy - same as large, but built to the toughened level of Heavy
To understand Heavy fighters (at least, the way I understand them) They are
_Unscreened_. However they are more resistant to the lower-power PDS
than normal fighters, but this level of protection is immaterial in stopping
larger
weapons (C-batts, class-1 beams). Analogous to the difference in
small-arms
protection in a Huey vs Apache (supposedly resistant to 12.7mm
small-arms fire)
Hit either with a sidewinder and you are probably in for a nasty weekend.
Laserlight <laserlight@cwix.com> on 01/23/99 10:58:50 AM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Re: Fighter Missiles and such
> Too much. Too many fighter types. What I would suggest would be that
I'd say keep it as is, with "standard" and "heavy" fighters. The real world
seems to work that way, eg among American forces F16 and 18 are pretty clearly
Light, F15 and F14 are Heavy. Now, I might agree with larger
craft--occupying twice the space of a normal fighter--for some purposes,
such as Large Attack or ECM birds, but I wouldn't let them get Screen 2, much
less 3 or 4. How would you get Screen 4 on fighters when it isn't available
for ships? Doesn't make sense to me.
> Jared E Noble wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> To understand Heavy fighters (at least, the way I understand them)
They are
> _Unscreened_. However they are more resistant to the lower-power PDS
Human heavy fighters a 'screened', Kra'Vak fighters (all types) are
considered heavy (in this case heavy means - armored).
hope that helps, Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
> Human heavy fighters a 'screened', Kra'Vak fighters (all types)
are
> considered heavy (in this case heavy means - armored).
John, I'm afraid you have made this up. MT says that heavy fighters are
"better protected from attack by armoured hulls, heavier structural
components etc." and that they are *treated* as if they had level-1
screens. I can't find any place in MT where it says or even implies that human
heavy fighters actually *have* screens.
Of course, in your universe they may have screens. You can't use your
homegrown background to wave away other people's explanations of how they see
things working (like you seem to do with Jared's description of heavy
fighters), though.
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
MT says that heavy fighters are
> "better protected from attack by armoured hulls, heavier structural
> Regards,