Has anyone else found the rules on fighter movement rather silly? I know
they're as they are to keep things simple, but limiting fighters to a move of
12" (no continuous acceleration) means they're often left behind if you want
to make even a moderately quick strike by your larger ships.
So, has anyone used any continuous acceleration rules for fighters? If so, how
did they play? The obvious change of giving fighters an acceleration of 12",
and keeping track of their current velocity, removes the simplicity, and I'm
interested in seeing any 'nicer' ways of doing it.
> From: Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk>
Dim is the word I'd use. Though the rest of the rules provide a
vaguely physics-inspired movement system (note: I did not say
_realistic_) the missile and fighter rules are plain dim. Yeah,
they're simple, but really they don't make much sense with the other movement.
I'd like to play with fighters using normal movement plots, though making them
as maneuverable as the kravak, and ditto with missiles.
The problem is then to come up with some elegant hack which would allow
fighters some fudgeing at the end of the turn, so they'd be more able to
dogfight, etc. Maybe they don't plot in advance, but do use the normal
vectorish move?
In a message dated 96-09-16 20:12:22 EDT, you write:
<< So, has anyone used any continuous acceleration rules for fighters? If so,
how did they play? The obvious change of giving fighters an acceleration of
12", and keeping track of their current velocity, removes the simplicity, and
I'm interested in seeing any 'nicer' ways of doing it. >>
We've gone to using the following system for fighters. It combines both
systems. Fighters move after all other ships have moved. They may make up to a
3 pt turn at the beginning and halfway point of their movement. Additionally,
at the end of their move, fighters may add or subtract one trust marker. A
thrust marker adds 6" to the minimum and maximum speed the fighter will move
next turn (e.g. a standard fighter with two markers moves between 12" and 24".
Each thrust marker reduces turning capability as well. One marker restricts
the fighters to 2 point turns, 2 markers to two 1 point turns, and three
markers to a single one point turn. This system has worked well so far, making
fighters pay for maneuverability by sacrificing speed. A variant I may try is
to get rid of the normal fighter move all together and just use thrust
markers. Each marker provides 6" of minimum and maximum speed and reduces the
total points of turns (which are still divided into start and halfway point)
by one. Thus a fighter carrying 0 markers
moves 0-6" and can make two three point turns. A fighter with 3 markers
moves from 18"-24" and can make a one point and a two point turn (owner
decides which to take first). Fast fighters add 9" per thrust marker.
Later
Brian
Date sent: 17-SEP-1996 08:41:30
> Has anyone else found the rules on fighter movement rather silly?
> So, has anyone used any continuous acceleration rules for fighters?
> --
Drift counters work well. (Each turn place a drift counter where the fighter
group WAS. The line between the counter and the current location is the
current vector. Works best when using 'Realistic Movement in Full Thrust') But
in general, on most tables, fighters will be able to outmaneuver and outrun
most ships. If you aren't able to do this in your games, slap some moving
Asteroids on the table. That will slow those ships down.
Date sent: 17-SEP-1996 08:52:32
> Has anyone else found the rules on fighter movement rather silly?
> I'd like to play with fighters using normal movement plots, though
If you do that for missiles, I'd implement a flowchart so that the missile
plots it's own movement, otherwise they would be too powerful.
For fighters, as you say, you get a problem trying to dogfight. Perhaps you
could make dogfight 'range' 3"?
Hi sam.
One thought is to treat squadrons the same as ships. No need to pre plot
each turn just record there previous turns speed. Fighters can accelerate by
up to 12" a turn. The problem comes with dogfighting. You can say only
dogfight if the difference in speed between the 2 sqns is less than 12".
We could maybe playtest this one Friday.
----------
From: FTGZG-L[SMTP:FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk]
Sent: 17 September 1996 08:49
To: FTGZG-L
Cc: A.Delafield
Subject: RE: Fighter movement
Date sent: 17-SEP-1996 08:41:30
> Has anyone else found the rules on fighter movement rather silly?
> So, has anyone used any continuous acceleration rules for fighters?
> --
Drift counters work well. (Each turn place a drift counter where the fighter
group WAS. The line between the counter and the current location is the
current vector. Works best when using 'Realistic Movement in Full Thrust') But
in general, on most
> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:55:13 +0100
> If you do that for missiles, I'd implement a flowchart so that the
Of course.
> For fighters, as you say, you get a problem trying to dogfight.
Perhaps
> you could make dogfight 'range' 3"?
Reasonable enough.
We did have one dogfight that started in our game on Sunday. I say it
_started because when the 3" radius nuke went off an inch away it took
all of the fighters with it. Awwww.
I guess you could allow dogfights to be declared if they end within 3" or
less, then move 'em all into contact for the actual dogfight. That way such
accidental nukes won't end up taking out one side and not the other.
> In message <960917024048_310380904@emout03.mail.aol.com> Brian wrote:
> systems. Fighters move after all other ships have moved. They may
I quite like this idea, though it would mean the bases for my fighters would
start getting crowded (they already have markers for endurance, and number of
fighters).
I don't particularly see reason to reduce their manoeuvrability, since
standard ships don't suffer due to high velocity,
> In message <009A87FD.A5CE3A72.11@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk> you wrote:
> Date sent: 17-SEP-1996 08:41:30
We normally find fighters are very easily left behind, unless we delibrately
hold back the rest of the fleet. The tables aren't
that big either - only about 100cm/250cm
> In message <009A87FE.67051E72.31@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk> Adam wrote:
> If you do that for missiles, I'd implement a flowchart so that the
I know what a flow-chart is, but how would you use them with missiles?
Are we talking rudimentary AI routines here?
> In message <9609171543.AA13206@gecko.zycor.lgc.com> you wrote:
> all of the fighters with it. Awwww.
You don't need nukes in our games, just me rolling the dice (four
groups of heavy interceptors against four groups of bog-standard
fighters, and the standard fighters came off better. No wonder the NSL lost to
the ESU that day....)
Hello Everybody,
I think of the starships having "reactionless" drives (GURPS Space) and the
fighters having "normal" reation mass drives. This is the rationalization I
use for fighter endurnance. I then allow the fighter groups to burn a round of
endurance if they want to exceed the 12" movement (up to 24").
As Sam your fleet always will to the mighty fighting 3rd!!!!
Simon CS
I had an arguement over fighter movement today. Just wanting to make sure
about fighter movement.
Can a fighter group move up to 12" in any direction regardless of its current
facing, and change to any facing at the end of its movement? (Ex. a fighter
group starts it movement facing 12 o'clock, decides to move 12" in the 5
o'clock direction and ends up facing 9 o'clock)
> ChanFaunce@aol.com wrote:
> I had an arguement over fighter movement today. Just wanting to make
My understanding of the ruling is as follows: The FT rules state that "you may
move fighter groups up to 12" in any direction" there are no requirments to
face the FG in any particular direction at the end of the move, you can choose
which direction it faces. It was this 'freedom' of positioning that led to the
introduction of the MT fighter movement sequence to make it more difficult for
the fighter group to target a ship.