> Mike Wikan wrote:
Seems like a good tactic. Attacking a ship with limited fighter defenses might
provide a definite advantage for the fighters. More attacking fighter
groups might cause the enemy to divide his/her fire or leave some groups
completely alone.
On the bad side, this would be a definite disadvantage when engaging in
dogfighting combat against superior numbers.
> joachim wrote:
Interesting idea. A group would probably be limited to 6 fighters again, so
you might only combine groups totaling <= 6. Maybe have groups combine by
touching each others bases at the end of movement and elect a regroup option
which might say, prevent them from making an attack that turn since they are
busy trying to form up. Next turn, replace the bases with one base
indicating the new number of fighters combined and move/attack as
normal. Any attacks made against the fighters during the regroup must be made
against an individual group, not the combined group until the following turn.
> I don't know if
A combined group will not be any less/more effective in dogfighting, but
will have an advantage if making a normal attack within 6" of an enemy group.
The enemy group could attack ONE fighter group, but the divided forces of the
other player might ALL be able to attack the lone enemy group.
> Mike writes:
> joachim wrote:
Hmmm...presumably, 6 pilots who have trained together will be a more effective
team than 6 who have never met. Maybe fighters from the same carrier could
combine without penalty, but combining fighters from different carriers
creates a squadron of "turkeys" as per MT? Of course, I can't think of any
real advantage to having 1 squadron of 6 fighters, as opposed to 2 squadrons
of 3 each, so there'd be no incentive to regroup? Is there?
> Oops! I wrote:
<add the following...> two or more smaller groups
> will have an advantage if making a normal attack within 6" of an enemy
> Mike Miserendino writes:
@:) > One thing they never mention is whether you can combine damaged @:)
>fighter groups into (fewer) new, undamaged groups.
@:)
@:) Maybe have groups combine by touching each others bases at the end
Hmm... Actually I guess was thinking that they would combine while on board a
carrier but there's no good reason for them not to just get together out in
space.
@:) >I don't know if there'd be much advantage to that anyway - maybe
@:) >not, actually, since you would have less ability to pin down the @:)
>enemy in dogfights.
@:)
@:) A combined group will not be any less/more effective in
@:) dogfighting, but [two or more fighters] will have an advantage if @:)
making a normal attack within 6" of an enemy group. The enemy @:) group could
attack ONE fighter group, but the divided forces of @:) the other player might
ALL be able to attack the lone enemy group.
True. If you want to get really picky a group of single fighter "groups" would
have an advantage while attacking ships because the most any PDAF could kill
at one time would be 1, rather than the normal possibility of killing 2 (on a
6). So I cast my vote for no
single fighter non-groups or other fighter disbersement procedures.
> Scott Field writes:
@:) Hmmm...presumably, 6 pilots who have trained together will be a @:) more
effective team than 6 who have never met. Maybe fighters from @:) the same
carrier could combine without penalty, but combining @:) fighters from
different carriers creates a squadron of "turkeys" @:) as per MT?
That'd probably be a good idea. Actually, perhaps any recombining of fighter
groups should result in a turkey squadron. Perhaps if the fighter groups were
already turkeys, the recombined group has to roll one die per turn as though
from PDAF to represent pilots crashing into each other:)
> Scott Field wrote:
Good point. I did not include anything about pilot ratings or carrier source.
If you don't use pilot skill ratings, combining should work fine. During past
wars, pilots have teamed up with pilots from other countries to fight
together. While not the perfect fighting machine, the combined effort helped
moral as well as continued fighting strength.
How about the following for mixing pilot skill ratings:
If 75+% of the pilots are Ace, then the group is Ace.
If 75+% of the pilots are Turkeys then the group is Turkey.
If less than 75% of the pilots are Ace and less than 75% of the pilots are
Turkeys than the group is Normal.
> Of course, I can't think
Sure there is. For dogfighting, it would be in your best interest to attack
with the maximum fighters allowed.
> Mike Miserendino writes:
@:)
@:) >Of course, I can't think of any real advantage to having 1 @:) >squadron
of 6 fighters, as opposed to 2 squadrons of 3 each, so @:) >there'd be no
incentive to regroup? Is there?
@:)
@:) Sure there is. For dogfighting, it would be in your best interest @:) to
attack with the maximum fighters allowed.
If your purpose is to win the dogfight, this is true. If your purpose is to
protect a ship, I would think you'd want as many fighter groups as possible
since they tie each other down in groups. So your one fighter would delay six
of theirs for one turn, and then it would get blown away. But maybe your ship
managed to get out of range or something in the meantime.
> joachim wrote:
Yes, this is a good reason as well for multiple groups. Like mentioned before,
it is also beneficial when attacking an enemy ship to overwhelm its defenses.
> So your
It's possible, but only if the enemy group declares to engage in the dogfight.
They may elect to save their attack for the ship in question(which is usually
what happens).
> In message <199608272029.QAA21328@sparczilla.East.Sun.COM> you wrote:
> Mike Miserendino writes:
Actually, this will work whether you want to destroy the fighters or just tie
them up.
Split a group into six groups of one fighter. The first fighter attacks the
enemy group, and is probably destroyed (unless I'm rolling the dice for the
enemy, in which case he survives). But, the enemy have lost one turn of
endurance, plus can only destroy at most one of your fighters. Next turn, you
send in your second fighter, and then your third. Assuming normal fighters,
the enemy has used all its endurance, and maybe two or three fighters. You've
lost at most three fighters, and have three more fighters who have used no
endurance.
Of course, having witnessed this tactic once, the enemy then splits all its
groups into single fighters. So no benefit is gained by either side, and the
game runs a lot slower because we now have six times as many fighter groups to
move.
I think it's probably best to say that fighter groups must have six fighters
(minus those lost to combat of course). Keeps things simple.
> On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> @:) >I don't know if there'd be much advantage to that anyway - maybe
most sensible pilots would not attack a squadron of six unless odds were
in their favor i.e. lots of buddies going in at the same time.)
--Binhan
> Sam wrote:
> Of course, having witnessed this tactic once, the enemy then splits
Time for new tactics.;)
> I think it's probably best to say that fighter groups must have
It's probably a good idea to keep it simple, but one of the best parts of FT
is the ability to modify it for your own taste. I think it would be fun to try
regrouping options in the future, at least once. BTW I originally suggested to
regroup, not break up a squadron(assuming this would be done at
the start - smaller squadrons on a ship or squadrons with losses). Part
of the idea was to keep it simpler.
> At 03:25 PM 8/27/96 +0000, you wrote:
Would you permit fighters of different types to group together? I can't see
any reason why before or after a sortie interceptors couldn't group with say
torpedo planes to protect them. However, I have the feeling that if you
allowed fighter groups of mixed types to exist the game might degenerate into
a logistic nightmare.
James
> Would you permit fighters of different types to group together?
I
> can't see any reason why before or after a sortie interceptors couldn't
I wouldn't. I'd allow them to travel together, and if someone attempted to
engage the torp ftrs in dog-fighting the interceptors could turn about
and
engage *them* in a dog-fight. :-)
Keep them two seperate groups; saves on logistics, too. :-) (then why
am *I* always trying to complicate things??)
Mk
> James wrote:
I
> can't see any reason why before or after a sortie interceptors couldn't
I agree. Combining different fighter types would cause some problems. Keeping
an interceptor group ahead of say, a torpedo wing, might help protect the
weaker torpedo fighters from other fighters.