Fighters, Canadians, and GZG-ECC CanAm

3 posts ยท Jun 6 2001 to Jun 6 2001

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 20:11:47 -0400

Subject: Fighters, Canadians, and GZG-ECC CanAm

As author of the Canadian misfortunes at CanAm, I can say:

1) Fighters have a per unit value that is non-
linear (as Brian so rightly pointed out). Few is almost valueless, some is
about right, lots are overpowering (value wise). Note that very few cannon
ships have ADFC or enough PDS for a high fighter environment.

2) I misinterpreted a piece of oblique intelligence provided by the ref which
should have clued me in to the huge fighter assault. I thought I was being
denied information, the truth is I was being given a fact in a roundabout way.
Mea culpa.

3) Our fleet was based around ripping out everything that wasn't a beam 2 or 3
pretty much or a ptorp. The idea was to throw the max beam dice. One of my
modified Komarovs could throw an entire BRICK of dice (or pretty
close) at once. But the enemy took the fighters-
weak carriers fleet and correspondingly sent out the fighters and hid the
carriers. Only one third of our fleet got within interception range, and it
met the remainder of 25 fighter squadrons (about 15 or 16) and a few SML
salvoes all at once. By this time, the fighters had killed our 6 squadrons of
heavy interceptors (we had fighters and good ones, just not rafts of them) as
well as about a third of the fleet. Once again we see the problem with ships
only being able to fire at fighters attacking them... it was interesting to
watch the fighters gnaw on them one at a time.

3) We're ground pounders (except for Jim) so it was Adrian's first FT game and
I've played a couple of times but always with canon ships. Jim had played
before somewhat more, but always with canon ships IIRC. And he missed the
slingshot around the planet. His fleet third took no casualties, but nor did
it get in range to fire a shot. The guys against us mostly played FT more than
we had (I suspect) and some had played with homemade fleets before.

4) Even the US players (well Mike and Aaron) agreed the slaughter wasn't all
that much fun. In terms of competition, it was paper scissors rock and they
brought the dynamite. But they didn't enjoy their victory because they could
see it wasn't much of a tense battle. If I hadn't of
dived my fleet into planet-skimming depths to
get inside engagement range, the battle would
have ended with Team USA killing about 1/3rd
of our fleet, taking only fighter casualties, and us hypering out. That seemed
a wimpy way to end it, so I charged, all guns blazing, into the teeth of the
enemy with fighters on my heels and destroyers, light cruisers, and such
coming at my front. The end result was Jim got away, me and Adrian died
grotesquely. But it wasn't the most fun FT game I've ever played (no one's
fault, it just ended up that way).

5) Had I understood what Chris was trying to obliquely hint at, the Komarov
nearest the fighter swarm would have been a Komarov E with an ADFC and (yes,
count them) 70 PDS. That plus the DEs would have let Adrian throw 110 or so
PDS dice versus the first fighter attack. That would have probably slowed them
down significantly. Then our remaining 2/3rds
(sans inept piloting from Captain Bell of Fleet Engineering Construction)
could have beaten up the carriers and escorts fairly well. But, it didn't
happen like that.....

I must admit the FT game that was just run at Campcon was (I believe) much
more fun for all participants. Saw some exciting die rolling, things died, and
it was more balanced. (Of course, we worked to make it so!).:)

Better luck next time (in the rules setup for the
CanAm - I'd suggest letting each team ask 2
questions of the ref about the other teams designs then make some tweaks).

And maybe next year Jerry "Papers? I don't need no stinking papers!" Han or
one of the other Canadian FT players will come down and replace the
Groundpounders since we were FAR outside our element.:)

Tomb

From: Jaime Tiampo <fugu@s...>

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 18:02:03 -0700

Subject: Re: Fighters, Canadians, and GZG-ECC CanAm

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

Unless you take lots and lots of PDS and ADFCs. I fyou have no massive
defenses yes.

> 3) We're ground pounders (except for Jim) so

Sheesh. You think the GROPOs would leave well enough alone and let the vac
heads do their job:)

> Better luck next time (in the rules setup for the

And keep fighters. Course my opinion doesn't mean much since I won't be there,
though I wish I could be. When is it again? Maybe I'll try.

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:18:49 -0400

Subject: Re: Fighters, Canadians, and GZG-ECC CanAm

From: "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca>
> As author of the Canadian misfortunes at

Or high-SMR environment.  Islamic Strikers vs Anyone Else is amazingly
bloody.

> 3) We're ground pounders (except for Jim) so

We were worried about not having enough Canadians show up, so Adrian gallantly
volunteered to defend the honor of the flag. <applause>

> down significantly. Then our remaining 2/3rds

Team Maple Leaf also made two mistakes: 1. should have started closer to the
planet (and therefore closer to the American fleet)
2. should have run hell-for-leather straight at Team Stars & Stripes.
If they'd gotten close enough, fast enough, their weight of guns *might* have
evened things up a bit.

In their defense, though, there was a planet in the way and they were worried
about running into it.