Yes, I am to lazy to type three e-mails...
1) Fighters
Curious question: Of those who don't really think fighters are unbalanced, I'd
ask: 1) how often do you play, 2) do you attend conventions and play FT or
tournaments, and 3) how many different people
do you tend to game with? and 4) do you usually play with mixed-tech
designs, standard custom designs, or FB designs? and 5) is your play in
the context of a campaign or strict one-off battle where each side
brings X NPV?
I ask this because a fair number of the people I know who have identified a
problem with fighters seem to play the game at home and at
conventions, playing with a fair variety of gamers in (mostly) one-off
battles, and who play fairly frequently (some nearly weekly or maybe
bi-weekly, as far as I can tell). Some of the proponents of not changing
the balance seem to be from the "don't play one-off games" or "don't
play very much" etc. group. Is this just a perception of a distinction in the
demographics of the two sides? Or does it maybe account for the difference in
perspective?
And I'll conclude by offering this one thought: If you're already
playing with custom designs and house rules and mixed-tech and campaign
rules, then you are already far beyond current state-of-rules. So any
changes should worry you very little, given you'll take what you like, change
what you don't, and make up anything you think you need to fill in the
blankss. A lot of new gamers (and some more experienced ones with time
constraints) want a low complexity game with no campaign, with
standard designs, and out-of-the-book rules. Considering this crowd is
likely to represent any growth in the game and a fair amount of new sales,
would it be a bad thing to consider them? After all, experienced veterans will
ignore what they don't like (some people still play FT rather than FTFB after
all).
2) DLD - Second Chris' call for a good mortar carrier. I think tracked
would be the most likely chassis, but wheeled or hover would be okay
(obviously the hover would ground on jacks or landing struts to fire). This is
another sadly missing item, just like a good mobile howitzer or ADA system.
The mortars and ADA are more likely to show up on an SG board than the
howitzers, so both would be very useful products.
3) Ndege, my man of the most excellent computer and pen art, welcome back to
the list! Glad to have you back, amazed at your work, and hoping for more! Mr.
Diamond, you rock!
> From: "Tomb" <tomb@dreammechanics.com>
> Some of the proponents of not changing
Guilty as charged. Please note that I am not entirely opposed to changing the
fighter rule. I'm merely opposed to changing them simply to favor a set of
premade FB1 designs. If it can be proven that they're broken in general, then
by all means change away. But prove it to me first.
> And I'll conclude by offering this one thought: If you're already
This is true, as far as it goes. My concern is that the more extraneous
rules get added to fit the TV setting, the more adjusting has to be done, and
the less practical it becomes to apply the system to other settings.
A lot of new gamers (and some more experienced ones with
> time constraints) want a low complexity game with no campaign, with
And for those people, standard designs vs. standard design games shouldn't be
creating the problems that massed fighters create, should they? So why create
a rule that corrects a problem they shouldn't be encountering to begin with?
After all, experienced
> veterans will ignore what they don't like (some people still play FT
Which is more practical -- to leave things as is/make minor
adjustments, and let the vets who want less powerful fighters employ their own
HR's to limit them, or go to the trouble of changing the rules to make
fighters more
friendly to FB1 designs, and let vets ignore them? It's 6 of one 1/2
dozen of the other from player POV, but from design POV, it seems that option
2's more of a hassle.
3B^2
> At 12:43 PM -0400 5/6/02, Tomb wrote:
I was playing like gang busters a while back at the War Room with a few
friends. We'd try to make custom scenarios that made more sense than 2 groups
of ships lined up from opposite sides of the table. My current project level
has reduced that ability. Perhaps this fall when the armored vehicles aren't
being worked on as much and I've got more things in the house taken care of.
What little convention time I've had has been predominantly spent running or
running in Dirtside games.
My preference is for scenarios with an umpire who comes up with the scenario
and victory conditions. Best one I ran had three sides each with different
victory conditions (side a with a convoy, escape from the pursuing force by
getting more V than they can carry parity in thrust was the key here, a bandit
group that was out to disable and capture cargo ships and a small savasku
force who's objective was to prevent any clear victory).
My designs are slight custom designs. Take a Furious, remove the major weapons
fit (leave the Class 1s) 2 ADFCs and PDS. Its a real escort cruiser like the
Atlanta Class, similar things were done to Majestics. Take a Ticonderoga, up
the mass with larger drives drop some class 2s and you've got a BC that
actually goes as fast as the fast cruisers and can out run the BB's and BDNs
like a BC should. I don't run soap bubble carriers and I don't have 500 Mass
ships. I also will refuse to engage if things look bad for my side after a
turn or three. I also prefer "scrolly boards" because you don't play space
battles in a 400,000km by 400,000km by 400,000km cube.
I don't do mixed tech. I don't play many house rules except for combo
fighters (LR-Heavy Interceptors, Heavy-Attack Fighters, Heavy-Torpedo
Fighters, [no heavy-interceptor-torpedo fighters btw])
> And I'll conclude by offering this one thought: If you're already
If you want a simple game without complexity then this isn't the game you are
looking for *waves hand*. You want www.game$work$hop.com. I hear their games
defenestrate all logic and rational as well as complexity. Move along *waves
hand*.
I say the same thing about Dirtside when people say its too complicated with
engineers, minefields, artillery (that doesn't deviate, gosh its too powerful)
and airdefense.
The thing that gets me is that there is a decided Rock Scissars Paper aspect
to the game just like there is in real life battles minus the lack of any
cohesive fleet activity (meaning scouting by fighters, Pickets and other
craft). People want to keep the game in the form of just a task group vs a
task group in a vacum. Presumably you've sent your ships against a given set
of ships for a reason. Where they just blips you ran headlong into, or did you
actually scout them out to see what they were?
If your opponent has 4 rocks and a pair of scissors, you hope to find that out
before you show up with 6 pairs of scissors don't you? Presumably in a con
tournament the folks running the tournament actually think about how the games
are matched or do they just throw a player down with a player? A Con should at
least have a limit on the number of rocks scissors and paper's that each
player is carrying in their Task Group no?
> 2) DLD - Second Chris' call for a good mortar carrier. I think tracked
If there aren't Mortar Carriers in SG. The easiest way one make one is modify
the APC with a roof hatch or build a turret with a large
Hi-elevation turret that would represent a breach loading Mortar
carrier.
Or you could build a jeep with a cargo area in the back where the mortar gets
stowed when the team isn't running a fire mission.
From: Brian Bilderback bbilderback@hotmail.com
> but prove it to me first
There's a reason why the Test List brought this up for discussion, which is
that "a frequent complaint is..."
> standard designs vs. standard design games shouldn't be creating the
Because it *is* possible to generate massed fighters with FB ships--not
as much as with custom designs, of course, but enough to notice the effect.
laserlight@quixnet.net schrieb:
> Because it *is* possible to generate massed fighters with
So maybe it would be enough to tone down the effect of fighters in the
quantities available to FB fleets? And not worry too much about fighters in
quantities beyond that? There
seem to be usable counters for non-standard designs.
Greetings