G'day guys,
> All of the methods you folks are proposing would emasculate carriers.
I've been way busy at work so haven't been able to keep up with the thread,
could somebody please list the various alternatives thrown out so I can try
them out and see if Ryan's comment holds out (after two weeks of deciphering
someone else's undocumented/unreadable c I feel a BIG gaming session
coming
on...)
Thanks
On Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:12 AM, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
> [SMTP:Beth.Fulton@csiro.au] wrote:
Very heavy signal/noise ratio on this one.
> From what I've been able to decipher so far:
1. let PDS attack every squadron that attacks. 2. increase the points and mass
up the wazoo.
3. let class-2 and above take pot shots at any range
4. adjust the effectiveness of PDS to close to scatterpack results 5. shoot
whoever started the thread. 6. reduce the endurance of fighters
I probably missed a few in all the noise.
From: Robertson, Brendan
> From what I've been able to decipher so far:
1a. if so, adjust PDS to-hit *down* so ships don't become invincible
> 2. increase the points and mass up the wazoo.
2a. Or tamper with requirements for carriers, not fighters, to avoid soap
bubbles.
> 3. let class-2 and above take pot shots at any range
I don't recall #5 but if so, take a number. There's a long line ahead of you.
Don't expect your turn until at least GZGECC VII.
> 6. reduce the endurance of fighters
7. Allow mixed tech (plasma, scatterpacks) as a way of balancing fighters
Well, all I was suggesting was the 40% hard limit on amount of hull space
that's permissible to be devoted to fighters. _Maybe_ reduce heavy
fighters' bonus against scatterguns from a straight "half kills" to a simple
"-1 kills per die". Although if you had the 40% rule, the other
probably wouldn't be necessary.
This would do little more than get rid of the "soap bubble" problem... which,
I agree, stretches the system to a degree that some might consider it broken.
If you don't adopt the 40% rule, though, the scattergun adjustment pretty much
has to be adopted, IMO.
E (aka Stilt Man)
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
Thanks for the lists guys.
Cheers
> On 9-May-02 at 00:40, Laserlight (laserlight@quixnet.net) wrote:
> > 5. shoot whoever started the thread.
Is there any way I can argue for clemency? All I said was some think fighters
are too powerful.
> Brendan Robertson wrote:
> Very heavy signal/noise ratio on this one.
Actually a lot of what's been discussed has been pretty informative. It's
opened my eyes to just how powerful fighters are.
> From what I've been able to decipher so far:
*SNIP*
> 5. shoot whoever started the thread.
That would be me.
3B^2
Laserlight
> > 5. shoot whoever started the thread.
Given that I'm on the West Coast, Going to ECC will guarantee you NO shot at
me.
Ironic, though. Everyone was grumpy about how Off-Topic the list was
getting. I actually bring up a question that initiates the
longest-running
ON-topic thread we've had in ages, and I get criticized for it. Makes
me wonder if I should bother posting at all.
3B^2
> From: Robertson, Brendan
> > 5. shoot whoever started the thread.
I said:
> I don't recall #5 but if so, take a number. There's a long line ahead
Roger Books said:
> Is there any way I can argue for clemency? All I said was
Was it you? I thought *I* started it, that's why I said there was a long line.
Your line is a lot shorter.....***BANG!***
In message <F79cM3oryKFRJrzdDW60000de60@hotmail.com>
> "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Laserlight
No, keep posting, this has been interesting!
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> No, keep posting, this has been interesting!
I'll do just that. I made a suggestion earlier today, I'm wondering what
people think of it. I can articulate it in a little more detail, and even PSB
it, I was hoping the group could exlpore how it would change things for the
better or worse.
Here's the suggestion. With or without changing any other rules concerning
PDS/Fighters, put the following restriction on fighters:
When engaging missiles or other fighters, fighters may engage in as many
dogfights as their endurance allows. However, once a fighter squadron makes an
attack on a ship, it may not make another attack on a ship until it has
returned to it's own ship, landed, and re-launched. If the attack
misses, the fighter does not expend it's attack, unless the roll was a 1, in
which case no damage is done AND the fighters must still return to reload.
PSB:
Fighters are much smaller than ships - in fact, according to what I've
been
told On-list that they're less than 1 mass each. This means they must
be carrying some special ordnance to allow them to hurt a ship. It might be
nukes, it might be chem-charged lasers, whatever suits your flavor. But
this ordnance must be expended to in order to hurt a ship. The fighter will
probably still have enough remaining minor ordnance/weapons to engage
other fighters, but rearming will be necessary in order to make another run on
a ship.
As I see it, this has some potential for the situation as it's been expressed
by both sides. Fighters do NOT lose any power for any given run, but it does
stretch out how long it takes them to kill a ship, and it makes protection of
their carriers paramount.
Thoughts?
3B^2
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Problem with that last bit: does this mean that we have to keep track of which
fighters have expended their attacks and which haven't? One of the great
virtues of the fighter system is that a group has only the following
characteristics:
(1) type (2) location (3) screening status (4) number remaining (5) CEF
remaining
If I have to keep track of which ones have an attack remaining and which ones
don't, that's going to slow things down a lot. I suggest that the one attack
is expended, whatever the die roll.
It basically has the effect of making all fighters "Light" Torpedo Fighters.
Currently torpedo fighters cost 36 per squadron, but each fighter has a
mini-torp that does as much damage as the die roll (no-re-roll on 6) but
misses on 1-3 (so a 4 would do 4 damage). They have a slight
disadvantage dogfighting, hitting only on 6's. They are single shot against
ships.
By making standard fighters single-shot with normal dogfighting
capability, they effectively become light torpedo fighters doing less damage
to ships but able to intercept other fighters on a normal basis.
Perhaps one way to deal with huge swarms of fighters is to have the "Escort
Interceptor". Bought in the standard groups of 6, each interceptor must remain
within 24" of the launching ship, but each
fighter can engage an enemy squadron. One kill on 3-4, two kills on 5,
two kills and a re-roll on a 6. The PSB reasoning for the 24" range is
that the command and control functions are based on the launching ship and the
fighters need to maintain close contact to maintain optimal coverage. So 2
squadrons of Escort Interceptors would allow you to engage up to 12 opposing
squadrons. This would allow you to burn up opposing fighter endurance and
inflict some casualties, for relatively low cost.
The down-sides are that escort carriers can be picked off like the
dedicated PDS platforms, Escort Interceptors provide no anti-ship
offensive capability. The mass issue of having a hangar keeps it from being
used in some of the smaller ships.
The upside is that if you play with morale and endurance rules, the attacking
fighters will burn off some endurance, may take casualties which could cause a
morale check which in turn would reduce the
effectiveness of the anti-ship attack.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
The problem is that a lot of people use a die to mark CEF...
Hmmm, I fired my torpedo and my CEF went from 1 to 6...;)
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> At 8:56 PM +0100 5/9/02, Roger Burton West wrote:
What happened to Torpedo Fighters having one shot? You could turn the CEF
marker upside down when they've expended their attacks.
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> Problem with that last bit: does this mean that we have to keep track
Yes, it would.
> If I have to keep track of which ones have an attack remaining and
I forgot, is each fighter tracked separately? I was assuming attacks by a
squadron as a whole.
I suggest that the
> one attack is expended, whatever the die roll.
That could work too, maybe I was being too generous. Your suggestion makes
sense.
3B^2
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 03:59:58PM -0400, Ryan M Gill wrote:
Fair point, I forgot about them. Sorry. The contrast I'm trying to draw is
between "this group has expended its attack", with which I don't have a
problem, and "these two fighters out of the group have expended their attacks
but the others haven't", which I think would slow things down.
On 9-May-02 at 16:11, laserlight@quixnet.net (laserlight@quixnet.net)
wrote:
> From: Brian Bilderback bbilderback@hotmail.com
Add
> this to the "fighters burn a CEF every turn plus extra for
Not to be a wet blanket, but the few squadrons on a BDN or SDN or worth even
less with this rule.
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 04:10:42PM -0400, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> Rather than just say "only one attack" perhaps "attacking a ship
Maybe. I think I'd want test games. It certainly sounds interesting. Someone
who wants massed fighter swarms will have to put more resources into carrier
defence...
Perhaps not. The main strategy is still going to be first strike. You mass
enough fighters in the first wave as combat air patrol (CAP) to
take down all or part of the anti-fighter defenses - either the
dedicated PDS ships or the defending fighters. If the defenses are integrated,
you simply attack the biggest threat and work your way down the threat ladder.
The current problem is that most equal point fleets can't stop that first wave
from getting in and killing something. It's kinda moot that his fighters are
empty if he has already wiped all your big guns off the table. In addition,
the CAP may already be on it's way
back to re-arm and re-fuel and will be waiting for you at the carrier
when your remaining escort ships show up.
As the adage goes - the best defense is a good offense.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> Fair point, I forgot about them. Sorry. The contrast I'm trying to draw
And is what I meant to suggest.
and "these two fighters out of the group have expended their
> attacks but the others haven't", which I think would slow things down.
And which I would NOT suggest. :-)
3B^2
laserlight
> Rather than just say "only one attack" perhaps "attacking a ship costs
Makes sense, and can be PSB'ed as "CEF is the amount of ordnance/power
available to the fighter, and the extra umph needed to hurt a cap ship drains
it of that at a greater rate than normal dogfight combat does."
> Add this to the "fighters burn a CEF every turn
Don't know if I'd burn CEF every turn, just 1/combat turn as per current
rules, plus 2 extra for attacks on ships.
> If carriers are close, fighters can go rearm but the carrier is at
That's what I had in mind.....
> This avoids PSB problems with "PDS attack everyone" and "only a
> will allow tactics eg interceptors can force incoming strikes to burn
Glad you like.
3B^2
> B Lin wrote:
> It basically has the effect of making all fighters "Light" Torpedo
I don't have a problem with that.
> By making standard fighters single-shot with normal dogfighting
And become less locust-like. It makes sense to me.
3B^2
> Rather than just say "only one attack" perhaps "attacking a ship
Afterthought--if you chose "X CEF/attack" correctly, it would also
explain why SDNs and such have those fighters--that way the fighters can
get carried in close enough to be able to make 2-3 attacks instead of 1.
> Roger Books wrote:
> Not to be a wet blanket, but the few squadrons on a BDN or SDN or worth
Don't be so sure. BDN's and SDN's will be closer in with the enemy than
CV's will. That means their fighters will be launching from shorter distances.
Therefore, under this rule, they would take less time to return, rearm, and
get back out there. If they're used as defense, they'll tangle with attacking
fighters and slow down THEIR rearm rate. It seems like it makes them MORE
effective.
3B^2
> B Lin wrote:
> Perhaps not. The main strategy is still going to be first strike. You
> mass enough fighters in the first wave as combat air patrol (CAP) to
And if the fighters are busy with the other fighters and anti-fighter
defenses, the rest of the fleet makes a run for the carriers and pummels
them. If they're soapbubbles, they're toast. If they're NOT soapbubbles,
you're probably not going to see massive amounts of fighters to begin with.
> The current problem is that most equal point fleets can't stop that
SOMETHING. But under this plan, not EVERYTHING. And that's the key.
It's kinda moot that his fighters are empty if he has already wiped all your
big guns off the table.
Ok, how many fighters to how many big guns?
In addition, the CAP may already be on it's way back to re-arm and
re-fuel
and will be waiting for you at the carrier when your remaining escort ships
show up.
Unless you can get there and hit him while they're on the carriers - a
la Midway.
> As the adage goes - the best defense is a good offense.
And this rule would allow you to employ this adage against the carriers as a
way of defending against fighters.
3B^2
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 02:05:23PM -0700, Brian Bilderback wrote:
We need test games. :-)
Option 1: as standard rules but a turn in which the group attacks a ship
expends 3 CEF (as opposed to 1 at present).
Effect: an unintercepted group can make two attacks then limp home.
Anyone else just gets one. Does not blunt the first-strike power of a
soap-bubble group.
Option 2: as option 1, but fighters must expend a minimum of 1 CEF per
turn. (So either 3 or 4 would be expended in the ship-attack turn. I'd
go with 3.)
Effect: nobody gets two attacks without rearming. Has some effect in
reducing the soap-bubble group's power, but only if the groups can be
intercepted on the way in; may well not be sufficient to deal with the
perceived problem here.
I think this is a very interesting idea, but I'm not convinced that it will
deal with the perceived problems on its own.
laserlight
> Afterthought--if you chose "X CEF/attack" correctly, it would also
That thought had occurred to me too.
3B^2
> >Not to be a wet blanket, but the few squadrons on a BDN or SDN or
But what about the rule that the 'carrier' (the BDN/SDN in this case)
can not use thrust when launching or recovering fighters? I don't think it has
been removed but no rulebooks handy at the moment.
If these big ships which are usually slow to maneuver in the first place are
prohibited from using thrust while in the thick of battle to recover a fighter
group or two, I'd rather get my weapons in arc of the enemy and forget about
the fighters.
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> We need test games. :-)
You're welcome. :-)
> Option 1: as standard rules but a turn in which the group attacks a
Which is why I originally suggested 1 anti-ship attack per sortie,
period.
> I think this is a very interesting idea, but I'm not convinced that it
Maybe, maybe not, but it goes a long way towards addressing it.
3B^2
Dean Gundberg
> But what about the rule that the 'carrier' (the BDN/SDN in this case)
can
> not use thrust when launching or recovering fighters? I don't think it
Good point. How about this: If the ship expends thrust, the fighters must
expend endurance to land. If they don't, no endurance for landing is required.
3B^2
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> laserlight
The more I think about this "x CEF per anti-shipping attack" idea, the
more I like it. It leaves the bulk of the rules intact, changing only one
aspect of fighter operations, and those who don't like it will also find
it easy to ignore... It even gives those SDN/BDN squadrons a reason to
exist!
I just wish I had spare time for test games right now! (Moving, work & flight
school are destroying my free time!)
So basically I can front one squadron of fighters for every 66 points of BPV.
Most large capital ships are running 600+ BPV, or roughly 9+ squadrons
per capital ship.
Escorts are running 100-300 PBV so about 1.5 to 4.5 squadrons per ship.
Assuming 3.6 points of damage on average from a fully functional
squadron (one hit on a 4-5, two on a six, not counting re-rolls) most
ships will be destroyed in two turns to their equivalent cost in fighters
(i.e. a corvette of 80 NPV has about 7 hull and will be destroyed in two turns
by on squadron of fighters costing 66 NPV to field).
So if your fleet was comprised of 2000 points of ships, I could field 30
squadrons of fighters. If you took one large ship (say >800 NPV) that leaves
<1200 for escorting craft. If they were all corvettes at ~100
each that's 12 ships. So you have a total of 13 ships - I would
designage 12 squadrons to cover the corvettes, one each which will be
destroyed in two turns. The remaining 18 squadrons would take out the big guy.
On average the 18 squadrons will do 65 points per turn. Only Super Dreads have
enough points to survive a single turn and nothing will survive two at that
rate.
If you choose to take larger ships (say 2, 1000 NPV ones) I simply split the
attacks into two 15 squadron groups which each do 54 points per turn. Again
only Super Dreads will survive more than one turn.
Note that in most of these cases, it only took 1 turn to cripple/destroy
most of the ships. Some small piddling guys are left if I can't fire
twice. If limited to single anti-ship strike, I would draw one or two
squadrons to attack the larger guy to ensure it's destruction. In
either case, the ships would be pretty crippled after taking 3-4
threshold checks in one turn.
As for tactics, the bubble carriers would launch while running parallel to the
opposing fleet while running at velocity 20 or so. As long as the carriers are
able to stay below 24, the fighters will eventually catch up. Alternatively
with a bubble carrier per squadron, you disperse in all directions, allowing
some of the carriers to rearm and
re-load their fighters and then they re-launch and attack again. If you
only have one or two ships you can only chase down one or two carriers at a
time.
The problem is that FTL and drives are costed at a fixed rate, so there is no
points reason to have large bubble carriers, rather than
single-squadron carriers.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
Excerpted from a previous post:
> From: laserlight@quixnet.net [mailto:laserlight@quixnet.net]
> Brian Burger wrote:
> The more I think about this "x CEF per anti-shipping attack" idea, the
I'm still not sure whether the X CEF per ship attack or the 1 ship attack per
flight is the better variant, but it does give people playtest fodder.
3B^2
> -----Original Message-----
7. Allow PDS to engage all attacking fighter groups within 1 arc
I've tested this now and it doesn't emasculate fighters nor overpower PDS as
(1) does nor does it require a major change to the rules in terms of points
which would invalidate FB1 ships. It does have adverse effects on max range
missile salvoes though so might be better only be limited to fighters.
With good players on both sides more emphasis ends up on placement, both for
the fighter groups to position themselves to spread the PDS fire and for the
defender to get advantageous ADFC postioning in their fleet formation.
> I probably missed a few in all the noise.
> On 9-May-02 at 18:06, Brian Burger (yh728@victoria.tc.ca) wrote:
It doesn't do that. A single squadron will have less offensive
ability than it does now. A single squadron may be better relative
to the mass, but that's just because the mass has lost more. With this rule
change you are much better off discarding the fighters for 9 PDSes.
NB, I am not against this change, just against the hand waving claiming a
single squadron is better when in fact the single squadron is worth less than
it is currently.
On Friday, May 10, 2002 12:54 AM, Brian Bilderback
> [SMTP:bbilderback@hotmail.com] wrote:
I forgot to check the "reply address" before sending, it was supposed to be a
private message. Although a good topic with stimulating discussion; a lot of
the "noise" I referred to was the same idea being posted multiple times with
no meaningful changes with reference to other suggestions, to evolve ideas
further.
<We now return you to your regularly sheduled discussion>
You won't have to go to GZGECC VII
Son of GZG-WCC is in the planning stages, start looking for Airfare to
Oakland CA!
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> Roger Books wrote:
> It doesn't do that. A single squadron will have less offensive
Except that if you choose interceptors as your fighter type, you have an
extended-range PDS. Just because single squadrons become less effective
offensively, and even that is arguable, doesn't mean they become less useful.
> NB, I am not against this change, just against the hand waving
Worth less? Or just less of an offensive unit and more defensive in use?
3B^2
In message <F115gBa7ubgR3xSPcR900013154@hotmail.com>
> "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dean Gundberg
can
> >not use thrust when launching or recovering fighters? I don't think
Sounds good to me.
In message <RELAY1gRgsPLniqcZZ300005c0b@relay1.softcomca.com>
> "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> From: Brian Bilderback bbilderback@hotmail.com
Add this to the "fighters burn a CEF every turn plus extra for
combat/secondary move" and that may fix the fighter problem. If
carriers are close, fighters can go rearm but the carrier is at risk. If
carriers are distant, you're not going to lose many ships to swarms because
they can't just keep working their way around your fleet.
> This avoids PSB problems with "PDS attack everyone" and "only a
Long Range fighters suddenly become a lot more useful as well.
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> On Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:12 AM, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
Out of curiosity, what effect would allowing "wasted kills" from successful
PDS attacks to carry over to other squadrons attacking the ship? Has the
advantage of eliminating the time spent designating which PDS will fire at
which squadron and such. Just roll you PDS dice, total up the kills, and
remove that many fighters, then resolve their attacks.
In message <3CDE08FC.1090005@gte.net>
> Ray Forsythe <erf2@gte.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Out of curiosity, what effect would allowing "wasted kills" from
Well, definately worth a try, I think, could kill 2 birds with 1 stone (so as
to speak).
G'day,
> Out of curiosity, what effect would allowing "wasted kills"
Stiltman <Eric... confusing me by using your real name was very sneaky
;)>
this is your cue, you've been doing that all along if I remember correctly,
right?
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
> From: Charles Taylor <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>
> Ray Forsythe <erf2@gte.net> wrote:
The only problem I can foresee is how to allocate the kills. If you have 3
attacking squadrons (18 fighters), and your PDS kills 13 of those, does it
kill 2 squadrons plus 1 fighter from the third, or, 6, 4, & 3, or
5,5,&3?
3B^2
You then run into the problem when you have mixed fighters attacking -
The attacker wouldn't be able to "shield" his one torpedo squadron with 3
regular fighter groups, since the defender would just fire all his PDS,
mention that the torpedo fighters get killed first, then carry over to the
regular fighters.
Right now, he has to designate one or more PDS to the torpedoes and may well
go for over kill due to the potential damage that they can do, thus
allowing the 3 regulars to get in scott-free. Otherwise, the defender is
splitting his PDS's and may not kill all of the torpedoes. I think the current
system promotes the use of mixed types of fighters on an attack.
With morale rules - it is possible for a partial squadron not to make it
in, giving some weight to the tactic of spreading your fire out to as many
squadrons as possible and hoping that they fail their morale roll. So
competely destroying entire squadrons reduces the effectiveness of this
tactic.
--Binhan
> Out of curiosity, what effect would allowing "wasted kills"
Brian Bilderback schrieb:
> > > Out of curiosity, what effect would allowing "wasted
There are any number of possible methods to deal with that. Hust a matter of
defining a rule.
How about: attacker and defender each allocate half the hits? With any extra
hit allocated by the attacker.
As to the matter of handling heavy fighters under such a scheme: how
about doubling the average number of hits / PDS, put requiring 2 hits
to kill a normal fighter, 3 for a heavy, 1 for a light one?
Or: Light fighters have to be removed first, heavies last?
Greetings
> At 04:19 5/13/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
Personally, I'd lean towards as evenly as possible, or alternating attacker
and defender picks.
> At 15:33 5/13/2002 +0000, you wrote:
I'd lean towards an even distribution and randomize who gets the left over. So
for your example, I'd say 5, 4 & 4.
> Ray Forsythe wrote:
> I'd lean towards an even distribution and randomize who gets the left
*IF* I went with the option in question, I'd agree. I'm just not sure I
like it. Certainly, in huge games it would be a nice time-saving
measure, but otherwise I'd prefer to handle each PDS separately. In terms of
the
carry-over issue, that goes away as a necessity if you allow PDS to fire
at multiple targets.
3B^2
Eric wrote.
> > Out of curiosity, what effect would allowing
In such a situation as you discribe we spread the 'kills' over all attacking
squadrons, but the defender can select the order on which the kill occur. I.E.
A torp, an attack, standard fighter, and an interceptor attack a ship, the
ship fires and kills 9 fighters; this means that 3 torp, 2 attack, 2 standard,
and 2 interceptors are destroyed.
> B Lin wrote:
> You then run into the problem when you have mixed fighters attacking
Well, I'd suggest either even distribution of the hits across the attacking
squadrons, or alternating picking between defender and attacker.
> Right now, he has to designate one or more PDS to the torpedoes and
Well, if the hits are distributed equally to all attacking squadrons, you
still need a mix of fighters to soak up the hits. Ditto with alternating
picks.
> With morale rules - it is possible for a partial squadron not to
So
> competely destroying entire squadrons reduces the effectiveness of
+ >
> --Binhan