> At 09:38 PM 4/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
The way I've always played fighters is that they can pretty much move anywhere
within a 12" radius, choosing whichever heading they wish upon completion of
their move. I've always thought this was a direct reflection of their superior
manuverability. However, I do know that there are several optional rules which
dictate more realistic fighter movement, depending on the amount of
bookkeeping you're willing to do. I personally advocate the idea of making
fighters operate as MV 12 ships which plot seperately after all the big ships
have moved, but the people I play with are not too keen on that idea. I
suppose there are equally valid arguements for or against whichever system of
rules you choose; my advice would be to figure out what you think fighters in
your game should and shouldn't be able to accomplish, and choose (or make up)
the rules which best approximate your concept.
Take care,
> Nezach wrote:
I wanted to thank you all for the painting ideas and the FAQ. I also had
another question. I was reading over the advanced rules in FT for fighters. I
don't know if I just missed it or what, but I was wondering how many turns
fighters can take during their 12" move? The way I am reading it now is they
can take one turn in any direction at the beginning of their movement phase (I
know it doesn't specificaly say that). However, it doesn't seem right that a
element of fighters have
the same handling as a battledreadnought. Am I just being bone-headed
here? Am I missing something?
Enjoy,
Fighters can move to ANY position within 12" (any heading even on
non-headings).
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
Includes the Full Thrust Ship Registry Is your ship design here?
> Nezach wrote:
Under the basic rules, fighter groups can move in ANY direction on any
turn, regardless of their initial direction - they also do NOT have to
conform to one of the 12 set "courses" - simply move them anywhere you
want up to their maximum (12") move. Lots of people have posted alternative
ideas to this list, and you can feel free to use any of them (or your own) if
you prefer.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up. I think I will try playing with fighters with
your rules before I get delusions of grandure and make my own;)
Enjoy,
> In message <199704110756.IAA09538@gate.flexnet.net> Jon wrote:
> Under the basic rules, fighter groups can move in ANY direction on any
What exactly do you mean by 'set courses'? I've never taken the rules to mean
that ships can only travel in 12 possible directions. I've assumed a 1 point
turn is anything up to 30 degrees, a 3 point anything between 60 and 90
degrees.
Is this what is meant, or are ships really limited to being only able to
change facing in 30 degree increments?
> In message <199704110756.IAA09538@gate.flexnet.net> Jon wrote:
Yes, this IS really what is meant - ships can only turn in 30 degree
increments. This may sound restrictive (though it still allows twice the
freedom of a hex-grid) but in play is the only way of ensuring that
ships move exactly as written in their orders, which is one of the key parts
of the movement system and the game tactics. Of course, if you prefer to write
orders in degrees of angle and then move ships with a protractor, then fine as
long as your opponents all agree. The important point is that the written
orders must define EXACTLY where the ship goes, and not leave any
leeway for the player to change this when he moves the miniature -
otherwise it makes a nonsense of the advance (secret) order writing.
> In message <199704131133.MAA02058@gate.flexnet.net> Jon wrote:
> >Is this what is meant, or are ships really limited to being only
> The important point is that the
In that case, I always cheat <grin>. The way I write orders is more of a
reminder to myself how I wanted everything to move, than actual orders. And
yes, I have several times decided to send a ship in vaguely that direction,
seen where the enemy ships move to, and still moved it in vaguely that
direction when just a few degrees more would put him in range of my wave gun.
Should I be keeping quiet about my 'fuzzy' measurements as well then? (hey!
I'm a roleplayer not a wargamer. Rules are just there to be approximated:)).
> The important point is that the
Sam - it's nice to hear of someone who really does play with the
"spirit" of the game rather than the letter of the rules, and if you opponents
are happy with playing that way then stick with it with our [OFFICIAL]
blessings!:) Unfortunately not all players work this way, which is why the
rules are
written as they are - far too many will exploit any leeway to their own
advantage every time (just human nature I guess).
> Yes, this IS really what is meant - ships can only turn in 30
> The important point is that the
In that case, I always cheat <grin>. The way I write orders is more of a
reminder to myself how I wanted everything to move, than actual orders. And
yes, I have several times decided to send a ship in vaguely that direction,
seen where the enemy ships move to, and still moved it in vaguely that
direction when just a few degrees more would put him in range of my wave gun.
This could make an interesting variant, have players alternate the movement of
ships (yes I know slower and all that...) but allow them
vary their turns by half a tick +/-, represents the captain's ability
to alter ships movement somewhat but have the overall movement constrained by
the plan.
Fighters, being more maneuverable than ships are allowed to go on ANY heading
(not just the 30 degree clock faces).
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
Includes the Full Thrust Ship Registry Is your ship design here?
Hello,
I tried using fighter endurance but - like missiles - it made a
playable game less enjoyable. So, to lessen the impact of fighter groups I use
fighter squads. They have unlimited endurance, cost and weigh as much as the
fighter groups except each fighter squad consists of four fighters. A fighter
squad gets only 4 attack dice instead of 6.
> I tried using fighter endurance but - like missiles - it made a
A
> fighter squad gets only 4 attack dice instead of 6.
I have been playing FT/MT for a short time and have used the
More Thrust rules on fighter order of movement. I have not found fighters to
be unbalanced or overly powerful at all. If anything they appeared to be too
weak in comparison to the A battery. What have I missed? With the limited
speed of fighters and their vulnerability, (especially to scatterguns) how are
you using them so effectively?
> Mark Donelan writes:
@:) I have been playing FT/MT for a short time and .... have
@:) not found fighters to be unbalanced or overly powerful at all. If @:)
anything they appeared to be too weak in comparison to the A @:) battery.
@:) What have I missed? With the limited speed of fighters and @:) their
vulnerability, (especially to scatterguns) how are you using @:) them so
effectively?
The only time my group really found fighters to be dangerous was when we were
all optimizing all the PDAF and ADAF out of our ships. We'd all pretty much
agreed that fighters were annoying and that none of us wanted to use them.
When somebody decided (quietly) that they weren't so bad after all we found
out how nasty they could be. But
since we hadn't been expecting them, few of our ships had anti-fighter
defenses. In my opinion, it takes a good amount of *DAF to protect a ship from
a fighter squadron, like 1 PDAF per escort, 2 per cruiser and "escort" escorts
and cruisers have 1 ADAF in place of one of the PDAFs. Without these kinds of
defenses it seems that fighters can just roam freely. Their limited speed does
cause problems, though.
> Mark Donelan wrote:
I don't find fighters unbalanced, but I wish they had more range per turn. One
rule mod we using in the email game, Deneb Clash, by Dean Gundberg is to allow
fighters to use velocity as per ships(inertia) while retaining all other
characteristics. Example: A fighter group moving at 16 can slow down to 12 or
accelerate to 28. This requires a little more record keeping, but it's worth
it to give fighters more range.
Not many of us use scatterguns since we don't run Kra'Vak ships that often.
Since players typically load few if any *DAF systems, it is usually easy to
inflict some significant damage on a ship when attacking with fighters in
numbers.
> Mike Miserendino wrote:
> From: Mark Donelan <mark_donelan@vis.com>
The problem of strength comes in when you compair fighters to corvettes.
Std Corvette Fighter Group Mass: 6 6 (including bay) Cost: 43 20
Thrust: 8 12 (does NOT have to follow
12 headings or pay for turns) FTL: Y N
Screens: N N (only suseptable to *DAF).
Damage
Potential: 4pts 12pts.
*DAF
Potential: 6pts (C's as PDAF) 12pts.
Damage
Points: 3 6
Corvettes are x2 the cost. 3/4 speed. 1/3 damage potential. 1/2 *DAF
damage
potential. And 1/2 damage points.
This explaines why Fighter groups need anoter limiting factor such as
endurance.
> On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, mark gouthro wrote:
> > Mark Donelan wrote:
<parrot mode on;) >
Depends on how large your table is. Since my table is very small (2'8" * 4'),
I measure in cm instead of inches (meaning my table is effectively
6'8" * 10') - and that, in turn, means that my thrust 8 ships usually
run at speeds of 40 or higher. Speeds of 25 or so are common for my cruisers
and battlecruisers in the games I've played... and even those thrust 2
battlewagons have moved at speed 20 or so, but that is a bit on the high
side - speed 10 - 15 is normal, which tends to cause slight problems for
speed 12 fighters.
> Ships generally move within the speed of ships.
Yes:) But they're generally faster than fighters in my games...
> On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Brian Bell wrote:
> Corvettes are x2 the cost. 3/4 speed. 1/3 damage potential. 1/2 *DAF
Well, basically I agree, but it would be fairer to compare with
a non-FTL corvette. Let's say: M6, T8, 1 PDAF, 1 A (3 arcs), 40pts.
(Yes, this is supposed to be a cheesy design).
The corvette now outranges the fighters by 30". Even the std corvie outranges
them by 6". At fighter ranges, it averages half the fighter group's damage.
Also, the fighter group isn't going anywhere without a carrier. You should
figure in at least part of the carrier's cost. Following my
mass-vs-points formula, this adds 30pts. to the fighters' real price.
For pure short term striking power, the fighter group is more powerful. But it
falls behind in versatility. Let's face it: The tiny ships like corvettes are
not there for their amazing combat potential. They're there to scout, form
pickets etc. etc. All very important tasks which can not be performed by
fighters, but unfortunately underrepresented in the typical slugfest matchup.
I found that the "More Thrust" order of movement to be too limiting to fighter
groups. If you use the rules from FT instead (without fighter endurance etc.),
you'll see why you might want to reduce the number of fighters in a group to
four.
-Joe
> At 10:16 AM 4/16/97 -0400, you wrote: