> If you're fighting a battle where both sides have the same amount of
Tell us how many turns you played... <<<
> Okay...now you take as many 1 hull, firecon, t-4, Beam-4 ships as you
> Right, but the fighters STILL can't be attacked or destroyed by ANY of
Irrelevant, because that wasn't the point of the suggestion, which was
that the "weenie ships" are as effective in the anti-ship role as the
massed fighters. Okay, so the ships are in trouble against the fighters, but
could that be alleviated by adding a PDS to each ship? They're still small,
and there will be fewer of them, but now they have some defensive
capability against the fighters, and high-speed passes against the
carriers will still leave the fighters in deep kimchee.
It seems to me that this is an unsolvable problem if we demand complete
balance and munchkin-proof rules. Back in FT2, fighters could only be
carried by capital ships, and no more than two groups by non-CVs; that
was changed in the interests of more flexibility, and now we can have
"Cylon Tankers" -- no weapons but fighters if that's what the designer
wants -- but we're no happier. This boils down to a difference in genre
that is best dealt with away from the table -- in scenario design and
the discouragement of rules lawyers/munchkins who play the rules rather
than the game.
Fact is, fighters can be made vital or irrelevant in a specific setting
according to the level and kind of PSB assumed, and FT, as a generic
game, needs to be able to deal with both ends of the spectrum -- but
does it have to cope with both ends at the same time? I can't help but think
that we're spending far too much time trying to hammer out a system
specifically for the use of munchkins when a little sense would show that the
setting dictates ship design and saying that any force of 6000 points must be
equal to any other force of the same nominal value is an impossible demand to
meet.
Phil
> Phillip Atcliffe wrote:
I took it as an example of how there is more than just one way to munchkin the
design system. My response was intended to point out that even another attempt
to be a munchkin wasn't as effective as going
extremely fighter-heavy, munckin-style.
Whose munchkin-fu is the best? *g*
> It seems to me that this is an unsolvable problem if we demand
That forces the adoption of a background of PSB.
> Fact is, fighters can be made vital or irrelevant in a specific
"Can't be done." accompanied with much hand-waving doesn't erase the
fact that the TMP thread that started this fighter discussion (again, *sigh*)
includes opinions that Starmada appears to have accomplished a favorable
approach to fighters than the extant FT rules. Without, I might add, forcing
players to PSB a background and develope house rules and limitations for
players to follow. YMMV, but I tend to agree based on the admittedly limited
playtesting the SX has gotten with my group, and would like to see FT
"improve"...
--Tim
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 04:19:24PM -0400, Flak Magnet wrote:
> "Can't be done." accompanied with much hand-waving doesn't erase the
And it does it by allowing main weapons to fire at fighters. :-)
Tom's point about the two basic classes of weapon - "things that hurt
ships" and "things that hurt fighters" - is vitally important. Even
with perfectly "balanced" fighter rules, whatever that might mean and wherever
the balance point may lie, you're still going to have a game
of rock-paper-scissors - do you load up on anti-ship weapons,
anti-fighter weapons, or actual fighters? If the enemy has to choose
first and you know what he has, you can beat him every time. Even if he
doesn't, the game is effectively decided in the force-selection phase
rather than on the table, and that's boring.
(Right now it's more like "rock-paper-tacnuke", because of the fighter
costing problems, but that is _not_ the only thing that needs to be
solved.)
R
In message <20050425202802.GA31737@firedrake.org>
> Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 04:19:24PM -0400, Flak Magnet wrote:
Well, one entire race in Starmarda X - Brigade has no weapons that
affect fighters at all, their only defence is 'raise cloak':)
- At least from my initial reading of the rules.
[snip]
> R