fighters, the saga continues...

Nice post Noam.

One other thought: The suggestion of PDS engaging all targets had two parts:
1) To put a nice cap on the number of fighters it is really useful to attack
with (ie there really isn't any PDS overwhelming) 2) To make fighters in small
numbers MORE viable

There has been a lot of focus on #1, but #2 is equally useful. Right now, if
you show up with a BDN or two, your fighters might as well put on their rising
sun headbands and right their last will and testament.... not only will they
die, but probably without having much effect.

I liked this solution because: 1) You can attack with as many fighters as you
want... just no one gets a free lunch so the optimal number becomes "how many
do I need to do some damage" not "how many can I pile on". 2) Small fighter
gaggles (not a swarm, not enough of them) are more effectual, thus making them
worth the points you pay
3) In this kind of game, fighters instead of being a one or two-turn
feeding frenzy can end up being a multi-turn weapon used very carefully,
a few squadrons at a time. This is probably even MORE fun. 4) Nice perk: FB
designs end up looking viable both against other designs that use guns and
those that use fighters.

Although I see 1 as important, and 4 as nice, 2 and 3 are as useful for making
the game interesting and fun.

Remember too that some of FT is a matter of choices and
inclusion/exclusion of rules. Vector or cinematic? FB1 vector or FB2?
Roll allowed or not? etc. Having another PDS rule which you could use (or keep
the current one) wouldn't do anyone any harm.

And I also noticed Ryan's (I think) assertions about where a carrier should be
and how carrier games should be conducted is based on his PSB, not anything
from the game. The fact we see them on the board and that fighters have
relatively short engagement ranges and fuel supplies suggests that they may
not in fact operate that far from their target. They could, but the game
doesn't really suggest that to me. Whether they should or should not in the
real (???) world of space combat is utterly a personal opinion. Some might
even say due to reaction mass issues, fighters are not even viable in space.
But it all comes down to taste and PSB.

And in one small aspect, I agree with 3B^2 --> the rules should not be
strongly tied to a particular PSB or genre assumption. OTOH, overwhelmable PDS
already IS tied to some assumption, so I have no problem with an alternative
mechanism being produced tied to another. In fact, having both may be
considered even MORE generic.... if you think about it.

> At 5:01 PM -0400 5/6/02, Tomb wrote:

While I'm not certain how it works I like the principle and this is where I
always wondered, what the heck does a BDN or SDN derive from a fighter group
or two? They are bloody useless in a battle against other ships of the line
and aren't terribly useful against medium combatants in that size. Their only
benefit is being able to go after smaller stuff before it out runs the
fighters.

> I liked this solution because:

Well, a group can cruise along at basic speed for a massive number of turns
Transit onto the board complete some combat, then transit off the board (to
the next board over) to go back to the carrier (assuming they survive).

> They could, but the game doesn't really suggest that to me. Whether

The whole concept of a carrier is that they project power away from the task
group out of visual range of the Carrier. If the fighters are just the same in
the end as a set of guns, why build them in the first place? The weapon system
has to derive some different set of advantages and disadvantages from the
other weapons.

Fighters are disconnected from the ship for a reason. They become more
vulnerable for a given ability to project that firepower away from the ship.
The disadvantage is that they aren't carring all of that mass and hull around
with them on the attack to prevent their
destruction. They are targeted directly unlike Beams, P-Torps and
SMLs are.

At least the NAC carriers work this way in that they aren't line of battle
ships that happen to have a bunch of fighter bays. Or are those fighters just
there because that's the way that the Emporor
decreed that they'd end their lives? :-P

> And in one small aspect, I agree with 3B^2 --> the rules should not be
In
> fact, having both may be considered even MORE generic.... if you think

In message <p05111736b8fca587e37d@[10.188.51.55]>
> Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> At 5:01 PM -0400 5/6/02, Tomb wrote:
Well, I'm not sure if this is worth it, but what I do in this situation
[1] is 1) if possible, fill the bays with interceptors, and 2) have them
screen their mothership. Gives an extra line of protection, and should
soak up a couple of SM salvos (or maybe not with my dice :-( )
> [quoted text omitted]
[snip]