Fleet Book Rules Q

Here's something that came up in tonight's FFA game that needs an "official
ruling" and a FAQ entry.

Heavy Fighters vs. Class-1-Beams-as-PDS

> Here's something that came up in tonight's FFA game that needs an

Well, before making an [OFFICIAL] ruling I'd like other list members'
opinions on this - there are two ways to argue it:

1) take Mark's suggestion above, assuming that Heavy Fighters' armour gives
them the same kind of protection as when fired at by PDS, or

2) leave the rule as written - Heavy fighters take damage from class-1
beams just as normal fighters, and gain no extra benefit. The argument for
this is that the beam, pulse, (whatever) fired by a class-1 beam is MUCH
more powerful than that fired by a PDS battery, and if it hits at all it
will cut through any armour that a fighter can carry with equal ease -
the reduced hit chance represents the relative difficulty of tracking a
fighter with an antiship mount compared to a dedicated PDS, but if it hits it
will kill.

Opinions?

> At 09:52 AM 1/6/99 +0000, you wrote:
[snip]
> Well, before making an [OFFICIAL] ruling I'd like other list members'

Personally, I actually prefer #2, even though we SWAG'd #1 for our FFA
game. :)

> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:52:49 +0000

I vote for option (2).

> >Here's something that came up in tonight's FFA game that needs an
is a
> >NOP as written.

> Here's something that came up in tonight's FFA game that needs an

Option #2.

Mk

> 1) take Mark's suggestion above, assuming that Heavy Fighters' armour

I vote for option 1. My reasoning is that Class 1s fired as PDSs are not using
their full power, but sacrificing it for a greater rate of fire, nor do they
have the dedicated tracking systems for small targets.

This reasoning also keeps Class 1s less effective than PDSs, which I think is
a good thing for balance as well.

Schoon's rationale makes sense, but I tend to want to keep the wording of the
books as unchanged as possible. I'd op't for the Tim Jones option (my mail
client received his reply before Jon's).

Don't know about others, but heavy fighters aren't so common in my games that
I'd be concerned about the unbalancing effect to PDS's. One could suggest this
degrades the HF's even more, though.

The_Beast

Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com> on 01/06/99 10:40:52 AM

Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

 To:      gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

 cc:      (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)

 Subject: Re: Fleet Book Rules Q

> 1) take Mark's suggestion above, assuming that Heavy Fighters' armour

I vote for option 1. My reasoning is that Class 1s fired as PDSs are not using
their full power, but sacrificing it for a greater rate of fire, nor do they
have the dedicated tracking systems for small targets.

This reasoning also keeps Class 1s less effective than PDSs, which I think is
a good thing for balance as well.

Schoon

> Heavy Fighters vs. Class-1-Beams-as-PDS

No, it doesn't. It degrades their performance by 50% (from a 33.3% chance of 1
kill to a 16.7% chance of one kill). Vs. Fighters or PDSs, Heavy moves it from
a 50% chance of at least one kill (and an average of
2/3 kill per roll before rerolls) to a 33.3% chance of at least one
kill.  Pardon the imprecise mathematical analysis--I know we've got some
weenies who are going to spreadsheet this out to the nth degree. I
ignore Heavy fighters vs. C-Beams.

But the PSB: C-beams are anti-ship weapons with limited ROF and rate of
traverse compared to a proper PDS. This is represented by an inability
to kill more than one fighter.  However, when a C-beam catches a
fighter, it is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. Armor effective against a PDS laser
cluster is worthless vs. an anti-ship Particle beam.

Modern Comparison: Like a modern 76mm gun on naval vessels. They have a
theoretical anti-aircraft role, and might indeed hit a low-flying
aircraft. Not good odds of hitting, but better than nothing. But when it does,
the aircraft in question disintegrates like a vase hit with a ball peen
hammer.

> Ground Zero Games wrote:

> Well, before making an [OFFICIAL] ruling I'd like other list members'

I agree with option 2. Everyone should think "starwars" here. In the film, the
death star's turbo lasers (anti-ship weapons)  had trouble TRACKING the
rebel fighters. But when it hit the fighter, that fighter simply disappeared!

The only way a fighter could survive such a hit, is it would have to be much
bigger than a fighter. But then it wouldn't be a fighter anymore.

> 1) take Mark's suggestion above, assuming that Heavy Fighters'

I understand why #1 can make sense but prefer #2 since I don't see the
class-1's reducing power levels when firing at fighters.

Jon, my vote is:
> 2) leave the rule as written - Heavy fighters take damage from

In a message dated 99-01-06 05:07:58 EST, you write:

<< >Well, before making an [OFFICIAL] ruling I'd like other list members'
> opinions on this - there are two ways to argue it:

Personally, I actually prefer #2, even though we SWAG'd #1 for our FFA
 game. :) >>
If anything it would go the other way, that would represent that the heavy
fighters are less maneuveritable than the normal fighters, unless they are
kra'vak.. just an idea

> -MWS- wrote:

> Here's something that came up in tonight's FFA game that needs an

> normally only hit on a 5&6 anyway - doing 1 kill on success -

> 4's" is a NOP as written.

This *does* define the effect of being Heavy when hit by a Class-1 -
namely, none at all.

The Class-1 packs so much more punch that the extra protection carried
by a Heavy fighter isn't enough to save the craft if it is hit.

(So, Jon, my vote is for your "option 2" - but drop the "as if it has
Screen level 1" part of the Heavy Fighter description in FT3 :-)

Regards,

On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:40:11 -0600, "Dean Gundberg"
> <dean.gundberg@noridian.com> wrote:

> I understand why #1 can make sense but prefer #2 since I don't see the

I agree with Dean and vote for #2. I don't see the class-1s being able
to change their power up and down like that. I like the idea that the class 1
misses a lot hits hard when it DOES manage to bear on target.

> I understand why #1 can make sense but prefer #2 since I don't see the

Personally I can see any/all higher-class batts 'downgrading' their
power
output (eg, a Class-3 can be fired as a Class-1 or 2), but I wouldn't
argue that because of that Class-X (where X > 1) batts can target ftrs.

Irregardless, #2 still has my vote. Fighter-vs-fighter the heavies have
an advantage, but fighter-vs-ship-gun, welll...  :-)

Mk

> 2) leave the rule as written - Heavy fighters take damage from class-1

Put me in on a vote for option #2.

My vote is for option 2. I agree that an anti-ship weapon that can
manage to hit something as small as a fighter is going to render it combat
ineffective no matter what.
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim 'Jiji' Foster / jfoster@nospam.kansas.net / Jiji @ AnimeMUCK

> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:52:49 Ground Zero Games wrote:

-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/  Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums