From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 02:35:42 -0400
Subject: For Beth
1. let PDS attack every squadron that attacks.
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.
2b. Make a non-linear scaling for fighter
costs
> 3. let class-2 and above take pot shots at
4. adjust the effectiveness of PDS to close to scatterpack
5. shoot whoever started the thread. 5a. Shoot those complaining about the
thread, since they were probably complaining about the flamewars which were
our previous situation....
<g>
6. reduce the endurance of fighters 6a. charge endurance for every turn
fighters are in flight, not just combat and secondary moves 6b. charge
endurance for:
- evasive movement
- secondary afterburn movement
- dogfights
NOT for coasting NOT for attacks IF you're already paying for evasive movement
that turn This kind of goes with 3a or 3b.
7. Allow mixed tech (plasma, scatterpacks) as a way of balancing fighters
8. Status Quo
9. Reduce Fighter attack damage to perhaps equivalent to a PDS instead of a B1
10. Limit fighters attacking per ship to X (6? some function of mass?) 10a.
Limit fighters attacking per arc
Of course, there are probably mix and match options, and some are probably
dependent on others. So you've probably got at least 30 games to test various
feasible permutations... Fill Yer Boots!
I think in eyeballing these things, we want to ensure:
If fighter points don't change: It would be ideal if small fighter groups are
made a bit more useful, large fighter swarms are made a bit less useful (or a
lot less useful all at once).
If the points values change, then there may be no need to change any rules. Of
course, both may need to change.
It would a nice plus to introduce some more tactical choices for the players
(for
example coast/don't coast, which Multi-
Role packet to kit my fighter out with, etc).
It would be nice to make FB1 designs more well balanced even against other FB1
designs.
New (well I think) thought:
Instead of wrangling over the fix/don't
fix/oh-my-god-carrier-are-useless
thinking.... why don't we think about it this
way - what do we want to model?
A) Carrier Ops like those in the modern day
- multi role fighters, carriers far apart
(probably off board) and the game is defending against fighter strikes often
with massed fighters.
B) Standard game with carriers on the board, standard ship types, one off
play, where we want fighters to be roughly point costed correctly.
C) WW2 Carrier games where fighters and bombers and whatnot were more
specialized (probably didn't change from one role to another in 15 mins)
D) Anime where a fighter squadron can take apart a small fleet...
By thinking in "model" or "genre" terms, we could define a number of "rules
mixes" and costing modifiers. These could appear as
short entries in FB3/FT3/somewhere???
and thus let Ryan play his game, Eric play his, me play mine, etc. The
"standard rules" would fit definition B above but there isn't a really good
reason not to at least give the nod to other types of gaming unless their is a
space crunch. (no puns intended)
Tomb.