[FT] "Agile" Fighters (yet another re-evaluation of ftrs)

I like and I hate fighters. I like them as an SF battle vehicle, and I like
their sense of drama. I dislike their execution in almost all
starship-level
SF games for a couple reasons. 1) They're either too weak to be effective or
too powerful for their relative size/cost. FT strikes a balance, but
I've disliked certain things about the FT system. One is the mortality of
fighters and pilots (see the comapnion post about that). FT treats fighters
like other expendible weapons. Players have to (and have) home up with rules
for fighter and pilot survivability to determine exactly what happens when a
fighter is "Killed" by PDS or other fighters. Fighters also tend to have
effective lifetimes of only a fraction of their endurance when facing
PDS/ADFC grids, which is logical, since you need a strong PDS net to
catch a swarm of fighters lest they very quickly cripple your ships.

A possible answer to these issues is a new fighter type - Call it the
Agile Fighter or the Survivor's Fighter or the Armoured Fighter, depending on
your PSB. It can be considered a reworking of the interceptor, in part,
without
the interceptor's anti-fighter abilities. It has weak offense, but
strong
defense and survivability. It costs the same as a normal multi-role
fighter. On attack, Each fighter does one point of damage on a roll of 6 only,
plus normal rerolls. Vs. screen 1 and screen 2, the fighter loses rerolls, but
still scores 1 pt on a 6. Conversely, PDS knocks out 1 fighter on a roll of 6,
no rerolls. Dogfighting Agile fighters kill 1 opposing fighter on a 6, no
rerolls, but can force opposing groups to dogfight rather than attack another
target. Vs.
SM's Agile fighters kill 1 on a 6 + rerolls. Dogfighting fighters vs.
Agile fighters each act as PDS. Interceptors gain rerolls. Vs. PB's Agile
fighters score 1 hit on a 6.

Here's a statistical damage comparison between Normal and Agile fighters over
6 attack runs (assuming no additional CEF burns to engage)

No scrn Normal Agile Notes vs 0PDS 28.8 10.6 vs 1PDS 15.4* 9.6** *1.2 ftrs
surv 6 turns **5 ftrs surv
vs 2PDS   6.7*	8.6**  *Dest after 3 t **4.7 dam after 3 t, 4 surv
vs 3PDS   3.8*	7.6**  *Dest after 2 t **3.1 dam after 2 t, 3 surv
vs 4PDS   2.2*	6.5**  *Dest after 1 t **1.6 dam after 1 t, 2 surv

Vs screen 1 and screen 2 the numbers story is similar. I think this makes them
reasonably balanced, but would welcome further analysis and recommendations if
people think they should cost more than normal fighters. What I haven't mapped
in is the Morale effect of Agile fighters vs. others. The greater
survivability means they will suffer fewer morale failures, but undergo more
morale checks, since they'll be under fire for more turns. I'm
not sure if that's a wash, balance-wise.

On a _strategic_ scale, they should cost more per fighter, since they
are more survivable, but FT NPV costs do not always map well with strategic
costs, IMO.

Total damage from Agile fighters is greater vs larger numbers of PDS, but is
spread out over the full 6 turns of endurance. If fighters need to burn
endurance to engage, then Agile fighter damage numbers suffer more than normal
fighters vs 2 or more PDS per group.

I like this because 1) fighters survive longer, and 2) they do less maximum
damage, and their toll is more cumulative or attritive rather than a single
fast punch. When used along with strategic rules, fighter forces become more
palateable, since pilots are far more likely to survive numerous sorties.

When I get around to NIFT Carrier Ops, I hope to playtest them. If they work
out, I might convert them into New Israel's Super Stealth Fighter (currently
(very expensive) fighters w. Screen 2 equivalent)

> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] I agree. Most games (FT included IMHO) do not balance fighters.
FT does a fair job if both morale and endurance rules are used. I have assumed
that a kill of a fighter in FT is like a kill of an infantry element in DS2;
that is a mission kill. The fighter is damaged enough that it cannot continue
its mission. I liked the follow up post you made about pilot survivability. In
most games it is unnecessary, but would be
good for a campaign or FT/DS2/SG2 combo games.

> A possible answer to these issues is a new fighter type - Call it the
[Bri] The agile fighter would have to cost more for a number of reasons:
1) It will pass morale checks MUCH better than standard fighters. Thus it will
be more effective in the long run. 2) With the new rearming rules in FB2, the
fighters could be back out in very short order. Agile fighter would put out
more fighter waves over the course of a game. 3) Even thought the odds change
seems to be the same, it actually favors the agile fighters unless 6 or more
PDS are used. This increases with the fewer damage boxes that the ship has
until a threshold check. Also at this point you would have to discribe how
they interact with Scatterguns and Interceptor Pods.

> On a _strategic_ scale, they should cost more per fighter, since they
[Bri] However, the ship is likely the target of other weapons and is
likely to loose hull boxes and systems to threshold checks over the longer
course of time. The fighter group is only subject to PDS fire from the
ship it is attacking and any ADFC/PDS ships nearby.

> I like this because 1) fighters survive longer, and 2) they do less

My comments marked by [Bri]

I think that the game would have to be overhauled to do what you wanted it to
do. Example of a New System: 1 FCS is required to use PDS regardless of the
number of targets (1 target max per PDS) Fighter Endurance: 6
PDS Effects: A roll of 4-5 would cause fighter group to break off attack
(similar to DS2 AA defense) and a 6 would kill a fighter and force the fighter
group to break off the attack. In either case fighter endurance is burned.
Morale Check: If a fighter group is still attacking after PDS fire, it will
make a morale check. If the number on a d6 is equal to or lower than the
number of fighters in a group, it continues the attack. In either case, it
burns fighter endurance. The Morale check is made for every attack.
Fighters do 1d6 - the number of fighters lost on an attack.
Fighters would do less damage, but would tie up a FCS of the ships they are
attacking and would survive much longer. However, it is QUITE a large
divergence from the present system and does not take into account special
fighters.