I've been considering the rules for fighters. Under the current rules, a ship
can store, launch, and recover 6 fighters for 9 mass. That means that every
flight has it's own hangar, launch facility, and recovery facility. It's a
good thing modern carriers don't work quite like that. Has anyone
ever tried any alternate rules for separate storage/shared launch &
Recovery for dedicated carriers in FT? I was thinking of something like making
each "Hangar bay" worth 5 mass per flight, and each "Operations deck" worth 4
mass. The carrier could carry as many fighters as it had bays, but only
launch and recover as many flights per turn as it has ops decks - sort
of like the difference between SML's and SMR's (Only Different). This would
make it remain more economical to buy full 9-mass fighter flights for
BB's,
DN,'s, etc, but give a litttle incentive to designing good dedicated carriers.
Thoughts from the list?
3B^2
This is another "discussed to death" topic. Although most suggesters do 6 and
3. The consensus, as far as I remember, was that it made fighters much cheaper
and therefore much stronger. Since you normally launch from beyond weapon
range it doesn't disadvantage you to take 2 turns launching.
Roger Books
> On 30-Apr-02 at 15:25, Brian Bilderback (bbilderback@hotmail.com) wrote:
> Roger Books wrote:
Sorry if I'm rehashing an old subject, but this was probably beofre I was into
FT. Just asking.
Although most suggesters
> do 6 and 3.
I'd prefer 6 and 4 or bigger, up to maybe 6 and 6.
> The consensus, as far as I remember, was that it made
Not a bad thing if that's how you want them in the game setting you run.
:-)
> Since you normally
Which is the reason I'd suggest a combination of masses that makes 1 bay and
1 ops deck more in mass than 1 self-contained fighter bay.
3B^2
> On 30-Apr-02 at 15:56, Brian Bilderback (bbilderback@hotmail.com) wrote:
Nothing to be sorry about. My intention was to let you know there was much
discussion in the archives, not to chastise anyone.
> >The consensus, as far as I remember, was that it made
That brings up another common discussion.
1. Fighters are too powerful (usually those that don't use morale)
2. Fighters are close to correct in value.
(The phrasing shows my bias)
I don't think I've heard anyone say fighters in large numbers,
4+ squadrons, are too weak.
> From: Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net>
> > Not a bad thing if that's how you want them in the game setting you
You're probably right. I'm not suggesting it be a standard rule, but rather an
option available if it fits into the view of fighters appropriate for the
setting. Mind you, I'm still waiting for my first chance to play the game, I
was just wondering if this was an option anyone had explored.
3B^2
> On 4/30/02 1:40 PM, "Roger Books" <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> That brings up another common discussion.
[snip]
My personal view is that fighters are just about right as they stand (meaning
that roughly an equal number of player complain that they are too
weak/powerful ;-).
While I like the idea of Hangars and Launch Tubes, they would need to be
implemented in such a way so as to not affect balance much. That's the
challenge.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> While I like the idea of Hangars and Launch Tubes, they would need to
I like it more for color than as a better way of doing fighters overall.
But you have hit on the sticking point. Is the answer increased points or
increased total mass?
3B^2
I've been playing custom-design games for a while, and both "lots of
fighters" and "few fighters" designs have made their way into my games. (Long
time listers who remember me as "Stilt Man" will probably remember some of the
discussions I used to get into about this... I can be infamous
for my fighter-swarming tactics.) As such, I can say this...
Fighters are a powerful weapon, but no more than a great many other things
that exist in the game, even without morale. In our games, we usually bring
5000 or 10000 points of ships and slug it out. My experience from about four
or five years of such games on fighters goes like this:
1. Yes, if you bring lots of fighters, and your opponent doesn't bring
something prepared to deal with them, you will probably win for free. This
much is granted.
2. Dreadnought schemes with 20 fighters or so in a 5000 point battle can work
against a carrier force that brings half again to twice as many very well or
very badly depending on a lot of other factors. If the dreadnoughts have no
other effective plan for stopping fighters other than their own, then they're
dead, end of story. If the dreadnoughts bring scatterguns (PDS won't do) as a
second line of defense, then they can win. If the carriers bring plasma bolts
(missiles won't do either... too bulky for the return after you've already
brought the fighters) to neutralize those scatterguns, then the dreadnoughts
are in trouble if they can't outmaneuver the bolts effectively and the carrier
admiral is smart enough to keep his fighters in reserve until the plasma has
shut down that second line of defense. If the dreadnoughts bring advanced
drives to evade the plasma... well, then things get really interesting.
3. Battleship forces with no fighters in a 5000 point battle can bring either
lots of PDS or lots of scatterguns and still have a reasonable chance of
success. The general ratio of desired PDS to enemy fighters will be
about 3-4 per enemy fighter group, and about 2 to 1 in scatterguns. (We
don't require you to split up your point defenses by fighter group in our
games... on that scale it's too much of a mess. YMMV.) For most reasonable
carrier forces, that means you're looking at about 120-150 point
defenses
and about 80-100 scatterguns. The point defenses will cause you to take
losses, but you will be grinding fighters down fast enough that they won't be
a serious factor by themselves unless your opponent is bringing an unwisely
large number of them. (More on that in the next point.) The
scatterguns will basically shut them down cold.... 80-100 says your
opponent needs better than 50 fighter groups to hurt you much. 150 says your
opponent may as well not bother with fighters until they've got some other
weapon to wear your scatterguns down.
4. In general, you need to use a bit of balance on both fighter swarms and
point defenses, because neither of them will work very long by themselves. If
you bring so many fighters that you have no other weapons, you're wagering
your life that your enemy won't be able to stop it. If you bring so many point
defenses that you're figuring on just forgetting about fighters, you're
wagering your life on your enemy actually bringing fighters to make those
defenses useful. In either case, you're wagering your life on your opponent
doing exactly what you expect them to do... which is generally a foolhardy way
to go about winning a war.
5. Overall, the most effective operational doctrine that employs fighters as
an offensive weapon that I've found is to bring about 30 of them over a
5000 point battle and support them with about 30-40 dice worth of plasma
bolts. If you handle your materiel properly, there is no (balanced) doctrine
of operations that can be used against you such that you won't at least have a
very good fighting chance of defeating. And anything that
doesn't bring both scatterguns _and_ advanced drive maneuverability, you
will probably beat for free.
6. The Kra'Vak model is very easily the best general idea of how to fight
against fighters. The offensive weaponry you choose is up to you, but the part
I'm talking about is the combination of scatterguns and advanced drives, with
or without a dreadnought scheme of a light swarm of defensive fighters added
on. If you're bringing a light fighter screen of your own, you're looking to
cut down enough fighters before they get to you that your scatterguns can stop
the rest, and if you're not, you're looking to bring enough scatterguns to
beat their fighters outright. The advanced drives are there to keep you from
losing your scatterguns to their plasma while the fighters sit back in
reserve. There are a few different feints and other
tricks the plasma-and-fighters doctrine can use to make this difficult
for you, but you'll have a serious fighting chance of beating them regardless
of what they do. And if your enemy is bringing fighters without plasma (or, to
a much lesser degree, missiles), you will probably beat them for free. (You
might not beat fighter/missiles for free, but you'll beat them for $1.49
with coupon.)
As such... I don't think fighters really need to be shifted around. If you
want to put up house rules for "ops decks" or something, there's nothing
stopping you at all. But fighters are perfectly viable as a fighting force as
they are as long as you've got the operational doctrine to use them right.
E (aka Stilt Man)
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 4/30/02 1:40 PM, "Roger Books" <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
The value of fighters goes up in a non-linear way, ie the value of N
squadrons is much greater than (N * value of 1 squadron). This is why it is
very difficult to balance. Rules that work well for, say, a 3000pt fleet
including 3 squadrons, don't work at all when the other side shows up with
glass carriers holding 30 squadrons.
This was a recent topic of discussion on the test list; a solution was
proposed but not extensively tested yet, so at the moment it's unsolved.
So...how would you, O Wise Ones Of The List, deal with this?
From: Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com>
> As such... I don't think fighters really need to be shifted around.
If you
> want to put up house rules for "ops decks" or something, there's
And allow mixed tech. If you have a swarm of fighters on one side and straight
HuMan Fleet Book designs on the other, very shortly you will have a slightly
smaller swarm of fighters and a cloud of scrap.
Take the owner of the glass carrier out back and work him over with a rubber
hose?:)
Guys? Hey, I was just kidding, really.
Roger Books
> On 30-Apr-02 at 22:28, Laserlight (laserlight@quixnet.net) wrote:
> At 12:06 1/05/02 -0400, you wrote:
I suppose you could say that you need a "rubber" for "protection" from the
glass carrier and all those nasty fighters it's carrying.
Cheers
Are you saying the rules are broken, or just that being swarmed by fighters is
not good for ships without fighter defenses?
A surface navy squadron without air defense would be at a serious disadvantage
if attacked by a single carrier with a thousand (have to be a pretty big
carrier, I suppose...) fighters from a long way away.
In a tactical game I can see where this type of result would piss you off, but
in real life (as much as real life has anything to do with Full Thrust) it
means you forgot to provide sufficient cover for your assets.
If you HAD planned on being swarmed and designed for it, you would have had a
good chance of taking out not only his fighters, but his carrier as well. So
in a strategic game this would merely be the first step in a
move-and-counter ladder of changing tactics.
> On 30-Apr-02 at 22:28, Laserlight (laserlight@quixnet.net) wrote:
That's a Phalon carrier, right?
> Derek Fulton wrote:
> At 12:06 1/05/02 -0400, you wrote:
> the glass carrier and all those nasty fighters it's carrying.
[quoted original message omitted]
Well, I have had the thought of simulating Launch Tubes, Catapults ect. by
adding some extra accelleration to the fighter group's first turn
accelleration. Problem here, is FT fighters don't move like that....So how
about by adding some extra move for the first turn, or add an extra combat
endurance? This is assuming in the standard bays, the fighters are using some
of their own fuel/supplies to launch. The Tubes would be a separate
system on the ship sheet, and could be damaged like any other system.
I like the idea of having a separate ops deck.
My other favorite type of carrier is to park the fighters on the outside of
the ship. This way, the carrier can launch or land it's entire complement each
turn. The bad side, is the fighters would be exposed to any attacks that
damaged the carrier (after shields, before armor?) Maybe have a die roll
deturmine if any of the still landed fighters were hit, instead of the ship.
(Some kind of ratio? A single roll for each damage point?)
Donald Hosford
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> I've been considering the rules for fighters. Under the current
> Eric Foley wrote:
An interesting tactic. I figure the needle beamers get only one pass at the
target fleet. Are they effective enough to take out a sufficient number of the
opponent's ADFCs? If the ADFCs have been concentrated on a few escort cruiser
class ships, perhaps. One counter to that tactic is to place ADFCs on all
ships and two or more ADFCs on the larger mass ships.
[quoted original message omitted]
From: Edward Lipsett translation@intercomltd.com
> Are you saying the rules are broken, or just that being swarmed by
FB1 ships get devoured by fighters, unless you bring almost all
Beijing-E or something of that sort. How would you fix it so:
a) fighters are useful b) masses of fighters are not unbalancing c) FB1 ships
are useful d) we do not have to change the published SSDs (ie you can tinker
with the rules of what existing systems can do, but don't come with a new icon
for the SSD).
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:03:11 -0700, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker
> <s_schoon@pacbell.net> wrote:
> My personal view is that fighters are just about right as they stand
I think it's been shown by Oerjan and others that fighters in FT are just
about right in the numbers showing up in the Fleet Books. However, those who
make soap bubble carriers in Uberflotte size have shown that fighters in large
numbers (such as 20 squadrons) are under priced. And by quite a lot...
On Wed, 01 May 2002 13:15:55 +0900, Edward Lipsett
> <translation@intercomltd.com> wrote:
> In a tactical game I can see where this type of result would piss you
The problem has to do with the way ships are designed in the fleet books.
Fleet book ships have a certain amount of PDS and a certain number of fighters
per ship. The rationale is that if fighters were as powerful in the
Tuffleyverse as they are in the game, everyone would be flying soap bubble
carriers, or have ships with 20-odd PDS each.
That's clearly not the case in the fleet books. As well, the fleet book
designs are well balanced against each other.
One way to look at it is that the fleet book ships are "broken". Another way
to look at it is that fighters are too cheap. A third way is that there's
something missing in the rules to make fleet books balanced against
all-fighter fleets.
> Eric Foley wrote:
*SNIPPAGE OF MUCH EXCELLENT INPUT*
> As such... I don't think fighters really need to be shifted around. If
Thanks for the insight. Again, I'm more interested in the option for it's
flavor, not for any improved ability it might or might not give fighters.
3B^2
> From: "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> b) masses of fighters are not unbalancing
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't masses of any one thing be inherently
unbalancing, one way or another? In ANY game, if I know my opponent ALWAYS
uses ONLY one type of unit/weapons system, I know EXACTLY what to run
against him. Isn't that the beauty of mixed forces?
3B^2
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> And allow mixed tech. If you have a swarm of fighters on one side and
One of the advantages of a Non-Tuffleyverse setting is the ability to do
this without guilt. K tech can easily be human in another setting. :-)
3B^2
> From: Donald Hosford <Hosford.Donald@acd.net>
> Well, I have had the thought of simulating Launch Tubes, Catapults ect.
by
> adding some extra accelleration to the fighter group's first turn
I didn't plan on making the Ops deck give any additional abilities, just the
decrease in mass for the fighters. Which brings me to another question:
Assuming that I want powerful fighters, and powerful dedicated carriers, but
not rely solely on fighters (the soap bubble strategy, is that what it's
called?), what is a good number of fighter squadrons for a CUSTOM carrier to
carry?
This is assuming in the standard bays, the fighters are using some
> of their own fuel/supplies to launch. The Tubes would be a separate
Agreed.
> My other favorite type of carrier is to park the fighters on the
Actually that method sounds more like a good PSB that's easily simulated by
the standard rules for fighters, and I don't see a need to add the exposed
fighter rule.
3B^2
> At 09:46 30/04/02 -0700, Michael wrote:
> That's a Phalon carrier, right ?
Ouch! :)
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> The ship designs really are _that_
Personally I would've thought the NSL BB was pretty good, or is that because
it uses beams/p-torp combo?
Cheers
I said:
> FB1 ships get devoured by fighters, unless you bring almost all
Eric/Stilt said:
> These four goals, taken together, are not possible. Period.
You will recall that I said in a different post that the Test List *has*
come up with a solution. No, I'm not saying what it is--among other
reasons, I want to come up with a *new* idea rather than hash out an idea the
Test List has already discussed.
On 2-May-02 at 12:15, laserlight@quixnet.net (laserlight@quixnet.net)
wrote:
> I said:
Limit the number of fighters than can attack a ship in one turn.
Which seems realistic (as opposed to arbitrary) when you consider that
the different flights of fighters have to worry about co-ordinating
their fire and vectors in order be able to do significant damage. If one
flight screws up another's vector then you have both flights breaking
formation, not making attack runs and generally getting hosed
out of the sky by ship anti-fighter defenses. Perhaps basing the max
numbers of fighter that can attack by the ships classification (and thus
general size/mass).
> From: Flak Magnet <flakmagnet@tabletop-battlezone.com>
> Which seems realistic (as opposed to arbitrary) when you consider that
Which ALSO seems to make sense, since the larger the ship being attacked, the
larger the practical area around a ship that can be filled with attacking
fighters.
I still have a question as to what number of fighters is a good range for a
carrier supporting other ships?
3B^2
Here's a refinement of that idea: Limit the number of fighters that can attack
a single ship *per firing arc of the ship*. This would a tactical element as
"where" you attack from will now be relevant if you're trying to swarm a large
ship with fighters... ("Yellow group will take longer to swing around for an
effective attack run, so red group has to linger out of AFPDS range long
enough for them to take part in a
co-ordinated attack.")
Bow and Aft arcs (aft actually being a non-firing arc, really) could
have a lower number of possible attacking fighter, not so much due to an
assumption that ships will generally be linear in shape, but because the
forward motion of the ship along the fore-aft axis would limit the
effective attack vectors. If it wouldn't make it "too complicated", the bow
should have even fewer than the stern, because of the assumption that fighters
can't fire through an aft arc just like the big ships, and
to maneuver to keep getting a good head-on attack vector you have to
turn away from the target sometime...
Comments? Am I forgetting the KISS principle? (Keep It Simple Stupid).
--Flak
> On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 12:45, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> From: Flak Magnet <flakmagnet@tabletop-battlezone.com>
> Here's a refinement of that idea: Limit the number of fighters that
I Like it. I like it very very much.
> Bow and Aft arcs (aft actually being a non-firing arc, really) could
Plus, this makes great PSB to justify putting a limit on fighters. :-)
> Comments? Am I forgetting the KISS principle? (Keep It Simple
Maybe. But there's such a thing as too much of a good thing (Including
simplicity). The beauty of a HR like this is that you can use it... or not.
3B^2
> From: Flak Magnet <flakmagnet@tabletop-battlezone.com>
> Bow and Aft arcs (aft actually being a non-firing arc, really) could
Whoops, just realized one problem with that line of reasoning: In vector, the
axis of the bow and aft arcs is not necessarily parallel or equal to the line
of movement.....
3B^2
On 2-May-02 at 13:08, Flak Magnet (flakmagnet@tabletop-battlezone.com)
wrote:
> Here's a refinement of that idea: Limit the number of fighters that
> Comments? Am I forgetting the KISS principle? (Keep It Simple
Overly complicated for no real gain.
I would just say one fighter squadron per X mass of the ship. Say
X=40?
One thing I will point out is that this allows players to design
ships that are fighter-proof, 8 PDSs per 40 mass with my
example.
Also, 6 fighter groups on a ship is not much of a limit. Almost all FB ships
would have a problem defending against 6 fighter groups (big KV may be an
exception).
-----
Brian Bell
-----
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 13:40, Brian Bilderback wrote:
could
> >have a lower number of possible attacking fighter, not so much due to
I had considered that, but if a ship you're "shadowing" in the bow arc
pulls a high-thrust maneuver you're going to have to bring your
thrusters in line to compensate, swinging your fighter around in the
process... It's always harder to "follow from the front".
Keep in mind that a fighter doesn't want to obtain a static relative position
to an enemy ship, because then it's toast. The fighter has to dart and weave,
and that means accellerating and decellerating relative to the target ship.
Something that's harder to accomplish when you're not following or to the
side.
> 3B^2
> From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
Not a problem if you don't play in the Tuffleyverse and don't use FB designs,
but it's still a problem, I admit. Unless you just make the limit based on the
mass and then require that they be divided between arcs. that way a ship of
small enough mass might have fewer allowable fighter attacks vs. it than it
has arcs....
3B^2
> Flak Magnet wrote:
> I had considered that, but if a ship you're "shadowing" in the bow arc
True enough... but in an extreme example, what if the target is a KV ship, and
has it's bow pointed perpendicular to it's motion? You're in it's bow arc (And
probably dead meat, but just for argument's sake....), but you're shadowing
the ship to it's side. And if it uses advanced drives to shift movement
drastically without rotating, who knows where the line of movement will be in
relationship to the bow? I think maybe it's just easier for
games's sake that the # of fighter attacks on a ship be Mass/x. The
arcs
limitation would be useful only if PDS/Scatterguns have arc limitations,
and I can't recall if SG's do (I haven't delved into alien tech much yet). If
there are limitations, then simply require that the allowed attacks be divided
as evenly as possible between arcs.
3B^2
Okay. You're over my head now. I'm working from just the main rules, I
don't have any fleet books and haven't printed/read the More Thrust pdfs
yet.
I'll take your word on what you said.
If you still wanted to use the fighters/mass with ratios for the arcs,
you'd have to modify the limits based on the direction of travel, not the
arcs. And that sounds like a moderate pain even to me.
> On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 14:47, Brian Bilderback wrote:
If
> there are limitations, then simply require that the allowed attacks be
> divided as evenly as possible between arcs.
Flak Magnet schrieb:
> I had considered that, but if a ship you're "shadowing"
> The fighter has to dart and weave, and that means accellerating and
Doesn't really feel rihgt. Thikning from a cinematic point of view (no, not
cinematic movement, rather the cinema effect) with a dash of real air fighter
tactics. fighters would be making firing passes across the ship, front to rear
or from side to side. So keeping them in one arc is "unrealistic" anyway.
Arguning further, it generally is easier to
attack either the front or the rear of a plane - mainly because of the
difficulty of deflection shooting.
Anyway, all this is just so much PSB - just keep it simple, limit
number of fighters per attacked ship, if you think that would solve the
problem.
Greetings
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated Wed, 1 May 2002 04:10:15 -0700, stiltman@teleport.com
writes:
<< Smaller area defense escorts very quickly fell out of favor in our games.
All the good that ever did was to make me hold my fighters in reserve for a
moment while my needle beamers or capital ships' armament (which was always
good enough to at least bring down an escort ship) destroyed or disabled them
all so that my fighters could have a turkey shoot on the rest of the
formation. >>
I don't know I recently used a PDS/ADFS, sucessfully basing it off
the Radetzky class C of the NSL. It weapons load were changed to 1 Class 2
with 360 arc, 2 Class 1's and 8 PDS. Used it to cover my Szent Istvan BDN
(-hanger and a Class 4 forward only) and Markgraf CH, but not my 2
Waldburg
DD and 1 Waldburg-M DD against like 12 FSE ship fleet (CH, CL, 2 DH, 2
DD, 4 FF, 2 FF modified with Needle guns). My fleet did well. We were able to
engage and destroy the FSE fleet with total distruction with loses, minor on
our side, 1 DD and the ADFS/PDS ship almost crippled, which happened
after the FSE charged and we ended up at like 3" range. PDS sytem took down 1
FF on it own, and other weapons killed another FF. But it got all the FSE
firing at it with everything under the sun that turn.. It just dodged well.
Eric said:
> All very nice. But you've snipped the operative point
Because it wasn't relevant to the question I was asking--not because I
necessarily disagree with it. I'm specifically *not* suggesting that
theFB1 designs are optimized--they're not.
I *am* disagreeing with you about fighters being no more unbalancing than any
other weapon. We rarely hear comments that one side had "too much thrust" or
"too many PTorps" or things of that nature, we do hear "too many fighters." So
that's what we're trying to address.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 12:32:34AM -0700, Eric Foley wrote:
Yes, but it also channels designs of equal point value. This implies strongly
that the point value system doesn't correctly reflect the combat power of ship
systems (even given Oerjan's corrections for hull sizes).
My standard comment is this: it looks like Rock-Scissors-Paper, but it
isn't. Say I have three major choices for a weapons loadout:
(1) conventional anti-ship weapons;
(2) heavy PDS+ADFC;
(3) fighters.
In general, what seems to happen is:
I bring: normal weapons PDS+ADFC fighters
Enemy brings: normal weapons even fight I lose I win
PDS+ADFC I win even fight even fight
fighters I lose even fight even fight
Which means that, if I want to increase my odds of winning, I should
always bring fighter-heavy fleets. Certainly, on the few occasions I've
seem munchkins playing FT, fighters are what they've always gone for.
And with all due respect, even the fighters vs PDS+ADFC (which I've
characterised above as an even fight) tends to swing in the fighters'
favour unless the target has neglected anti-ship weapons completely in
favour of PDS. Your experience is different, and that's fair enough; but to
dismiss anyone who doesn't have your particular experience as "stubborn and
stupid" is not helpful.
From: "Roger Books" <books@jumpspace.net>
> Limit the number of fighters than can attack a ship in one turn.
That is one of the proposed solutions ( I proposed a limit of 6 figter groups
per target).
Another proposed solution seems more popular. No change required to
> At 9:55 AM +0100 5/3/02, Roger Burton West wrote:
This is correct. Can you read the account of the battle of Savo
Island? This is an exact account of PDS+ADFC vs normal weapons. I
have to ask though, if you have a BDN that is optimized with PDS vs
more small anti-ship weapons, why are you getting into knife fighting
range? Stand off.
> Which means that, if I want to increase my odds of winning, I should
Also, in the case of a task group that is not equipped to fight a given
opponent, if they don't have to fight, why don't they just refuse battle and
withdraw? I know it's not fun, but it does make
sense...
> On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 16:33, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
Items lacking from the gunnery equation is space is air drag on the
projectiles (especially if they're energy beams) and gravity's effect on the
trajectory... Making deflection shooting less of an issue as far as aiming (I
think). What gets added to the issue of deflection shooting in space is armor
and shields... aircraft can't have armored hulls like a spacecraft can so
hitting at an angle to the armor increases the armor's effectiveness (re:
sloped armor).
Basically, I guess the relative effectiveness of deflection shooting vs.
head-on and whether or not fighters attack like airplanes or not is a
PSB and therefore up to player's preference. (eg - Somewhat pointless
to debate) which you pretty much state below...
> Anyway, all this is just so much PSB - just keep it simple, limit
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 12:32:34AM -0700, Eric Foley wrote:
Are you saying "the system" meaning "mixed Human, KV and Phalon tech"? Or are
you saying you can deal with fighters within the constraints of Human tech? If
the latter, perhaps you'd post the designs?
> On 3-May-02 at 03:35, Eric Foley (stiltman@teleport.com) wrote:
> And once again, you're missing the point. There is _no_such_thing_ as
Only with foreknowledge. If I _know_ how many fighters your "soap
bubble class carrier" has I can work out something to deal with it. OTH if I
have no clue what you can bring to the battle and I prepare for the bubble
carrier and you bring the "Big Beams" class SDN I lose. The battle isn't worth
fighting out. As a matter of fact I would bet that if you campaigned for
awhile it would evolve to everyone having a variation on the bubble because
the best defense against fighters is... Fighters.
Also, realize that from what I have seen you are stacking "genre" weapons.
They aren't in FB and were highly optional in the
I had written:
> > Anyway, all this is just so much PSB - just keep it simple, limit
On further thoughts, I don't think this is such a good solution. Main problem
I see with limiting the number of fighters attacking a ship is that it will
make big ships relatively stronger against fighters than small ships, and a
lot of people think big ships are underprited anyway. It would be better to
find a solution that favours small ships, perhaps, as has been suggested,
based on the ships thrust (maneuvrability).
Greetings
KH.Ranitzsch had written:
> > > Anyway, all this is just so much PSB - just keep it simple, limit
And responded to himself:
> On further thoughts, I don't think this is such a good solution. Main
Another option, IF you want to modify fighters, might be to change how
fighters move and intercept ships. Maybe a movement system similar to how
Missiles move (I can't remember if it would be more like MTM's or SM's, I'm
not at my books), or a variation of that would work. You could require
fighters to commit to a certain vector, say any given 30' wedge out from
their current position, BEFORE ship movement, and then after ships move the
fighters can go after anything in that wedge - it could simulate having
to commit to moving to a certain area of space, but still having speed and
manouverability to adjust within that general course.
3B^2