Toward the end of last May's listfest I concluded that some members
might be developing a quite reasonable aversion to the F-word; my
F***ters folder contains 437 items (I discarded the few items that didn't
contribute anything to the substance of the ongoing discussion and hoovered up
a few other items from outside that period).
Consequently I've taken the unusual step of putting a spoiler space in this
article in order to protect those who now flinch at the slightest mention
of...
> [quoted text omitted]
FIGHTERS! (This is your last chance to click Exit)
> [quoted text omitted]
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Laserlight
> The test list has come up with what appears to be a solution;
Joking aside, I'm not going to let this august group of individuals trundle
out a solution I held off posting last year in order to protect the fraught
and screenworn.
Fighters assume their numbers-to-effectiveness problem because
the system permits them to flood the target. A few fighters are completely
ineffective (they get shot down without causing much damage) but a large
number of fighters are devasting because no matter how large the attack, the
defences only bring down the same small number of attackers. The rest get a
clear run in.
Make PDS effectiveness relative to% of ship's tonnage spent on it.
A certain degree of PSB is necessary to cover what is basically a patch to
game balance, but better authors than I have not shied away from this type of
solution.
I suppose that after that intro, I'd better post the original
draft...
[FT] Fighters - a radical solution
May 10th, 20002 (never posted)
Not being fond of the task of painting, mounting and invariably repairing any
significant number of fighter models, I find the idea of making the trivial
number of fighters on FB1 ships effective whilst discouraging "soap scum"
highly attractive.
It's been suggested that each PDS could shoot at every approaching fighter. A
large vessel may then festoon itself with PDS and make the approach of any
fighters (in any number) suicidal.
PART IV - A NEW (?) IDEA*
========================
Why not go a step beyond this and use the same mechanism as shields? Instead
of buying individual PDS batteries, we would specify X% of the ship for PDS.
Each percentage would provide one PDS symbol capable of engaging all fighters.
To fulfil the objective of keeping FB1 designs viable (and I'm not deaf to the
arguments for and against this) I was considering either 1% or 2% of total
MASS per PDS. Working outside of this box, it may be desirable to set a much
higher figure. I had hoped that rounding would make PDS impractical for very
small vessels such as strikeboats and banzai jammers, but this would appear to
not be the case.
I'm not certain what the cost of this new system should be. The existing FB
figure would indicate 3 points per MASS of PDS. When translating existing FB1
ships, I would suggest that the result be limited both by mass and points
already committed to PDS:
(read this table using a non-proportional font)
old PDS TMF % PTS @1% @2%
Ticonderoga 2 30 6.6 6 2 2
Vandenburg 2 80 2.5 6 2 1
Victoria 3 120 2.5 9 2 1
Valley Forge 4 190 2.1 12 2 1
Waldburg 2 30 6.6 6 2 2
MarkGraf 3 82 3.6 9 3 2
Maria Von Burgend 4 120 3.3 12 3 2
Von Tegethoff 4 200 2.0 12 2 1
San Miguel 2 34 5.8 6 2 2
Jerez 2 88 2.7 6 2 1
Roma 4 110 3.6 12 3 2
Foch 6 250 2.4 18 2 1
Warsaw 1 28 3.5 3 1 1
Gorshov 2 70 2.8 6 2 1
Petrograd 3 138 2.1 9 2 1
Komarov 4 220 1.8 12 2 1
In combat, an important limitation would be that no more than 3 PDS could be
used in a turn; any others are backup systems along for the ride. There is no
allocation of PDS against attacking squadrons; just roll the dice against
every one.
Here is a table showing the probability of the
possible outcomes. I've ignored re-rolls since I
don't use the reroll rule in general.
Losses: 0/6 1/6 2/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 6/6
PDS p(%) p(%) p(%) p(%) p(%) p(%) p(%)
1 50.0 33.3 16.7 - - - -
2 25.0 33.3 27.8 11.1 2.8 - -
3 12.5 25.0 29.3 20.3 9.8 2.7 0.4
All PDS (up to the system limit) fire at all approaching fighters, so as more
dice are thrown the likely overall outcome will tighten toward the average
casualty rates. These are 11% if one PDS, 22% if two and 33% if three.
PART V - THE SYSTEM STRIKES BACK
================================
Throw away the PDS roll and the fighter attack. Roll one die per fighter.
Deduct one from turkey dice and add one to ace dice, so you can now have mixed
squadrons if you really want to.
Die: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PDS
0 M M 1 1 1 R R R
1 D D M M 1 1 R R
2 D D M M M 1 R R
3 D D D M M M 1 R
M: Missed. If fighters are only allowed one ship attack per sortie, it's back
to the carrier. 1: Hit. One point of damage scored. R: Hit and Reroll
If a fighter is destroyed by a re-roll, the
original point of damage stands.
There are some fairly horrendous balance issues here. Fighters would ignore
shields and would be rolling to attack before taking any losses from PDS fire.
Against this, the potential increase in system speed is considerable.
PART VI - RETURN OF THE NEEDLE
[quoted original message omitted]
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Eric Foley
> ..how will scatterguns be affected by it? Will they merely
I could reverse this and say what about the limited anti-
ship capability currently permitted PDS?
I must admit I was thinking purely in terms of the basic FT
system, and having made arrangements to get hold of a first-
day copy of FB2 I haven't even read all the alien weapon rules properly. There
are many questions that would need to be answered regards the PH plasma bolt
and all the races' equivalents to PDS.
The essential principle of PDS as a proportion of hull mass
should prove fairly portable, as a defence. The one-shot
nature of the KV scattergun makes its evaluation difficult but not impossible.
Not having operated or faced KV since MT, I don't have a value in mind. Does
the mere threat of a scattergun blast make a fighter pilot more cautious?
Your problem is thus evaluating any defensive system as an offensive one. It
may be necessary to use both old and new ratings to measure these systems,
though this strikes me as inelegant.
Nathan "my time service is broken" Girdler
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:43:03 -0800, "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> I actually like it -- and I've been one of the more reactionary people
It's not what the group has been doing, no. But it has certain aspects of
things the playtest group was studying.
However, I think the playtest list's proposed solution is a bit more elegant.
It doesn't have a combat results table, for instance (which Jon isn't crazy
about anyway) and it sticks closer to the rules already in place (thus it's
easier to remember). Nathan's solution also doesn't deal with salvo missiles
(I'm assuming that salvo missiles are handled as they are now?) or class 1
beams in PDS mode. The biggest negative to this idea, other than the CRT, is
that it requires recalculating ship cost.
The whole fighter balance issue is a tough one. For one thing, you have to
take _all_ the fleets into consideration, including the Phalons with
their PBLs. I suspect that by the time Nathan has played enough playtest games
to find the problems and sort them out, the playtest lists' proposal will be
out in one form or another...
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Note that the idea
> of fighters burning endurance to reduce damange
I've been mentally toying with the idea of expanding greatly what actions
require endurance burning on the part of fighters.
> The whole fighter balance issue is a tough one. For one thing, you
The problem is that you allow integrated fighter attacks (multiple fighter
groups attacking one ship with all the defenses of that ship split up among
those groups) without integrated anti-fighter defenses. The reason for
this is to allow aside with only few fighter groups to be effective. The
problem is that it means fighter attacks in mass are not balanced. StarFire
took a different approach, integrated fighter attack and integrated fleet
defenses.
The only fixes I can think of is to make ADFC's much more common (possibly
to include reducing mass and/or points of the system), or the seconded
PDAF phase where every ship in the fleet in range can shoot at them. The
fighters will still get a nasty first strike, but they will take a lot more
casualties or burn a lot of endurance to avoid the casualties (which means
they have to run home to the carrier much more often). Note that the idea of
fighters burning endurance to reduce damange could be extended to fighter
dogfights which would add more depth to the game (as well as making endurance
very important).
> Imre Szabo wrote:
> >The whole fighter balance issue is a tough one. For one thing, you
Um... Mr.Szabo?
Your above statement is certainly correct for the *currently published* rules.
Allan was, however, talking about the playtest list's proposal for solving
the fighter balance problems you describe - which makes your statement
quite inaccurate indeed...
Kind regards,
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not on the playtest list, so I don't have a clue
Based on OO's comments to you, I'd guess that the solution has something to do
with expanding what the
current systems can do WRT firing on non-attacking
fighters. That's just my guess, YMMV.
> Your above statement is certainly correct for the *currently
Actually, my statement is partially wrong (which makes the whole thing false
in logic). The NAC, FSE, NSL, ESU, and Phalons don't have integrated
anit-fighter defenses. The SaVasku do have integrated fighter defenses
in the form of pod launchers, and the Kravak in the form of Scatterguns. If
fact, I usually use pod launchers for just two purposes, attacks on ships with
level two screens (rarely get close enough, ie within 12mu, not worth
it farther out), and anti-Fighter/anti-salvo missile defense. My bugs
haven't run into the Phalons yet...
> Allan was, however, talking about the playtest list's proposal for
My suggested salvo missile decoys, as originally suggested are illegal -
no hull. The fix for a space based version is to replace the armour with hull
integrity. No change in points. The planet base version will be the same size
and cost of the space based version, replace external armour with one hull
integrity. If you allow fractional mass for FTL drives and main drives, you
can build a small decoy, so you can have a mass 4 decoy with 1 hull integrity,
FTL, thrust 7, and PDAF for 13 points; or a mass 3 decoy with 1 hull
integrity, FTL, thrust 4, and PDAF for 10 points.
In a game I fought a couple of years ago, the ESU player took about 6 Lenov
class scoutships in his fleet. I blew two of them up with enitely too many
salvo missiles. I burnt the rest of them down with beams that turn, but they
had already cost me too much... He paid 21 points each for the Lenov's, and
deffinately go his money's worth. I don't think there needs to be a fix for
PDAF's with regard to salvo missiles. The more I think about decoys, the less
of a problem I see them being. Granted the decoys can be shot down very
easily, but there is not much chance of the FSE doing this outside of salvo
missile range (only the FSE BDN and SDN have class three beems). They could
send in fighter, but they wouldn't be supported by missiles (the whole point
is to get rid of the decoys so the salvo missiles won't lock on to them).
I'm not on the playtest list, so I don't have a clue what you all are up to. I
hope it is not a arbitrary limit. I rather dislike them even though I can't
always find a method to avoid them, i.e. my suggested limit of Sa'Vasku power
generators.
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Allan Goodall
> It's not what the group has been doing, no. But it has certain
I hope I haven't missed anything here. Any proposed solution is still under
wraps with the playtest list, and nothing has been publicly announced,
correct?
> It doesn't have a combat results table, for instance (which Jon
A general aversion to CRTs is certainly understandable, and I've
seen some that could be written simply as a "roll X or more, +1
if..." rule. Having said that, mechanisms can be created using a CRT that
can't be duplicated with a straight rule.
What is the easiest way to describe the relationship between beams and shields
to a newbie or transient player? Draw a table.
I must admit that the second stage of my suggestion ("Part V") does go a lot
further than the first bit, and as I noted I am concerned that it nullifies
the effect of shields against fighters. Each part was intended as a separate
successive suggestion, and the first stage can be used in isolation if CRTs
are undesirable.
> Nathan's solution also doesn't deal with salvo missiles
I didn't mention them, but an adaptation shouldn't be difficult. Every salvo
missile gets shot at on the way in, and the only real question is how lethal
SMs are to be.
Wild totally-untested idea: when rolling for the number of
missiles in each salvo that strike, deduct the ship's PDS rating. If that
makes PDS too weak, try adding 1 to the PDS rating if the target is under
thrust.
> or class 1 beams in PDS mode.
Even when a very large vessel is under attack, how much do B1s add to the
defence? I suspect it's more of a psychological prop for the player being
attacked. Why is this support needed? Could it be that the ruleset is under
pressure to find more ways to fend off massed fighter and missile attacks?
Along the lines of recent suggestions, I'd say let B1s pot at any fighter
group lurking within 6mu as part of the normal fire phase, but deny them any
role during a close attack. Add a requirement for a free firecon, one per
group if you want to be nasty to fighters and one per fighter if you want to
severely limit the effect of superships on fighters.
(A fighter may of course avoid all B1 fire by manoeuvring down any covenient
trench in the hull of the supership.)
> The biggest negative to this idea, other than the CRT, is
{stage whisper} If FB1 had to be reprinted, it would be an opportunity to
correct some of the typos. (Somebody correct me if the current edition is
already fixed!)
I didn't have a precise recosting / rebuilding of the FB1 ships
in mind. My "quick fix" conversion went more along the lines of "you have have
X PDS therefore have spent Y% of your TMF on PDS at a cost of 3X points; it
follows that your new PDS rating is Z, add or strike symbols accordingly". A
bit like an errata.
> For one thing, you have to take _all_ the fleets into
True, and adapting the idea to handle the PH weaponry will be particularly
difficult. I don't use FB2 and have never faced SV or PH, so I don't really
feel that I can offer a good suggestion here. I'm facing a big enough battle
getting SMs accepted by my usual group.
> I suspect that by the time Nathan has played enough playtest
It's a fair cop, guv! I only get to play FT a few times a year, and I know
from putting new ideas on the table how difficult it can be to get the balance
right.
Nathan "the guinea pigs are revolting!" Girdler
> I hope I haven't missed anything here. Any proposed solution is
Correct. Jon has to approve release. Testing is still ongoing. Top
men are taking care of it--*top* men. Look into this little red
blinky thingy...
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Allan Goodall
> Oerjan asked me to forward this on to the mailing list.
I'm impressed. The last thing I'd want to do in the middle of a move is worry
about a tricky issue like fighters.
> ... just like Jon T. the playtesters pick up a lot of
Oh yes. That's an accepted fact of participating here.
> CS Renegade wrote:
> Not only did it nullify screens against fighters; it also
The old FT grade 3 screen certainly cut fighter attacks down to size.
I've always considered the variant fighters an optional rather than a core
rule, possibly because they first appeared in MT. However, FB2 appears to make
them core. To answer the question I looked at modifying my abominable CRT:
Roll one die per fighter. Deduct one from turkey dice and add one to ace dice,
so you can now have mixed squadrons if you really want to.
Die: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PDS
0 M M A 1 1 R R R
1 D H M A 1 1 R R
2 D H M M A 1 R R
3 D D H M M A 1 R
D: Fighter destroyed H: Heavies survive, others destroyed. M: Missed, but
counts as a turn of firing. A: Attack fighters hit, others miss. 1: Hit. One
point of damage scored. R: Hit and reroll
If a fighter is destroyed by a re-roll, the
original point of damage stands.
For Torpedo fighters I considered saying read any result yielding an A or an R
as the amount of damage caused. Torpedo Aces might need to be prohibited.
Unfortunately this doesn't work, at several levels.
The basic D6 range is just too granular. Heavy fighters become almost
bulletproof and Attack fighters enjoy too
great an advantage attacking heavily-defended targets.
FT is a single D6 system so the range can't be extended. You only get more
variation by saying "check die A then maybe die B", which is a far cry from
what I was trying to achieve.
If there was a larger range available then screens could resume their existing
role by replacing some of those "1" results with "1 point, deflected by grade
1 screen or better" and so forth.
The other problem is that the CRT is now becoming more cluttered with
different results. The problem might be solved with one CRT per fighter type
(or screen) but the cure is worse than the disease.
ADFC becomes a major problem when PDS is calculated as a rating rather than a
count of finite systems. If the fighters have to run the gauntlet of an ADFC
ship rather than the PDS of the target then there is the obvious rules abuse
of a small escort covering a large battleship. I'd say the total TMF of all
escorts used in this way should equal or exceed that of the target.
For example, I've got a Milan configured for ADFC. It will take two of them to
cover a Roma and four of them to cover a Foche if I extend them a fraction.
Alternatively, to keep the new PDS out of the hands of banzai jammers and
strikeboats, I had contemplated a new
requirement for a (mass-consuming) direction centre for
PDS. Adding a fixed cost would make any PDS impractical for such vessels, but
this would be a major change to FB1
and the existing designs so is a non-starter. ADFC would
have become a larger, more expensive variation of this.
> (Side note: although the re-rolls are described as an
No, but then I wouldn't permit designs armed exlusively with PTs, and I've
never fought modern KV. Are there any figures to suggest what the increase in
the price of PTs (probably the easier way of looking at it) should be?
> On PDS vs SMs:
> .. when rolling for the number of missiles in each salvo
> If it makes PDS too *weak*? I'd say that they make PDSs
It's too late for me to trot out the progression needed to calculate the
reroll, so leaving that aside each PDS currently shoots down 0.66 of a salvo
missile. That's not entirely true since the requirement to allocate PDS fire
will occasionally leave a battery idle whilst elsewhere a salvo strikes home
unopposed, but it'll do.
The rating proposal has each PDS bagging 1 missile with no chance of failure,
and repeating the performance for every separate salvo that attacks. However,
there are far fewer PDS under this system than there currrently are. Examine
my table of FB1 conversions and it will be seen that all of the superheavies
and all but two of the battlewagons end up with a PDS rating of 1 at 2% TMF
per grade.
> From my very limited experience with salvo missiles, a
> Even when a very large vessel is under attack, how much
> It is for the SMALL ships, up to about DD size, that the
Statistically that is very true. But also irrelevant. These ships generally
have a pair of B1s and a single PDS, guarding five to ten hull boxes. If
attacked by two SM salvos then this class of vessel is kaput, and a single
salvo will probably put it past the first threshold.
I can see that this has turned into a "knock the salvo missile" posting. I'm
going to try a larger scale at my next game since part of the problem could be
that we are using cinematic movement on what I suspect is too small a
tabletop. Speeds are consequently low and it's probably far too easy to
predict where the enemy will be, both for missiles and submunition packs.
Meanwhile, the problem of massed fighter and missile attacks remains unsolved.
> {stage whisper} If FB1 had to be reprinted, it would be
> FB1 was ... corrected a couple years or three ago.
Well at least Jon's got a sale out of this. Having brought up the subject of
the old errors I now feel morally obliged to go and get a new copy. Unless
{chortle} FT3 is going to be available at Salute this year?