[FT] Fighters

Hi All, Just a quick question.. Can you combine fighter types i.e. a fast
interceptor or a heavy attack? Looking in MT it is not quite clear

Thanks

Yes, but it needs to be agreed with your opponent's before the battle, as some
fighter combos are overly powerful unless restricted (ie: heavy attack
fighters). It hasn't really changed in FTFB, but it only lists costs for
single type fighters (and those costs have increased).

Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander

> -----Original Message-----

> Flynn Richardson wrote:

> Hi All,

As long as you pay the points for all modifications and don't combine two
different armament types ("torpedo interceptors", etc), you're OK
balance-wise.

Regards,

For a quick shameless plug, look on my web site for my modular fighter
construction rules:

http://www.alaska.net/~jnoble/FT/

I've got rules for constructing and pricing fighters, rules for large fighters
(mass 1.5 each, or 4 per squadron) as well as some optional externally mounted
packs, such as:

booster packs - extra endurance for climbing out of atmospheres,
mostly for ground based fighters.

FTL packs - To allow fighters to enter or exit the board via FTL

Submunition packs - one-shot external ordnance

I don't have all the supporting rules ideas posted, but there are some
starting suggestions to begin with.

Jared

> Hi All,

> On 17-Feb-00 at 03:45, J Noble (jnoble@alaska.net) wrote:

One thing I noticed was a list consensus mentionned that said
class 1s when in anti-fighter mode treat heavy fighters as per
normal. Is that really list consensus? It's something I don't see mentionned
in the rules.

Rogre

> On 17-Feb-00 at 03:45, J Noble (jnoble@alaska.net) wrote:

> FTL packs - To allow fighters to enter or exit the board via FTL

Hmmm, I don't really like this idea. If I were playing a campaign I would
scrap almost all my ships and spend the points on fighters with FTL packs
instead. The cost goes way down even at an extra 2 per fighter.

> Roger Books wrote:

> On 17-Feb-00 at 03:45, J Noble (jnoble@alaska.net) wrote:

I don't think this is necessarily intended for the standard GZG
background - however, if you want to play the St*r W*rs universe (for
example) you will _need_ FTL capable fighters.

> Roger Books wrote:

> One thing I noticed was a list consensus mentionned that said

MT says it almost explicitly: "... ie: rolls of "4" have no effect
..".

C1 batteries only ever kill fighters or missiles on rolls of 5 or 6.

Regards,

In a message dated 2/17/00 8:20:34 AM Central Standard Time,
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:

<< > FTL packs - To allow fighters to enter or exit the board via FTL

Hmmm, I don't really like this idea. If I were playing a campaign I would
scrap almost all my ships and spend the points on fighters with FTL packs
instead. The cost goes way down even at an extra 2 per fighter.

 Roger
> [quoted text omitted]
In a campaign game, you could simply state that FTL packs for fighters were
one or two use items, and then had to be thrown away. Imagine having to buy
your FTL drives over and over again...not a pretty picture. Also, they would
have to buy extended life support, not the measly extended combat duration
that they can buy now. I think the true use of FTL packs for fighters,
especially in a campaign game, is as a way of quickly getting around systems.
Think about it, you bring in your carriers, to the unpopulated outer system,
launch your fighters, equipped with FTL packs of course, and they do FTL

assisted raids into the inner system... Nice. On the other hand, you can equip
some of your defensive fighters with them, so you have quick reaction forces
to defend anything in your system. I personally like the idea, and will
probably use them in my next campaign

game, although i will be upping the price a bit.

John

> On 18-Feb-00 at 04:06, JohnDHamill@aol.com (JohnDHamill@aol.com) wrote:

I guess if you force bases it wouldn't be that bad, but I'm just thinking my
current campaign.

I'm bringing in 6 fighter squadrons on 2 CVL's and a BDN, I also have a
missile cruiser (10 SMR). I don't know what my opponent has but I know he
outpoints me by about 30%. If I had FTL fighters I would be
adding 12 squadrons to the mix from the two jump-point connected worlds.
It makes carriers rather superfluous.

That would be a major difference and I would probably trounce him as he has
very little in the way of fixed defenses that connect to the contested world
for fighters of his own.

In a message dated 2/18/00 9:25:00 AM Central Standard Time,
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:

<< I guess if you force bases it wouldn't be that bad, but I'm just thinking
my current campaign.

I'm bringing in 6 fighter squadrons on 2 CVL's and a BDN, I also have a
missile cruiser (10 SMR). I don't know what my opponent has but I know he
outpoints me by about 30%. If I had FTL fighters I would be
 adding 12 squadrons to the mix from the two jump-point connected
worlds. It makes carriers rather superfluous.

That would be a major difference and I would probably trounce him as he has
very little in the way of fixed defenses that connect to the contested world
for fighters of his own.
> [quoted text omitted]
Anybody who stints defenses in a campaign game deserves to have the mistake
rammed straight down their throat. I used to play Starfire campaigns, and the
first thing you learn to do is to build up your system defenses.
Unfortunately, i learned that from very painful experience, as the first

campaign i was in my defenses were arranged on my frontiers, and very little
in my core systems. A very powerful player task force, consisting of several
other players fleets ( never brag to the other players :-) ) broke thru
my defenses and rolled up my core systems, one by one. A very hard lesson...
As far as balancing the points out, make them more expensive than they would
be for a ship of the same size, and make them expendable, example: for a mass
one ship (i know they're not really possible, but for the example...) the cost
for FTL would be 2 points, and it would be good for the life of the

ship. With FTL packs for fighters, charge 4 points, and they only work twice,
after that they burn out. In a campaign, if you used thes you would have to
replace them after every time they left base and came back, kind of
expensive, but worth it for the occasional raid or all-out battle...

John

> On 18-Feb-00 at 16:58, JohnDHamill@aol.com (JohnDHamill@aol.com) wrote:

> Anybody who stints defenses in a campaign game deserves to have the
)
> broke thru my defenses and rolled up my core systems, one by one. A

It all depends on the situation. My opponent has an almost linear world base
which is vulnerable to two players (It also has the largest production base).
In his (reasonable) judgement attempting to provide defenses for all of his
worlds with his available resources would leave him able to defend none,
therefore he defended his important worlds and left an FTL force to deal with
the rest.

Sorry this has taken so long to put back into discussion, but better late than
never:

Since I posted the idea about FTL packs on fighters, with no real explanation
or rules attached, I need to make some clarifications, just so we're on the
same page here.

-----

The FTL packs grew out of a lengthy discussion on the list, probably around
October or November of 98 (don't know off the top of my head).
While the need for FTL fighters in genre-specific games (e.g. Star
Wars) is recognized, the FTL packs proposed are intended for the
GZG-verse - with qualifications.

FTL in the GZG-Verse is described as a series of instantaneous jumps
interspersed with long periods of drive recovery time. Any interstellar
transit is going to require several jumps to complete.
These jumps are initially long-distance, with relatively poor
accuracy, and as you approach your destination, you start to make
shorter jumps with increased accuracy.  We are talking _days_ here.
Pilots are not going to stay in a fighter for the duration of this trip. Not
feasible. The proposed packs also do not allow for the
multitude of jumps required for an inter-system transit.  Instead
they are good for 1 or maybe 2 jumps - at most.

This allows a strike group to approach within the final jump of a system, then
deploy fighters for the last jump. All the fighters can begin on the board, or
jump in just like any other FTL capable ships, at which point they jettison
their packs and behave normally. In fact, the carrier could hang back for a
short period, then follow the strike group to perform fighter recover duties
in hopes of reducing it's exposure to enemy fire. (before the game, designate
on what
turn and at what location the Carrier will enter the board - this
cannot be cancelled, as there is no way to send an 'abort' message to the
carrier)

<BTW, this came about before the SEMI-OFFICIAL pronouncement that a
carrier could launch all it's fighters in a single turn.>

If they fighters are capable of 2 jumps, they could jump in, scout
around for a while (recharge time) and then jump out again - but that
seems like a poor job for a fighter - better a scout with enhanced
sensors or something similar.

Also - Fighters carrying ANY of the proposed packs incur serious
performance penalties.  Speed cut to 1/2 or 2/3.  No secondary move.
Dog-fighting ability reduced to that of an attack fighter at best.
+1 bonuses to PDS attacking them.  You don't really _want_ the packs
attached to your fighter when you enter combat as they make you wallow like a
pig.

They could be useful for an in-system defense group to make tactical
jump to respond to enemy incursions, making your 'rapid response' force a
little more rapid.

In summary, if you do not have the hangarage for your fighter groups, adding
FTL packs won't allow you to bring them to a fight. What they are intended for
is to add a little more flexibility for use in special circumstances.

Jared
http://www.alaska.net/~jnoble/FT

> In a message dated 2/18/00 9:25:00 AM Central Standard Time,
the
> cost for FTL would be 2 points, and it would be good for the life of

On Saturday, May 04, 2002 5:25 PM, Brian Burger
[SMTP:yh728@victoria.tc.ca]
wrote:
> Either double the price, or redo the fighter weapon systems as PDS -
Let
> interceptors kill 1 fighter w/ 4; 2 on 5,6; no damage possible to
(KISS
> principle)

Fighter dogfights already work like this.
Torp/Attack: 6 = 1 kill + reroll.
Standard fighters / PDS: 4-5= 1 kill, 6 = 2 kills + reroll.
Interceptors: 3-4 = 1 kill, 5 = 2 kills, 6 = 2 kills + reroll.

If you haven't been using this mechanic, then no wonder you think fighters are
overpowered.

> Having a half-range B1 that can't be killed beyond 6" away, and can't
Simply house rule it that any fighters in range can be attacked by PDS. ADFC
is still useful, as it extends your effective PDS range by 6" to help other
ships.

'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[sstrike] Raider Fleet of War Leader Kel'em'all

[quoted original message omitted]

> [quoted text omitted]

Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 16:56:26 +1000
From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
Subject: RE: [FT] Fighters

[snip]

Fighter dogfights already work like this.
Torp/Attack: 6 = 1 kill + reroll.
Standard fighters / PDS: 4-5= 1 kill, 6 = 2 kills + reroll.
Interceptors: 3-4 = 1 kill, 5 = 2 kills, 6 = 2 kills + reroll.

If you haven't been using this mechanic, then no wonder you think fighters are
overpowered.

> Having a half-range B1 that can't be killed beyond 6" away, and can't
Simply house rule it that any fighters in range can be attacked by PDS. ADFC
is still useful, as it extends your effective PDS range by 6" to help other
ships.

<<<<<<<<<<

[ momentarily surfacing from B5 FT rules writing & playtesting... ]

we also use the rule that PDS may fire at *any* fighter. we also reduced a
fighters weapons range to 3". the rest is fleet tactics.

if larger ships are screened by escorts, now fighters must "run the gauntlet"
to get a shot at a big, juicy target. to counter this, stripping escorts out
of the enemy formation become more of a priority. fighter CAP also has more
importance as well. try this and see what it does for your group. the changes
are not huge, but our group like the new results and feel.

Dave

> At 12:22 PM -0400 5/6/02, David Reeves wrote:

I would give PDS a range of 3" just like the fighters for targets of
opportunity.

ADFC would be able to reach out and touch. This would give 2 layers
of air defense that is not unlike the 5"/38 - 40mm - 20mm layers that
the US used for WWII. It gave good service. But you had to position your ships
in the right place. Additionally, where did the newer faster warships with
lots of AA guns go? Next to the carriers. The
slower BBs were refitted, rebuilt (after Dec 7) and re-armed to the
newer spec of lots of 40mm and 20mm AA guns.

> <<<<<<<<<<

Ooh. Look Tactics. Gosh some people won't like that...