From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:08:18 -0400
Subject: [FT] Fighters (the bleeding continues)
I find it interesting that people talk about how changing the stats for a given system will produce an unrealistic result, as if an initial statistical representation is somehow sacrosanct and "realistic". The original values were tested under a limited range of situations, the original point totals derived by fallible human beings. There is no sacrosanct comparison to some "realistic" set of values... as far as I know, no one has yet built a space fighter OR a working FT PDS suite. In fact, since the game is generic, we don't even know WHAT that is exactly. So how exactly can numbers be more or less realistic given our near total ignorance? They cannot. It is quite possible with laser based PDS suites and the kind of fire control the FT universe would absolutely require that nothing short of hundreds of fighters could stand any chance to overwhelm the average PDS system. PDS that engaged ALL targets is as realistic (depending on the technologies involved) as PDS that does not. In fact, it may be that no fighter occupied by a human can handle the kind of manouverability that would be required to actually avoid PDS at all, so anytime you were inside the PDS range, you'd pretty much be dead. Modern PDS systems are fairly dangerous to anything (missile, but especially large air target) that gets inside the effective range. 20mmm or 30mm has a nasty way of ruining your day. This means little, referring to the original thought that we have no idea what these PDS systems really are. They could be lasers, slugthrowers, fragmenting charges, etc. Oerjan has already suggested that the PDS system rolls may represent a multi-layer defense with missiles/guns/charges all abstracted into one roll. Who knows? Since we don't, all we can argue about is what kind of genre we want to simulate and how. And there isn't any good reason to say one genre is better/worse. Everyone has unique tastes. And those who are arguing for "realism".... <my ribs hurt that's so funny>. You're talking about speeds of 60,000 kph and rather ludicrious long term accelerations. You're believing in anti-grav. But you can't believe PDS that attacks everything or a limitation on the number of fighter groups attacking a ship? (ha ha hahahaha!) Okay, now that I've recovered from paroxysms of laughter at the ridiculous... (and a smirk at John A. chiding people for poor manners... good shot John....) ...what is it about the idea of having a variety of PDS/fighter rules and letting each player group that wants to simulate a genre pick to their taste that is so disturbing to some folks? Seemed to me Jon T was quietly speaking up in favour of such an inclusionary approach. Seems to me those jumping on his head saying "X is the timescale and Y is the movement rate when both are explicitly vague ON PURPOSE" is kind of besides the point. Jon has indicated his model for fighters to attack ships was more the Pearl Harbour/Star Wars fly in close, fire your laser canons, get out model. That model suggests ranges at max of a few kilometers, maybe even a few hundred meters. The 6" range (and no, don't bother telling me that is 6000km because it IS NOT.... it MAY be 6000km, or it may be 6000m.... no one can say since this is intentionally left vague!) represents how close you have to be to initiate your attack run. During that turn, you make the run in, fire an attack, and peel back out, taking PDS fire all the while. That doesn't represent stand off weapons, but if you only have a 1km or less sphere around the ship that constitutes final attack distance, you can well justify resolving the fighter attacks in waves. People have cited historical examples of fighters attacking in waves of up to 9. Of course, most of the historical footage I've seen shows 1-2 fighters coming in at a time. You might have 9 attacking from a squadron, but maybe all 9 aren't diving at the same target at the same instant. Or maybe they are. But limiting to squadrons of 6 for space fighters is entirely believable, until we have a workable mechanic for squadrons of arbitrary size. I think those of you so concerned with "realistic" models, or so concerned with making the game "unplayable" just because suddenly fighters are a bit more evenly balanced - you might want to check out Harpoon. It's nice and realistic. And about as much fun for most people as collecting pocket lint. FT is an ostensibly generic game. A truly generic game enables the simulation of any genre by providing alternatives/options/genre rules packets/costings. FT isn't quite there yet. The idea of going there shouldn't be terribly disturbing to anyone, since the end result would be you could keep things as is, add in one of the generic packets, etc. - pretty much play the way YOU want to. I don't see anything to be gained from saying "Darn it, my model is right, all the others blow goats and should not be allowed!". Don't be selfish.... try to think in an inclusionary manner and instead of saying "Well, X player is playing in an immature style" or "FB1 fleets just suck" or "...if he'd brought this combination of things".... where does that get us and how does it improve the experience for new players? How does conforming another player to YOUR particular bias about how things "should be" improve the quality of their experience with the game? It doesn't. So what does it buy us as the GZG community or Jon as a guy trying to make a living selling stuff? Nada. FB1 designs aren't sacrosanct, but for practical reasons, no one is likely to try to reissue them. Part of the future of the game is preserving value for the players who have already spent a pile on existing books. FB1 rules aren't sacrosanct (God knows some FB2 SV rules are a bit bent....). FB1 costings aren't sacrosanct. All of these things are ARBITRARILY SELECTED in the first place, so there is no issue of HOLY CANON here. Just the practical question of "what can we do to make the game more fun for more people"? If that means some alternate rules by genre and alternate costings, so be it. That excludes no-one. If it means NPV corrections (easily published in one chart) to FB costings, so be it. FB per-SSD changes or new systems are less likely as invalidating all the FB1 designs is a greater problem. So we move forward in a practical, inclusionary fashion. And at the end of the day, if you can't play nice and share the universe...... Tomb.