This is a companion post to ' "Agile" Fighters (yet another
re-evaluation of
fighters)' I've posted something siilar before, but wanted to update my
thoughts on what happens when a fighter is "killed" in a dogfight or by PDS
etc. The rule is mostly for flavor and strategic level games, but I find it
necessary to avoid thinkin of any carrier group as basically sending sheep to
slaughter.
When a fighter is hit by anti-fighter fire, roll 1 die.
1-2: Pilot survives OK
3-4: Pilot injured but alive
5-6: Pilot killed
Odd: Fighter repairable (maybe even able to limp to bay under power after
scenario)
Even: Fighter destroyed/unsalvageable
For greater detail, think of increasing severity of injury with higher die
numbers: 1: Pilot, Just a scratch or two
2: Pilot knocked around/ shaken up, but easily treatable. No down time
3: Concussions, broken bones. Recovery in days/weeks.
4: Critical injuries but recoverable over time (weeks+).
5: Dead 6: No body recoverable.
Pilot and fighter survival is moot if no one stays around to
recover/rescue,
or if an enemy victor systematically wipes out cripples and escape pods.
Other details:
Heavy fighters, Interceptors, Agile fighters get -1 to die roll for
pilot outcome only
Kravak anti-fighter weapons add + 1 to die roll, 7 counts as "Even" for
fighter survival
Plasma bolts add + 1 to die roll, 7 counts as "Even" for fighter
survival
> "Izenberg, Noam" wrote:
> This is a companion post to ' "Agile" Fighters (yet another
The
> rule is mostly for flavor and strategic level games, but I find it
Along the lines of what is a "killed" fighter, I've been working in another
direction. Where the rules recommend keeping track of the NUMBER of fighters
in a squadron, I keep track of the STRENGTH of the fighters in a squadron.
It's the same number, somewhere between 1 and 6, and works the same way, but
what it represents is different. The strength of the squadron indicates
morale, expended ammo, as well as the actual number of craft in the squadron.
This has a number of effects. First, it frees you from having to determine
relative strength of individual fighters. We all know that one Colonial Viper
is more than a match for three galmonging Cylon Raiders. With the rules as
written (RAW), you've got to be concerned with such things, and then create
the Raiders as attack fighters, and the Vipers as interceptors, but even that
doesn't work well enough. However, when only the squadron strength, not number
of craft, is represented, you don't have to worry about this at all. One
squadron is equal to another squadron, in strength, even though their number
or craft may be very different. Considering the strength as seperate from the
number of craft, you also avoid that "sheep to the slaughter," problem. How
many fighters are actually destroyed? I don't know. All I know is relative
strength. Which is probably all the data you're going to get as an admiral on
the flagship, anyway. It's possible that a "destroyed" squadron doesn't even
lose a man. All of the craft might limp back to the carrier, but be completely
useless after
crash-landing
onto the deck. Who knows? It doesn't seem likely that this would be the case,
but it is still possible. More likely, when one or two points of strength are
lost, a few fighters get shot up, a few are destroyed, and the rest of the
squadron feels the drop in morale and behave accordingly. The best part about
considering the strength as seperate from the number of craft is that you end
up with another variable with which you can realistically toy, and which only
lies partially within the players' control. This translates
to all sorts of fun in one-off tactical, as well as campaign games.
Here's how I handle lost strength. Other than what goes on in my mind, the
combat is handled the same way. But when the squadron gets back to the
carrier, you get a chance to see how much of the strength can be restored
during the battle. Roll a d6 for each lost point of strength. If you have and
Ace or Turkey, add or subtract a die. For each 6 rolled, increase the strength
of the squadron by one. Yes, a squadron with an Ace can actually get a
strength of 7. "Let's
re-arm, refuel, and get back out there to even the score!" The chance
to relaunch recovered fighters happens so rarely, it's a great deal of fun to
get the chance. It also creates an interesting tactical problem in games that
will last long enough for a relaunch to occur. I also allow a fighter squadron
with a strength of 0 to continue to operate. It can't attack, but it can be
attacked. If a squadron is reduced to negative strength, it is considered to
be destroyed. There might be some survivors to recover, but the squadron, as a
unit, is destroyed for good.
For a campaign game, I handle inter-battle repairs like this. After
you've rolled the d6s for all returning squadrons as above, roll 1d6 and add
that to the squadron strength. No squadron can have a strength higher than a 6
at this point, so if you get a strength higher than 6, make it 6. I've used
the above rationalizations and rules, and it's been a great deal of fun. It
also makes me feel a little better about sending that torpedo squadron to make
an attack run against a carrier.
-Mike
While I almost always appreciate adding a layer of abstraction (and fighter
strength rather than number of fighters is a great one), I think Mike's idea
is missing a few wrinkles I appreciate in the game.
Interceptor and attack fighters are there to represent a case where one group
has a significantly different strength in one context than another (dogfight
vs. ship attacks), so they might still need to be reflected somewhere in
Mike's scheme. The heavy advantage represents the case where a group loses
significantly less strength by attacking a ship, and should be kept.
Also, we like to think one MASS equals one MASS, and when designing carriers,
those with significantly superior fighters may deserve the rebate that comes
from building smaller carriers and still projecting superior or equal fighter
strength. (6 Vipers may be a match for 18 Cylon raiders, but doesn't the
Basestar need to devote considerably more MASS to housing them than the
Galactica does to 6 Vipers?).
Other than this, I like the idea. Very large squadrons for inferior fighters
make sense; 6 isn't a magic number for a fighter group, groups should be a
size which concentrates a reasonable amount of strength.
> "McCarthy, Tom" wrote:
> While I almost always appreciate adding a layer of abstraction (and
Don't get me wrong, I still use the specialized fighters. But even that
isn't enough to cover the 3-to-1 odds between Raiders and Vipers.
Besides, I don't see why a designer should be forced to designate Vipers as
interceptors, and thus remove their ability to attack a Cylon Basestar. We saw
Vipers whoop ass on Raiders routinely and we also saw them go against capital
ships. There's no way to represent this in FT with the rules as written (RAW).
> Also, we like to think one MASS equals one MASS, and when designing
Now we're getting into PSB. I appreciate the point, though. The answer to your
question is, I don't know, but it can be argued that the answer is no. A
Basestar might house their inferior pilots more efficiently. The lower quality
Raiders might be stored more efficiently, or require less maintenance space.
Who knows? I'm just saying we can't assume one way or the other. For
playability, let's assume that they're equal. We're really left with no
alternative. There are no FT rules for differences in tech levels or
efficiency. We could always invent our own house rules for these differences,
but that's not what I was trying to do.
> Other than this, I like the idea. Very large squadrons for inferior
Right, and the best part is, you don't have to go through the steps of
determining the number of fighters, for any reason. So it makes the system fit
specific backgrounds much better. For example, in RAW, it would be nearly
impossible to run a classic BSG battle. You'd have about 200 fighters from the
Galactica alone. Yep, over 30 "squadrons" of Vipers buzzing around the table.
Put an the Galactica against an equal number of Cylon "squadrons" without a
fighter screen, as we saw so many time in the series, and Adama would no
longer
be leading rag-tag, fugitive fleet to anywhere but the nether regions.
But, put four fighter squadrons on the table from Galactica and call them
"Blue,"
"Gold,"
"White," and "Silver Spar." Now you have a game. Put four Cylon squadrons up
against the un protected Galactica, and you actually have a chance to see
damage done to each that approximates what we saw on the show.
-Mike
Well, I guess I can see how this abstraction can significantly simplify
things.
For example, in B5, if we say an Omega destroyer can project four flights of
fighters (24), it becomes easier to match them against Centauri Sentris (which
blow spoo) if they project 24 strength while the Sentris effectively project
only 12 strength, but with dogfighting bonuses. Similarly, the Minbari Nial
(which outclasses the Starfury in almost every way conceivable) should
probably have a strength of 36 or 42 for 24 fighters. A little odd to see them
split into 7 even groups, but still a good reflection of their strength
(especially with appropriate advantages for survivability, like heavy).
Tom, Because of our little conversation here, I've been thinking about this
problem even more. As I mentioned in my last post, I agree that the difference
in mass/quality would be nice to reflect in designs. I'm literally
heading out the door for Origins. (Well, OK, I'm just making a check of all my
luggage and then a shower, then get dressed, and THEN out the door.) The
advantage to this is that I'll have 8 hours in the car to think about this.
Forget those books on tape, I've got to work out the variable fighter strength
problem! <g> I'll let you know what I invent when I get back.
-Mike
[UNCLOAK]
I've been lurking on the list for a while (my wife produced a little
playtester last Friday, so I've been too distracted to get drawn into any deep
discussions).
However, having finally been freed from the constant anxious
nail-chewing of the
expectant father, this thread has caught my eye. I've been trying to come up
with an alternative set of fighter rules to better represent the differences
between fighter types in the St*r W*rs universe. The existing FT rules are
great as they are but lack the granularity to represent small differences
between fighter types. Having
played a lot of the LucasArts X-Wing series games, I know what I want
dogfights to feel like (or at least which factors I want to influence the
results of a dogfight).
My answer has been to use the FMA small-arms firing system from
Stargrunt, with each squadron firing as if it were an SG squad. Each fighter
type has a firepower value, hull strength, shield strength, missile value and
(most importantly) an agility rating. I've also given each type a speed and
CEF rating. Dogfights are resolved by opposing die rolls, one per squadron to
determine how many hits are scored and then another one to resolve each hit.
Yes, there are quite a few more die rolls involved than the existing system
although there is no more record keeping required (I know there will be some
stiff opposition to the idea of more die rolls, so I should stress that I came
up with these rules purely for my SW genre designs, not as a replacement for
the rules in GZGverse games).
Having finally written the rules up and produced the stats for each fighter
type, I
gave them a quick playtest and - guess what - the balance is all wrong.
The
strongest fighters (B-Wing) are too strong, weak ones too weak. The
concept is pretty sound but there's a lot of serious tweaking to do with the
stats for the individual ships.
Tony
> Michael Sarno wrote:
> Tom,
I'll let
> you know what I invent when I get back.
I would like to see your fighter ideas... I am an avid Lucas Arts game player
and I have been busy generating FB1 type stats for all known ships from the
game.
As we know.. even though there is a Star Destroyer out there shooting at you
with in effect 10 PDS systems... you can dodge him enough to strike him and
escape with little or no shield damage.
Stuart << My other car is a Tie Defender >>
[quoted original message omitted]
The first draft of the rules (currently rather unbalanced) can be found on my
website:
http://www.tonyfrancis.free-online.co.uk
There's a link from there, I can't remember the exact URL for the page in
question.
I must admit that I haven't yet tackled PDS systems.. I would guess that, to
reflect what's seen in the films (or games), PDS systems should either be
weaker than normal FT ones or few in number. Getting shot down by a capital
ship's weapons doesn't seem to be much of a problem compared to tackling
opposing fighters.
Tony
> Stuart Ford wrote:
> I would like to see your fighter ideas... I am an avid Lucas Arts game
Just realised that I won't be around tomorrow or over the weekend.. however,
I'd love to continue this thread on Monday
Cheers
Tony
> Tony Francis wrote:
> The first draft of the rules (currently rather unbalanced) can be
> On 13-Jul-00 at 14:17, Tony Francis (tony.francis@kuju.com) wrote:
So why did you change the SG bits? You have 4 X-Wings at FP2 so
in SG wouldn't that give you a d8? Then, in your example you
just compare total x-wing versus tie, not paying attention to
the fact that the x-wings only beat the ties with one die, so
should just need a morale check?