The problem: increasing the number of fighters in an attack
("stack of doom") has a non-linear increase in effectivess.
It is especially bad in large scale battles using standard Fleet Book designs.
> From the archives, not every player would agree there is
My suggestion is a variation on numeric limits that doesn't require any
changes to fighter movement or PDS fire. Limits
have been suggested before - the oldest I could find is Beth
Fulton in the late 90s - and nobody seems to have any
objection other than the arbitrary nature of a fixed number. My idea os to
make the limit vary consistently between
genres/settings in a predictable way so that players
(collective) have a degree of control.
Add to the rules on fighters:
A ship may only be attacked by fighters from a single carrier in any given
turn. This limit does not apply to fighter vs fighter dogfights, or if the
ship is asteroid sized or larger.
The PSB reason: a short range attack on a ship requires coordination and
careful flying by pilots who train regularly together. There isn't enough time
in the span represented by one FT turn for successive waves.
The real reason: a numerical limit on fighters is a magic number if a game
that otherwise doesn't have any and is remarkably flexible. Making the limit
be 'one carriers worth' makes it part of the setting or genre chosen by the
players.
The limit is therefore 7 for Fleet Book 1, 8 for books 1 & 2 (barring Sa'Vasku
excessive wierdness, but what would you expect from Sa'Vasku?), and whatever
the designers, organisers, or players want it to be in other circumstances.
I've tested this rule in a number of battles by limiting myself to never stack
fighters from different ships together against one target. The effects I've
noticed are:
Carriers now scale more like other ships: an escort carrier can fight escorts
and cruisers, but if you want to take on superdreadnaughts, you'll need a
fleet carrier. However, small carriers can defend themselves against a big
one, as the rule allows stacking in dogfights.
Small battles with Fleet Book ships (up to 1500 or so points of capitals):
carrier selection becomes more interesting. In
the past I've mini-maxed by choosing two light carriers
instead of one fleet, since eight fighters were always better than six. With
this rule it's a meaningful choice: overall numbers or the heaviest individual
punch?
Big battles with Fleet Book ships: this is where the problem seems to be worst
and this rule is most effective. You can still have huge numbers of fighters,
but won't be able to annihilate even big ships in a single turn.
The case I haven't tested is battles with custom designs. Here the flexibility
of a 'one carrier worth' limit instead of a number *should* come into effect:
if you've got the points to build Battlestar Galactica you can, and get full
value from it. Your opponents likewise know what they could be in for and can
defend accordingly. But that's just a prediction.
Anyone else like to test it?
Cheers,
Well, if this were a rule in my custom games I don't think I'd ever
bother fielding a carrier that carried fewer than about 12-15 fighter
groups.
The rules system itself is not the problem, nor has it ever been. If you're
playing a custom game against someone who wants to pile on the fighters
against you, the answer is to pile on the scatterguns against them. On
average, it takes two scatterguns (mass 2, cost 10) to wipe out an entire
fighter group (mass 9, cost 45). If you want to play with the Fleet Book
designs, then don't play custom games with them against people who are going
to want to mass fighters. They suck in those games. End of story. The rules
system itself provides ways to deal with that, and the Fleet Book ships don't
employ them.
Don't change the rules. Change the ships or the scenario you're using.
E (aka Stilt Man)
[quoted original message omitted]
> A ship may only be attacked by fighters from a
The problem with this is that it means that the fighter groups of battle
dreadnoughts aren't useful for anything except deffensive purposes.
> The PSB reason: a short range attack on a ship requires
The general agreement is that each FT turn is about ten minutes. Let's assume
this is way too much. Even at two minutes per turn, there is more then enough
time for successive waves.
> Big battles with Fleet Book ships: this is where the problem
By requiring that fighters be feed into a meat grinder a little at a time. Not
very appealing. The fix for the fleet book ships is to allow some form of
integrated defensive fire.
> "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> The rules system itself is not the problem, nor has it ever been.
...in your opinion. As has been pointed out _many_ times here, your
opinion is hardly universal.
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 agoodall@att.net wrote:
> "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
In addition, Eric's suggested "fix" - KV scatterguns - DO change the
rules, because there are no mixed-race-tech ships among the default
ships, and many people don't mix tech in their custom designs; indeed, Jon
suggests against it in FB2.
We're probably going to run thru the entire fighters debate, yet again, so
here's my contribution: fighters are too cheap. The cost should go up by 1.5x
or 2x per group. You're paying for a weapon system that is invulnerable until
*it* decides to attack something, which is something no other ship or system
in FT has.
> We're probably going to run thru the entire fighters debate, yet again
How about wait a month instead of ploughing through it right now? If you look
at the Player Signup Summaries for ECC, you'll see that Dean is
running FB3 Playtests on Sunday morning. I don't know exactly what Dean
has in mind but it would be reasonable to assume that at least one game will
test the Playtest List's proposed mods for "Dealing with Fighters".
> At 4:26 PM -0800 2/1/04, Brian Burger wrote:
Why not allow ADFC to attack fighters moving near it? It seems reasonable for
basic purposes and allows a more layered AA defense.
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:26:55 -0800 (PST) Brian Burger
> <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> writes:
<snip>
> We're probably going to run thru the entire fighters debate, yet
No hordes of fighters experience but this seems to be an artifact of the
"naval" view of space combat. Yes, I am beating a quite dead horse
[except in my own mind] indeed! <grin>
Gracias,
> > We're probably going to run thru the entire fighters debate, yet
> Yes, there will be fighters.........;-)
Ah, but the question is: will there be a full AAR, with description of the
tested rule(s), or should those not attending go ahead and mindlessly argue
concerning matters already being dealt with? ;->=
The_Beast
> Ah, but the question is: will there be a full AAR, with description of
Yes, definitely.
> The PSB reason: a short range attack on a ship
PSB problem: Given that WWII fighters were capable of the required level of
coordination without any special training in
multi-carrier operations (see the Pacific theater
naval battles, Midway in particular), you are assuming that the increase in
coordination required when going from air to space fighters is substantially
greater than the improvement in Command and Control technologies going from
WWII to the time in your game.
Also, given that two of the most common FT turn lengths are 7.5 and 15
minutes, it is rather hard to buy the 'not enough time for multiple seperate
waves' aspect.
> Imre Szabo wrote:
> A ship may only be attacked by fighters from a
Yes. The small fighter groups are good for defensive purposes and for beating
up destroyers or light cruisers. Not as good as a carrier for offensive
purposes, but, well, I don't see that as a major disadvantage. Small carriers
have the same problem.
> The general agreement is that each FT turn is about ten minutes. Let's
Chris Ronnfeldt wrote something similar. OK, the PSB reason doesn't work.
Doesn't matter. What's important is whether the mechanism works to correct the
imbalance. If it does we can think of another PSB reason, or just say
"because".
> Big battles with Fleet Book ships: this is where the problem
No, it does not require the fighters to be fed into a meat grinder a little at
a time. If you have say five Ark Royals, you can't hit one enemy ship with 180
fighters. But you can hit five enemy ships with 36 fighters each.
Cheers,
Which "Yes, definitely"?
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:11:11 -0500 Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> Ah, but the question is: will there be a full AAR, with description
> Which "Yes, definitely"?
I suspect it was more 'no, both...' ;->=
Assuming exclusive or...
The discussion, not quite mindless, of course, is already in progress.
The_Beast
From: "Chris Ronnfeldt" <zephyr2112@yahoo.com>
> PSB problem :
If you take WW2 as an analogy, then the most massive airstrike AFAIK on a
single target was that on the Japanese Battleship Musashi, the last attack
involving 33 aircraft, attacking over 45 minutes. (Source: Dive Bomber by
Peter C Smith)
Wave 1: 12 (from Intrepid and Cabot) Wave 2: 12 (from Intrepid and Cabot,
starting after 1st wave) Wave 3: 20 (from Essex and Lexington) Wave 4: 33 (
from Enterprise, Cabot, Franklin, Intrepid)
Each strike took from 15 mins to 45 mins, basically, about 1 attack every 90
seconds on average (though in fact they came
in bursts of 3-6 over 1 minute, then a lull, then another 3-6)
Modern (year 2000) airstrikes are normally run in pairs every 30 seconds or
so, when attacking at low level. But with long
periods while aircarft for-up before attacking. With good C2,
and a "Master of Ceremonies", I've seen up to 12 Time-On-Target
stand-off weapons arrive in the target area simultaneously -
though that took 30 mins to set up.
YES, CO-ORDINATION OF AIR-STRIKES TAKES TIME.
36 attacks over 15 minutes would be stretching it. But attacks in space are
not air attacks, so YMMV.
The more I think on it, the better I like my original idea, which matches up
quite well with air strikes (though whether this is desireable or not is
another matter entirely).
The rules are simple: (I)Only 1 fighter group can attack a target from one
aspect. No limits on missiles in the same arc. (II)Only 1 PDS or similar
system *per ship* can defend on any one aspect vs fighters. No limits vs
missiles of any type.
I've been experimenting with the following, which I'm coming to believe is
just extra complication with little benefit:
(Optional III) Beams larger than B-1 may fire as B-1s, but only against
Fighters in their arc of fire, and like B-1s, cannot fire against
ships that turn. (Optional IV) Fighters may not attack in any arc where
missiles are
incoming, due to Blue-On-Blue problems and Fratricide
Examples: a) 7 fighter groups want to attack a ship: Only 6 can do so
simultaneously.
b) A ship has 4 PDS systems, and is attacked by a single Fighter group. Only 1
PDS can fire.
c) A ship has 4 PDS systems, and a nearby ADFC escort with 4 others, and is
attacked by 3 fighters. 3 of the fighters have 1 PDS allocated to them by the
target, which cannot use its 4th PDS. However, the escort can also allocate 3
of its PDS systems ( remember, the limit is 1 PDS per Arc Per Ship), so each
Fighter has 2 PDS on it.
Corollaries: A really large ship may have 6 PDS, but there is little point
having more (unless you're up against missiles).
From: "Hugh Fisher" <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
> No, it does not require the fighters to be fed into a meat
Exactly what I've been proposing...
> If you take WW2 as an analogy, then the most massive airstrike
***
The rules are simple: (I)Only 1 fighter group can attack a target from one
aspect. No limits on missiles in the same arc. (II)Only 1 PDS or similar
system *per ship* can defend on any one aspect vs fighters. No limits vs
missiles of any type.
***
Sorry if this is dense, but aspect = ship's fire arc? I gather that from the
'Only 6 can do so simultaneously' in your first example.
Does anyone remember what happened to my suggestion of dividing massed attacks
into waves, and each PDS allowed to fire each wave? Has some of the same
effects, though the numbers are different, and doesn't have 'max 6'
restriction, though that could be worked in.
Kinda flies in the face of the anti-missile OR AA, but there are PSB's
applicable.
The_Beast
PS See? I got dragged in. ;->=
> I don't know exactly what Dean
Except, of course, that the players won't be allowed to say anything about
them on the main GZG list until they are released in published form.
> YES, CO-ORDINATION OF AIR-STRIKES TAKES TIME.
I'm not thrilled about this because, frankly, 1PDS isn't going to worry too
many fighter groups. And if you take the time to form up, you should be able
to stack your attack.
So...how about "fighters normally attack in waves, 1 group at a time. All PDS
can defend against EACH wave. However, by burning extra Endurance, fighters
can assemble extra groups into a bigger wave." How much extra END is left as
an exercise for the student.
> I don't know exactly what Dean
> Except, of course, that the players won't be allowed to say anything
Hm...my understanding was that they can talk about it in the AAR, with the
triple-underlined, large-font, bold, flashing red proviso that these
mods are NOT official yet and may never be.
> Laserlight wrote:
> So...how about "fighters normally attack in waves, 1 group at a time.
All
> PDS can defend against EACH wave. However, by burning extra Endurance,
Would damage be applied after each individual wave/group attacked or
once
all wave/groups have attacked? If it was the former it may make the
whole fighter attack more time consuming, but on the overhand it would make
things
a lot more intense waiting to see if one wave/group manages to
threshhold the PDS systems, thus leaving the ship wide open to the following
waves.
Regards,
***
Would damage be applied after each individual wave/group attacked or
once
all wave/groups have attacked? If it was the former it may make the
whole fighter attack more time consuming, but on the overhand it would make
things
a lot more intense waiting to see if one wave/group manages to
threshhold the PDS systems, thus leaving the ship wide open to the following
waves.
***
Now there's a point I'd never considered when I first suggested the idea long
ago and far away. I was assuming damage would be applied at once, but you're
right about it being time consuming.
I also imagine it works out to be a question of PSB vs game balance...
The_Beast
> Doug wrote:
> Would damage be applied after each individual wave/group attacked or
***
> Now there's a point I'd never considered when I first suggested the
> I also imagine it works out to be a question of PSB vs game balance...
What this discussion does bring to my mind is the ww2 USN footage from the
pacififc of Japanese fighters attacking through a soild wall of AA fire,
could this be reflected in someway perhaps? (Whereby all the PDS/B-1
armed vessels in a fleet can contribute their pd fire to the formation as a
whole?).
Regards,
For "pacififc" read pacific...(sorry, not with it today, lack of sleep due to
staying up to 4am in order to watch the Super Bowl).
Regards,
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> The problem: increasing the number of fighters in an attack ("stack of
Agreed. Which is why Brian's proposal - increasing the cost of fighter
groups - only moves the point of (non)balance a bit, but doesn't solve
it.
As for there not being any problems with the FT fighter rules, which Stiltman
claims... well, personally I feel that having to use one overpowered system to
balance another overpowered system is pretty clear
evidence that there are problems with a rule set; and at least on this list
Stiltman is a small but vocal minority in this particular matter :-/
[...]
> My suggestion is a variation on numeric limits that doesn't require
Others have already pointed out the problems with your PSB, so I won't go into
that again.
The main game problem with this proposal, as with Alan's suggestion which has
already been playtested and rejected even more times than yours, is
that 6+ fighter groups is enough to take out just about any FB1 ship
smaller than a dreadnought - so if you use FB or FB-like ships, you get
yet another incentive to use dreadnoughts and larger ships only. Nice if you
want to play WW1-in-space rather than WW2-in-space, but it doesn't make
the game any more balanced...
(If you use custom designs, your proposal is completely ineffective since the
players can design any size of carrier they like anyway.)
> Anyone else like to test it?
This and and several similar numerical limitations (including Alan's proposal
and variants thereof) have already been tested. They all run into the above
problem with making dreadnoughts and larger even more desirable than they
already are; some of them have additional problems as well.
BTW Alan, you still haven't answered my questions about whether or not you
have actually playtested this proposed rules yourself...?
Regards,
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 04:31:20PM -0000, Matt Tope wrote:
> What this discussion does bring to my mind is the ww2 USN footage from
We could call it "command datalink", perhaps...
<runs away and hides from the Wrath of Oerjan, who's been through this dance
before with Starfire>
Slightly more seriously: what value does ADFC have at this point?
I don't like breaking the concept that FT weapons only fire once per turn.
R
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> Slightly more seriously: what value does ADFC have at this point?
> I don't like breaking the concept that FT weapons only fire once per
I've always thought of PD/B-1 firing numerous pulses when targeting
Fighters/missiles (hence the re-roll), therefore I'd invisage that a
"collective" PD based on the formations PD as a whole would not be so accurate
as regular PD fire but able to target all attacking fighters (The
fighters having to negotiate their way through pre-sighted zones of
PD/AD
weapons fire rather than actually being tracked and targeted individually).
This is where ADFC's could come into play, being used to take PDS mounts out
of the collective "PD/AD" fire pattern and used to target, with
increased accurracy, specific threats.
On the otherhand this whole process could be time consuming or just plain
fiddly to those (such as myself) who are not overly mathmatticaly inclined. It
certainly adds a layer of complication and I never see that as being a good
thing in FT...
Regards,
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:10:44PM -0000, Matt Tope wrote:
> I've always thought of PD/B-1 firing numerous pulses when targeting
Ah, yeah, sorry, I mean in game terms. I've always assumed all the beam
batteries are multiple emitters firing multiple pulses, hence the
variable damage - but by "fire once" I meant "gets one 'attack' action
per turn".
In particular, if fighter wave attacks were interspersed with other ships'
attacks (which would be easy to justify), this could become very hard to keep
track of.
> (The
Ah, fair enough.
I think volume becomes a problem. Certainly for a supposedly-universal
system, you can't say "the fighters are coming in really close for their
attack pass" - they could be firing standoff missiles or some equivalent
energy weapon. If a fighter is several thousand miles away, it makes a bit
less sense to say "we will fill this zone with fire" than if it's a few miles
out.
I don't think I should say much else on this topic until some form of the
playtest list's fighter proposal becomes public.
> Slightly more seriously: what value does ADFC have at this point?
See? This round of feedback was so much more interesting than the wall of
silence I had. ;->=
On the other hand, it might not have made it to the list. There have been
periods when my notes have just found the ancient and honorable bit bucket.
I'll have to dig in the archives later.
> I don't like breaking the concept that FT weapons only fire once per
Absolutely! Please note that all suggestions I ever make are thought of as
optional, and usually a 'variant' at that. Sometimes we try analyzing
particulars a bit too closely, and forget most items are deeply abstract in as
fun and simple a game as FT. Been said, bears repeating.
Fighters are very tricky things, and I usually would just as soon play without
'em in a game.
The_Beast
Another WWII example is the battle of Midway. While the Japanese were using
their air defense fighter and AA against the low flying torp bombers from the
Yorktown, Hornet and Enterprise, the Japanese carriers were attacked by the
dive bombers from these carriers. There was no massive coordination to this
attack, in fact the Americans were not even sure where the Japanese were when
they launched. I think part of fighter combat is that the ships are small and
swift so they can switch target if an opportunity is seen. Will a multi
carrier uncoordinated attack be as effective as a coordinated one probable not
but if a flight can see that its target is spilling air and is no longer
combat effective it will not just return to base but will look for a new
target even if that target is under attack by another group.
Bruce Gelinas
> Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:
The one on Tirpitz was in some ways more impressive: 2 waves of 21 aircraft
each, the first attack all dropping their bombs in the space of 1 minute (!)
Of course the second wave then attacked half an hour later, it took them that
long to get organised and have the first wave clear the area.
> At 5:44 PM +0100 2/2/04, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Well, here is a question. Why is an imbalance wrong? If 45 Bear and Backfire
bombers were to show up near a US 80's era carrier group, the Carrier group
would likely eat a few nukes because of the saturation of it's air defenses.
There is a break point where A<D will loose (where A is Attacks and D is
defense) and where A>D will stuff the defender down the toilet.
It seems that context for the attack needs to be the case in the scenario
setup.
What's the counter to 50 fighter groups? Plan it so you're at the carrier's
flanks in 1 turn of movement, pound them and then leave the map with your
force intact. Or just refuse the engagement entirely.
> (If you use custom designs, your proposal is completely ineffective
Intel on the opposing force is a good idea. Why should a totally
custom force have all the advantage on a non-custom book fleet?
Again, that context for the battle is key.
Randy Joiner and I sat down Sunday and hashed out our ideas on 1 page of graph
paper how a fleet action scale FT game should work. This should go a long way
to fixing, at least on larger scales, how fleet's fight each other. Furhter,
it differentiates between types of task groups and encourages specialized
units doing their thing.
In a nut shell it involves a second map. Either a full 1" across hex type map
or something smaller that you can keep track of. But a Hex form of some sort.
Groups are charted on graph paper and are moved around the hexes at the rate
of their thrust points (possibly a problem, but we'll see). When two (or more)
groups meet, they are placed on the table with correct vectors and formations,
then they fight. A group could be a single scout ship or an entire line of
battle with support ships.
Sensors are taken into account with jamming affecting range and the data that
one gathers from sensors. Groups are initially represented with bogey markers
and are progressively revealed with more information based on sensor data.
Active scans may be made with active jamming able to reduce sensor range.
We'll have to play test it a bit before we send the rules up the chain for
further playtesting.
Get your bogey markers and hex maps ready.
> Roger B-W wrote:
> >What this discussion does bring to my mind is the ww2 USN footage
No, not at all. The main purpose of the Z2/Z2c is to coordinate fire
against enemy *ships*; in Starfire ships with good enough sensors can fire any
weapons they like at fighters within range, and they're usually going to fire
before the fighters can do so regardless of what type of datalink they use...
Later,
> Ryan wrote:
The problem with an imbalance is that it throws the point system out of
whack. 18 points of fighters should -- all things being equal -- do the
same amount of damage as 18 points of beams plus the mass of the ship and
drives needed to push those beams around. Likewise, 3600 points of ships
should have a roughly even chance against a soap bubble carrier and fighter
groups worth a total of 3600 points. Obviously this sort of thing is difficult
to get
right, and you can only approximate it. As they currently stand, it looks like
fighters are about worth their current points... if you have a small number of
fighters. Once you get large numbers of fighters, they can destroy whole ships
in one turn with little loss to themselves. In large numbers
fighters are drastically under priced.
This in itself isn't a problem if you are aware of it and plan scenarios
and/or campaign limitations around it. In this situation, a broken point
system or no point system at all doesn't much matter.
It is a huge problem for those people who play "build an X point fleet and
meet me here on Saturday" type of pick-up games. In these cases you'd
expect X points for one player to have roughly the same chance of winning as X
points for another player, but that isn't the case due to the fighter
imbalance.
It's at this point that Eric points out that you can easily defend against
fighters with large numbers of scatterguns. Scatterguns are also overpowered
for their price. The end result is that there is an optimum combination of
weapons that you _must_ have if you hope to win in a pick-up game. Some
of us find this intensely boring, as there are a lot of neat systems that we'd
like to use, but can't as they aren't competitive due to point problems.
What's the point of saying "this weapon system is worth X points and Y mass"
if 3600 points in one configuration will always beat 3600 points in another
configuration, regardless of how the players play the game.
If X points for one player is equivalent to X * Y points for another player,
there is a serious problem in the point system that needs to be addressed.
Either the points need to change (which then invalidates all the point totals
in the fleet books, and doesn't always fix the problem) or the rules involving
those systems need to change.
> What's the counter to 50 fighter groups? Plan it so you're at the
The problem is that a large number of fighter groups could -- in a
single
turn -- take apart a ship worth way, way more than the equivalent points
in fighters. Even getting to the carrier's flanks in 1 turn (and just how are
you going to guarantee this?) isn't going to help you, as those fighter groups
will absolutely maul your fleet. Refusing the engagement entirely
makes for a rather dull night of gaming.
> Intel on the opposing force is a good idea. Why should a totally
I suggest you play a game with Oerjan, then. He'll tell you that he'll bring a
soap bubble carrier with a huge mass of fighters. You won't even have to tell
him anything. If you don't go with scatterguns, your knowing what he's
bringing and his _not knowing_ what you're bringing won't matter much.
G'day Ryan,
> Randy Joiner and I sat down Sunday and hashed out our ideas on 1 page
Derek and I have done something very similar in the past and its a lot of fun.
Derek developed it more as an intermediate step in some campaign stuff he was
playing with, but we have used it as is a bit. Can lead to some fun "psyching
out" of the opposition too.
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 agoodall@att.net wrote:
> We're probably going to run thru the entire fighters debate, yet again,
I think, and from the archives most would agree, that fighters are priced
about right when you don't have more than a dozen flights or so, corresponding
to battles up to 3,000 pts or so apiece.
The problem is that they scale in a non-linear fashion.
If you have ten times as many points of beam weapons, you are roughly ten
times more effective. (There are
some non-linear effects, such as more chance of double
or worse threshhold failure.) If you have ten times as many fighters in a
"stack of doom" then it's far more than ten times as effective.
Increasing the cost of fighters will move the point at which they become too
deadly up, but it will also make them too expensive in smaller battles.
Cheers,
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> This and and several similar numerical limitations (including Alan's
Here's some of the raw data/notes:
1. 24 Fighter Groups vs Death Star ( with 40 PDS ) - conclusion,
needed to limit PDS per arc as well as fighters attacking. (Exercise on paper)
2. Marianas Turkey Shoot Revisited: 4 Ark Royals each with 2 Furious escort
and no fighters left vs 24 Fighter groups (standard). a) With existing rules:
CVs wiped out with few losses to fighters. b) With new rules: 1 CV down, all
Furious down, 1 CV at 2nd threshold, others untouched, (needs repeating, as
rolls were odd, though my notes didn't say whether too good or too bad, and it
was a long time
ago...
I recall a lot of 6s and a lot of 1s being rolled)
3. Soap Bubbles vs Dauntless (this one was on graph paper, and showed
the game-breaking possibilities of a supership with aft-firing beam-10,
and how boring the game was as a result)
I've also played a number of battles using these rules, but as no massed
fighters were used (both sides used FB1 ships), they didn't have much
effect. In all cases 4-6 fighter groups ganged up on a CA or BC with no
escort nearby, and as the optimum allocation is 1 PDS per Fighter group anyway
(assuming using morale rules), there was "no change".
One minor thing: it was always better to use "cherry" Fighters vs the big
boys, as sniping off destroyers etc always led to some Fighter groups being
down to 4 strength due to the odd 6 roll, so
often failed morale - and them taking up valuable slots in the
6-Fighter Group limit. And ADFC ships were always first targetted,
but that meant no appreciable decrease in the enemy's beam strength until
quite ( in fact too) laste.
In cases where only 1 side has 1-2 Fighter Groups, they were always used
as anti-missile escorts, or to snipe Frigates/Destroyers attempting to
get in the aft arc.
NOTE: all battles were on 4ft x 8ft tables using inches, floating map,
cinematic.
Areas I have done *none or insufficient* playtesting with: a) Heavy, Attack
fighters
From: "Hugh Fisher" <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
> The problem is that they scale in a non-linear fashion.
That's why I like the limit of number of Fighters attacking one ship. It
restores linearity, with minimal change.
G'day Alan,
> Areas I have done *none or insufficient* playtesting with:
In these cases (or combo of these case) from our experiences its still a
fighter walk over (you have to buy marginally more fighters, but not a lot
more to get same end result of dead opposition for the not so many fighter
side).
Cheers
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Agreed. Which is why Brian's proposal - increasing the cost of fighter
> groups - only moves the point of (non)balance a bit, but doesn't solve
Because we're discussing a game which uses a points system for the specific
purpose of generating reasonably balanced games. Imbalance thus means that the
points system does not fulfil its one and only reason for existing, therefore
imbalance is bad in this context.
Real-world comparisons are completely irrelevant in the game balance
context, because the real world 1) is not a game and 2) does not use points
systems to make contests reasonably even.
Regards,
> The problem is that they scale in a non-linear fashion.
As the optional attack side is still receiving proper savaging, sounds like
a non-linear point system is in order. While a point system can be made
to be exponential, perhaps we could use a step system, that, instead of
costing the fighter groups or bays, costing a new system 'fighter director'.
For a small number of flights, the infrastrucure native to the carrier is
sufficient, while mega-wing ships require geometrically increasingly
expensive fighter director suites, or even a separate ship.
Nebulous idea, but they're my speciality.
The_Beast
> Doug Evans wrote:
> For a small number of flights, the infrastrucure native to the carrier
Or have fighters cost X+A points, where A is the number of groups
aboard the ship.
> At 10:21 PM +0000 2/2/04, Lachlan Atcliffe wrote:
The thing is, fighters should be easier with more ships on board and plenty of
space vs harder. More room for shops, economy of scale, etc.
Problem is, there needs to be a cost system in "credits" vs a cost system for
"game balance points".
> Or have fighters cost X+A points, where A is the number of groups
Roger that, though the points put in an overhead
structure/system/process
might be an easier-to-swollow PSB. ;->=
However, I was thinking more for a fleet assets rather than per ship...
You've got the basic idea down, though.
The_Beast
> Ryan Gill wrote:
Why, exactly? That is, if we can get Costing Method A right, I'll be happy.
Adding a completely separate Costing Method B, and getting it
right -- ie using a *different procedure than A but still coming up with
the same correct result* -- seems like a little more work than is
perhaps strictly necessary.
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 06:03:08PM -0500, Laserlight wrote:
I think Ryan is suggesting rather that we separate the "credits" - i.e.
what it costs to buy a ship in the campaign game - from the "points" -
i.e. the combat value of the ship. Oerjan's CPV proposal (in the archives)
goes some way towards this.
> The thing is, fighters should be easier with more ships on board and
Which is why I was thinking that infrastructure, the assets devoted to
coordinating those fighters, might well get quite dear, though still
worthwhile, as the number of fighters involved goes up. Think leadership
points, or command rating, or what-have-you.
I was thinking AWAC's, but not sure their apropos as an example.
The_Beast
Jumping into the middle of the discussion...
What about revisiting hangar bay cost/launch facilities.
For instance, bays can be any size (mass 2 per fighter) for storage; launch
tubes are mass 2 per fighter, and recovery bays are mass 2 per fighter.
So to carry, launch and recover a standard fighter group will require 36 mass
plus normal ship parts, with cost savings as your storage bays get larger.
The caveat - if you have fewer launch and recovery bays than fighters,
you have two choices - you can launch early in waves (with fighters
losing endurance to "keep up") or you start the game with only part of your
fighters launched and additional fighters launched during the game.
Or simply re-write the fighter types to balance out the game - for
instance only "strike" fighters carry an anti-ship payload and are
single shot. "CAP" fighters have unlimited ammo but are limited to engaging
other fighters and missiles. You get your choice of strike fighters: armored,
torpedo or heavy but can't mix types.
Other ideas - "Death Blossom" mines or ships - equipped with a new
weapon system known as the "Death Blossom" it is a large (mass 3) mine that
has the ability to track up to 36 targets within a short range (6 MU)
attacking as if it were 6 separate PDS's. Fixed installations on ships are the
same mass and are single use.
Or perhaps rewrite PDS so that it may fire at ANY fighter group within 6
MU or attacking fighters within 12 MU. Class-1 beams would still be
limited to fighters directly attacking the ship. Combined with
single-shot AS fighters you could then field outlying "picket" ships
armed with a couple of PDS's to provide a shell that fighters would have to
get by first, rather than the current system where they can ignore everything
but their target.
Fighters are similar in practice to NOVA guns, which are no longer in use, for
a single ship they weren't much of a problem, but tweleve or twenth four in a
a line were just no fun to play against.
Reflex shields? Perhaps this system should make a return, with attacking
fighters not knowing if the shield is up until they fire.
Some more ideas to stir up the pot.
--Binhan
> >The thing is, fighters should be easier with more ships on board and
I think this would be a particularily good idea, perhaps working in some
kind of tie into the current system. A command rating would be more
approprate, perhaps a TOC component that can be built onto the carriers to
manage the fighter groups...
OTOH, you might just do well by having a house rule of some sort...
I've had the pleasure of going up against custom assault carriers that spit
out 8 fighter groups per, 2 interceptors, 2 heavies, and 4 torp bombers. Not
fun. The side note was that not too many of them actually survived, since I
use plenty of PDAF in my designs to
counter general missile/fighter threats. Once the fighters shot their
wad, the carrier popped like a soap bubble.
But in comparison, co-ordination of fighters is very small in terms of
price, space and crew compared to the cost of purchase and maintenance of the
fighters. For instance, the amount of carrier space allocated to hangars, fuel
bunkers, weapons storage and spare parts, bunking for pilots and maintenance
crew is much larger than the 100 or so personnel,computers and crew space it
takes to organize a strike of 36 fighters.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
36 fighters - that's gonna' leave a mark...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:32:54 +1100 "Alan and Carmel Brain"
> <aebrain@webone.com.au> writes:
> I think Ryan is suggesting rather that we separate the "credits" -
It is impossible to have "campaign cost" be meaningful without, at a bare
minimum, specifying the campaign situation and economics. How much
are fighters worth in Battlestar? In SWars? Trek?
> RBW wrote:
-
> i.e. the combat value of the ship. Oerjan's CPV proposal (in the
> I wrote:
To which I reply: And even once you have the economic and production factors
established for a campaign, you *still* have to have design a Cr cost system
which takes the same data as the CPV system and uses a different process to
generate a balanced result.
***
But in comparison, co-ordination of fighters is very small in terms of
price, space and crew compared to the cost of purchase and maintenance of the
fighters. For instance, the amount of carrier space allocated to hangars, fuel
bunkers, weapons storage and spare parts, bunking for pilots and maintenance
crew is much larger than the 100 or so personnel,computers and crew space it
takes to organize a strike of 36 fighters.
***
I wouldn't know, though I think you're analyzing too closely again. However,
aren't there items you aren't including? Specialized radar and communication?
Sentries, Orions, or
whatever-the-heck-baby-awacs-are-called... Satellite support?
Are these all that much more expensive? Dunno. Applicable to space? *shrug*
But they show what the kinds of techno-babble handwaving we call PSB can
cover. ;->=
The_Beast
***
And even once you have the economic and production factors established for a
campaign, you *still* have to have design a Cr cost system which takes the
same data as the CPV system and uses a different process to generate a
balanced result.
***
Damn your eyes, Chris!
I was just about to say:
> Well, the fighters are quite different as far as capabilities between
would seem to speak to what you're pointing out. However, you're right as far
as: how much to you have to put out to replace, maintain, etc.
> We don't have 'a campaign system', so one set of campaign buy points
And then you get it bang on!
*harumph*
The_Beast
> At 6:34 PM -0600 2/2/04, Doug Evans wrote:
Well, my SWACs concept fits in there. Not much else is needed as a discrete
unit unless you want to model tankers.
> Are these all that much more expensive? Dunno. Applicable to space?
*shrug*
> But they show what the kinds of techno-babble handwaving we call PSB
Well, I've found that if I set up my carriers
with a reasonable strike, multi-role and
interceptor configuration, I'm at a disadvantage to a carrier that's setup
with just heavy fighters.
Space over a larger area than a standard table for fleet ops seems to be one
way of protecting against the all encompassing flock of fighters.
> Oerjan Olson wrote:
> The main game problem with this proposal, as with Alan's suggestion
6+ fighter groups is a superdreadnaught sized fleet carrier
against a smaller ship: what other outcome would you expect? (Plus, from my
experience testing, the 6 fighter groups will still get rough treatment if the
battleship in question has an escort cruiser friend.)
4 fighter groups, your typical light carrier, is much more of an even fight
against a battleship, but enough to over power a cruiser. Again, that's about
right for the points.
> (If you use custom designs, your proposal is completely ineffective
The problem seems to be most extreme with large battles using Fleet Book
designs, so if it works for that, I think it's worth using. I believe that
people with custom designs should be allowed more freedom.
The rule does not become totally ineffective for custom designs. Yes the
players can design any carrier they like. But with this rule it has to be a
really big carrier, not just several smaller ones acting in concert.
> This and and several similar numerical limitations (including Alan's
Evidently those people who have tested and rejected numerical limitations
never bothered to actually inform the rest of the list that they'd done so. I
read through the entire archive from 1998 looking for evaluations of numerical
limits and didn't find *ANY*
Cheers,
[quoted original message omitted]
> "K.H.Ranitzsch" wrote:
Except Jon tied the point system to a "cost" in the FleetBooks. :-/
(iirc each point was equivalent to 10 Megacredits?)
Mk
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> >The main game problem with this proposal, as with Alan's suggestion
The only reason why those superdreadnought-sized fleet carriers are
superdreadnought-sized in the first place is that they carry enough
direct-fire weapons and defences to defeat at least FB1 battlecruisers
in
one-on-one gunfights. If you keep the carrier back and only send the
fighters into the fray, then that's equivalent to sending a SDN into battle
after shutting its screens and half of its weapons down and also ripping
out half of its hull boxes.
In that situation, I would not expect the SDN to do particularly well even
against a significantly smaller ship. Would you?
6 fighter groups *by themselves* - including the cost of their fighter
bays and the engines and basic hull structure needed to support them, but
*without* all those extra screens, weapons and stuff the FB carriers are
equipped with - only cost about as much as a battleship, yet I wouldn't
call a fight between an FB1 battleship and 6 fighter groups "even". Sure, the
fighters will get roughly handled, but the battleship is almost
guaranteed to end up *destroyed*. To me, if one side in an equal-points
fight is almost guaranteed to get destroyed while the other side isn't then
that does not look "about right for the points".
My main point however, though I don't seem to have made it very clearly,
was that while your and Alan's proposals don't have a very big effect for
ships smaller than a dreadnought they make the larger capitals considerably
harder for fighters to take out than they are now (unless of course the
carriers are also very big - in your proposal that is, not in Alan's).
This extra "hardness" against fighters gives yet another incentive to use
dreadnoughts and larger ships only; conversely the extra power gained by
fighters based on very large carriers gives yet another powerful incentive to
make the carriers very large as well. Since there already are a number of
other factors which make large ships overpowered compared to their own points
cost of smaller ones, adding yet more reasons not to use small ships does not
strike me as a particularly good thing for the overall game balance.
> (Plus, from my experience testing, the 6 fighter groups will still get
For the cost of that escort cruiser friend, the fighters can add another
three or four groups to their numbers. That's sufficient to at least keep
the CE occupied :-/
> 4 fighter groups, your typical light carrier, is much more
As with the fleet carriers, the typical FB CVLs are rather heavily armed
and/or protected. Even the NAC Inflexible class is able to take on most
FB1 medium cruisers with a reasonable chance of success; the other FB CVL
classes can defeat at least a heavy cruiser in a one-on-one gunfight.
Their 4-group fighter strikes (plus bays etc.) *without* all those extra
weapons and defences on the carrier cost about as much as a large heavy
cruiser or small battlecruiser, yet as you say are able to take on an FB1
battleship on even terms. Would you expect a large CH or small BC to take on a
BB half again its size on even terms? If not, how can it be "about right for
the points" when *fighters* costing about as much as that large CH or small BC
take on a BB on even terms?
***
In my experience the fighter balance problems you get in FB-designs-only
games are a mild breeze in comparison with what you can get with custom
designs. As far as I'm concerned, if a fighter-balance fix doesn't work
for custom designs then it doesn't work at all.
***
> >This and and several similar numerical limitations (including Alan's
Not so much "never bothered to" as "were not allowed to". Those tests were
done by the GZG playtest group, and we're not allowed to talk completely
freely about what we're doing to people outside the group. Apologies if my
previous reply (where I did inform this list about those tests) was a bit
curt; I don't have very much time for emails at the moment.
Regards,
> Alan Brain wrote:
> This and and several similar numerical limitations (including Alan's
In other words "yes" :-) Good.
> 1. 24 Fighter Groups vs Death Star ( with 40 PDS ) - conclusion,
A not entirely unexpected result, I think <g>
> 2. Marianas Turkey Shoot Revisited: 4 Ark Royals each with 2
Looks pretty similar to the results I got when playtesting your proposal
last spring.
If you have the time, I'd suggest that you try this match-up a few more
times, but also run another series of tests where you replace the 8 Furiouses
by the same points value of extra empty Ark Royals or SDNs. Then
check which of these two target forces did best against the 24-group
fighter strike - the all-capital one, or the capitals+CEs one.
(Don't worry about "realistic fleet compositions" for your tests, BTW -
the
"2 cruisers/escorts per capital" thingy is mostly a 20th century feature
anyway; all-capital battle fleets were quite realistic in the Napoleonic
era and earlier... and the extremes of the fleet-mix spectrum are always
more likely to turn up unbalanced than the middle ground.)
> I've also played a number of battles using these rules, but as no
CanCon-style "balanced" fleet mixes, yesno?
> One minor thing : it was always better to use "cherry" Fighters vs
Matches my results from last spring as well.
> In cases where only 1 side has 1-2 Fighter Groups, they were always
IOW no different from the current situation.
> Areas I have done *none or insufficient* playtesting with:
[...]
> In fact, the only games I'm confident of are FB1 vs FB1 battles using
Ouch. That's not exactly where the main fighter balance problems are, I'm
afraid...
Regards,
> Laserlight wrote:
> It is impossible to have "campaign cost" be meaningful without, at a
Bingo.
> And even once you have the economic and production factors established
Not true.
If your campaign design system ("Cr") does not give the same results as the
CPV, then the players will gravitate (usually quite rapidly) towards using
those designs which give the highest CPV/Cr ratio - ie., those designs
which give the highest bang per buck. In most cases, all sides involved soon
find themselves using very similar designs.
This is essentially what happens in the real world, where various gadgets
could make excellent weapon systems if they could only be produced in large
enough numbers at an affordable cost. 'Course, the real world the additional
complication that each "player" has his or her own "campaign
design system" - so what would give the best bang-per-buck for one state
can easily be completely wasteful for another :-/
Regards,
G'day,
> Evidently those people who have tested and rejected numerical
Sorry Hugh the testing we did was for the test list and thus had to reported
there... enough people complain about the stuff that does make it to print
that if we posted every idea we tried (including the immense number of "oh it
seemed good when I thought of it") to the main list there would be regular
rioting in the street... "they want to do what?!"...."what idiot thought of
that?!";)
Have fun
In a fight between a FB1 battleship and 6 fighter groups high speeds can
render the fighters ineffective. The battleship can boom and zoom the carrier.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> My main point however, though I don't seem to have made it very
It does, but my impression is that a lot of players would prefer that.
> This extra "hardness" against fighters gives yet another incentive to
Agreed. Since it's a general problem for all big ships, I think a general
solution such as CPV instead of NPV will take care of it.
Plus I did propose an escape clause that the one carrier limit doesn't apply
to dogfights, so a bunch of little carriers can defend against one big one.
> In my experience the fighter balance problems you get in
This is where my testing had stopped, and why I thought I'd suggest it to the
list.
If anyone does want to try it and report results to the list, it's very easy
to playtest. The other player doesn't have to do anything at all: it's just a
self imposed limitation "I will not combine fighters." My opponents in
friendly games and the recent Cancon either didn't notice or were too polite
to comment on my apparent tactical ineptitude.
Beth and you have explained why there wasn't anything about the tests in the
archives. Sorry for being a bit snappy, I hadn't thought of the NDA aspect.
Cheers,
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> >My main point however, though I don't seem to have made it very
They prefer that capitals should be able to defeat their own points value
of fighters while smaller ships can't? I'm not convinced :-/
My impression is rather that most players would prefer both small *and* large
ships to be able to take on their own points cost of any combination of
fighters and ships on roughly even terms.
> >This extra "hardness" against fighters gives yet another incentive to
The current CPV system can't handle it. It might be possible to modify it to
do so (though I haven't succeeded), but even if it is we'd still have
the problem with smaller ships getting swept away by their own cost of
fighters.
> Plus I did propose an escape clause that the one carrier limit doesn't
If the enemies brings one, yes. If they don't, then those smaller carriers'
(and dreadnoughts') smaller strike groups are seriously handicapped -
particularly, of course, if the enemy doesn't bring any small enough ships for
them to pick on instead.
> >In my experience the fighter balance problems you get in
General comment to this, not aimed at anyone in particular:
Note that "custom designs" here covers *all* designs which aren't described in
a published fleet book. Including, among other things, the future stats for
official GZGverse fleets like the Imperial Japanese Navy, the Islamic
Federation navy and the United Nations Space Command... which means that
saying "I don't care about game balance for non-FB1 designs" is
effectively equivalent to saying "I don't care if the FB3 fleets are balanced
against the FB1 ones".
> Beth and you have explained why there wasn't anything
No worries. Actually, as Doug reminded us this *was* in fact mentioned on this
list too about a year ago, albeit for NDA reasons very briefly (and I had
completely forgotten about it):
Alan posted his idea on February 18th 2003:
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200302/msg00631.html
And I replied to it later the same day:
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200302/msg00671.html
Regards,
The problem of that idea is munchkinism - for instance if 200 points of
ships can defeat 150 points of ships most of the time, the side that has 30,
ten point ships will almost always defeat the the fleet with 2, 150 point
ships, by simply generating a temporary imbalance on the board (sending 10 one
after one ship and twenty after the other). Based on current rules, the two
150 point ships won't have more than one or two firecontrols and will only be
able to kill 2 or 4 smaller ships per turn.
You would have to remove the fire control limitation to further balance
points.
Right now I see the balance being that smaller ships need to be equipped with
weapons that give a lot of bang for the mass, even if they are short ranged
(needle beams, torpedoes, scatterguns), while larger ships
can afford big, long range weapons and will try to stand-off smaller
ships.
The balance is similar to the difference seen between brown and blue navies.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
***
No worries. Actually, as Doug reminded us this *was* in fact mentioned on this
list too about a year ago, albeit for NDA reasons very briefly (and I had
completely forgotten about it):
***
Still, worthy of attempts for a house rule to help balance. One could include
'the bigger the ship, the more fighters may attack' clause, or defense
modifier for high thrust (often but not always smaller ships), but those are
getting pretty fiddly.
Likewise, looking back at several of the notes, I'm not certain whether I
was the first to mention the per-wave PDS shots on the list or not;
obviously, it had been discussed on the playtest list long before Feb
'03.
At the time, I thought I may have mentioned earlier, but it's not in the
archives that I can find.
Fortunately, I've still got 'groggy' to fall back on... ;->=
Thanks, Oerjan!
***
This is an off-the-cuff idea, but has anyone considered giving
warships a "built-in" fighter defense value? Something like, for every
x mass of the ship, the ship gets y PDS systems?
***
Hard to PSB: as target ships grow in size, a larger percentage of pilots find
themselves unable to avoid ramming unvulnerably armored areas on
them... ;->=
Seriously, I don't think it balances in the same pattern as 'the massed
fighter problem', but I'll have to cogitate, or wait for 'someone else' to
explain the numbers.
The_Beast
> B Lin wrote:
> The problem of that idea is munchkinism - for instance if 200 points
Take a nest of ash Shaulah strike boats and tell me what happens.
TMF 8 NPV 30 (CPV 23)
FTL-capable variant: mass 10, NPV 36, CPV 27
Technical Specifications
Hull Integrity 1 (1/0/0/0)
Crew Factor: 1 Armament: 1 SMR or 2 Heavy Missiles or 1 Beam 3 (F) or 2 Needle
beams or
4 submunitions or 1 PTorp (F) Defenses: ha! we laugh at death!
Sensors: Standard sensors, 1 Fire-control system
Drives: Thrust 6, Maneuver 3, FTL
> Laserlight wrote:
> Take a nest of ash Shaulah strike boats and tell me what happens.
Having played against a swarm of these armed with P-torps, I can tell
you that it's survivable and you can even win a good 50% of the time. That's
with torps, though. Something like SMRs...ick.
> Laserlight wrote:
> you that it's survivable and you can even win a good 50% of the time.
Yes, that was my point--I was replying to Binhan's
"if 200 points of ships can defeat 150 points of ships most of the time,
the side that has 30, ten point ships will almost always defeat the the fleet
with 2, 150 point ships, by simply generating a temporary imbalance on the
board (sending 10 one after one ship and twenty after the other)." Binhan, you
appear to be assuming that the 2x150 point ships are going to be separated.
And I'm assuming you plucked "10 point ship" out of
the air -- although I suppose you could have a ship with 1 mass hull, 1
mass drive, 1 PDS for 10 points. Somehow I don't think I'd feel too threatened
by a swarm of those.
Seems like the perfect opponent to use Waveguns or PBL-1 against.
Or even *gasp* a few fighter squadrons. Fighter jocks really like targets that
can't shoot back...
Played a tournament game a few years back (report is in the archives), where I
had a KV battlegroup with a fighter squadron, up against a PBL Phalon
Swarm fleet; at ludicrous speed (40+) the fighters were very useful in
channelling the Phalons in front of my railguns (and even took out a ship or
two themselves).
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/ft/conquest.htm
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
> the other)."
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects. 2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> The problem of that idea is munchkinism - for instance if 200 points
ten point
> ships will almost always defeat the the fleet with 2, 150 point ships,
This is not munchkinism; it is sound Lanchestrian tactics. Aside from the
fact that the smallest legal armed ship design in FT/FB2 costs 15 pts
rather than 10, the scenario you describe only occurs if the two 150-pt
ships (ie., light cruisers) allow themselves to get separated for long enough
that the 200 points of small ships can destroy their target before the other
large ship can come to its aid.
(Meanwhile that other light cruiser has an even bigger local advantage (3:2)
over the 100 pts of small ships it is facing than the 4:3 advantage the 200
pts have over its sibling. 'Course, if the small ships split up in this
fashion but the cruisers *don't* allow themselves to get separated,
the smaller ships can easily find themselves in very deep trouble
indeed...)
So, let's assume that you were thinking of NPV 15 or 18 armed ships (1 hull
box, 1 FCS, 1 B1, main drive, and the NPV 18 version also has an FTL
drive). You get 16-20 of these scoutships for the cost of 2 NPV 150
light cruisers with 2 FCSs each. (Note to Glen B.: Linhan was talking about
*NPV*
150 ships, not *Mass* 150 ships; NPV 150 ships are typically light cruisers
with 2 FCSs.)
The two cruisers can kill up to 4 of these scoutships per turn - not so
easily at longer ranges of course, but at close range their chances of
shooting the maximum are quite good. Furthermore, due to the way the shooting
initiative works they'll usually be able to destroy scoutships which haven't
fired yet this turn. Even if the cruisers don't manage to
kill any scoutships at long range, that means that 20-25% of the
scoutships are likely to be gone before any of them can fire... not a
particularly
good start of battle, really. Usually not quite so bad as to make the
scoutship swarm chanceless, but certainly bad enough to give the cruisers a
good chance of winning the fight.
(As a side note, keep in mind that *each* of the scoutships, including those
who die before they can fire, needs its own FCS. In this particular
matchup the scouts pay 4-5 times more for their FCSs than the cruisers
do for theirs.)
***
So no, I don't agree that the scenario you describe is munchkinism. It is
the alternative - ie., if 200 points of some ship design *can't* defeat
150
points of some other ship design most of the time - which opens the gate
wide for the munchkins, since it means that the 150-pt design is much
more
cost-effective than the ones from the 200-pt force. Guess which of the
two types of designs the munchkins will use?
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
> "K.H.Ranitzsch" wrote:
Well, yeah, but that was estimated cost when the Navy was trying to get the
program approved by the Congress/Parliament/Moot/Diet/Althing/Check
Writer
of the Sorrow Killer/Whatever. :) As is well known, these numbers tend
to go up the closer you get to laying the keel.