Greetings, All!
One of my gaming partners keeps expressing a desire to see a fighter group
capable of needle beam attacks. Here's a modest proposal - one that I
hope doens't mangle game balance *too* severely.:)
Needle Beam Fighters
--------------------
NB Fighters are a specialized form of Attack Fighters. They have all of the
normal benefits and drawbacks of Attack Fighters, but they can also be used to
perform a special form of needle beam attack against a target ship.
When a NB Fighter group is used in NB mode, the attacking player must declare
the needle beam attack in Turn Sequence 6 (before any PDS is assigned). All
fighters in the NB fighter group must be used for this attack, and only one
system on the defending ship can be targetted. After PDS is resolved, every
three (3) fighters remaining in the NB fighter group allows the attacking
player one (1) needle beam attack against the targetted system per the normal
FB needle beam rules. If there are less than three fighters remaining in the
group after the PDS is resolved, then the attack has no effect. 'Unused'
fighters in the group are not allowed to attack using the normal Attack
Fighter rules when a Needle Beam attack is being made.
Cost: 36 pts (6 per ship).
Feedback, please?
I wouldn't give them the attack fighter benefits as well as needle beams. How
about an entirely new type of fighter, instead of rehashing old ones?
Needle fighters attack ships using the needle beam rules & attack
fighters using the needle beams as their antifighter weapon (5-6 kills 1
fighter, no rerolls). Cost it at 30 points/squadron (5 per ship).
Every fighter in the squadron must target the same system & each fighter
rolls needle beam vs that system. Having only the one mode of fire
shouldn't unbalance play, as needle beam damage can be repaired (unlike needle
missiles). Ace status only affects the squadrons dogfight capabilities.
Hmmm... I quite like this idea.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
They seek him here, they seek him there; Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive, Pimpernel.
- 'The Scarlet Pimpernel', Baroness Emma Orkzy
[quoted original message omitted]
(well, if you're going to break a vow, break it good and hard...)
> On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
absolutely.
> How about an entirely new type of fighter, instead of rehashing old
or my favourite idea, in two strengths:
weak - allow all ship-attacking fighters to do needle attacks. the whole
squadron (6 fighters) gives up its attack. instead:
- nominate primary and secondary target systems
- roll a die. if you score under the current strength of the squadron:
-- roll a beam die:
--- 2 pts - primary and secondary targets destroyed
--- 1 pts - primary target destroyed
--- 0 pts - failure!
count turkeys as one fighter less, ie a 5-strong turkey group needs to
roll under 3.
you might want to ignore the target's shields - the fighters fly in
*real*
close (think death stars here). you might want to disallow pds/ads fire
(too close), but say the squadron takes one die of damage from crashing
(no bonus for being heavy - ramming a warship is terminal). these are
all solid Space Opera options.
strong - replace anti-ship attacks with needle attacks; thus fighters
are no longer able to actually sink a ship, just batter its systems. i never
liked the idea that my lumbering city-sized battleships were so
vulnerable to those little swarming pests...
> Needle fighters attack ships using the needle beam rules & attack
iirc, needle beam damage cannot be repaired (by DCPs, at any rate). only
threshold-check damage can be.
> Hmmm... I quite like this idea.
definitely some promies in here somewhere.
Tom
Oops, you're right. It was changed in the DC rules in MT. FB doesn't specify
any changes to it. I was reading the Needle beam rules from FT, which
specifies it as only failing a threshold check.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
They seek him here, they seek him there; Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive, Pimpernel.
- 'The Scarlet Pimpernel', Baroness Emma Orkzy
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 11:49 AM 1/8/99 +1100, you wrote:
Well, normal Needle Beam fire from ships can *not* be repaired, which is
why I neutered them so severely in the proposal - no way do I feel
comfortable allowing fighters to roll one needle beam attack per fighter. Two
consecutive attacks and the ship under attack is likely to be gutted by one
group targetting the drives.
> On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
Another vote for that
> How about an entirely new type of fighter, instead of rehashing old
Possibly, but I like Thoomas' idea better
> or my favourite idea, in two strengths:
How about collapsing that to a single die roll to resolve the attack? The
squadron gives up it's normal attack and instead:
- Nominate the target system (I think only one, but two may work
- Roll a die and compare it to squadron strength (subtract 1 for
turkeys)
-- If above squadron strength, nothing happens
-- If equal to squadron strength target takes 1 pt damage
-- If below to squadron strength target takes 1 pt and system destroyed.
> you might want to ignore the target's shields - the fighters fly in
You will notice my above mechanism does ignore shields. I would still allow
PDS to take place before the needle attacks
> strong - replace anti-ship attacks with needle attacks; thus fighters
Possibly...I'd need to think on that one some more.
> Needle fighters attack ships using the needle beam rules & attack
only
> threshold-check damage can be.
That's what I thought as well.
> Hmmm... I quite like this idea.
I agree - more comments?
How about allowing fighter needle damage to be repaired? The system is simply
crossed off the same as failed thresholds & is then treated as normal. That
way it won't overpower a ship, but it will slow it down for a turn or two
until it can fix the damage.
Personally, I target firecon's first. No incoming fire = no problem.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
They seek him here, they seek him there; Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive, Pimpernel.
- 'The Scarlet Pimpernel', Baroness Emma Orkzy
[quoted original message omitted]
> -MWS- wrote:
> Needle Beam Fighters
Mark,
1) An ace pilot can already make a needle attack.
2) I think the rule is balanced and worthy of use by standard
attack fighters.
Bye for now,
Two stabs at a Needle fighter (Combining several concepts presented so
far).
Version 1:
- Cost same as attack fighters
- PDS vs Needle fighters is +1 due to the close nature of the attack
(rerolls only on natural 6).
- Attack after PDS
- Needle fighters dogfight as Attack fighters (hit only on 6)
- Each fighter attacks as a MT Needle Beam (hit only on 6)
- Ignore screens
- 2 targets may be designated each attack, Primary is attacked until
destroyed, then secondary.
Version 2: Same as above except for:
- PDS vs. Needle fighters is +1 or +2 (1st reroll on natural 5 or 6,
following rerolls as normal)
- Needle fighters attack as FB Needle beam
Multiple needle attacks pay for the cost of Fighters + Bay
Vulnerability to PDS keeps them from being too strong.
my first post was interrupted by suddenly realising it was 0200. i've a good
30 minutes before that happens this time.
> Jared E Noble wrote:
who is this Thoomas character? if i catch him round here i'll batter him,
having a funny name like that :-).
if we can develop a good mechanism for fighter needle attacks, people can
patch it in as a fighter type or an attack mode as they wish. reduce, reuse,
recycle. as an attack mode it should be called the trench run, obviously.
> >- nominate primary and secondary target systems
thinking about this some more, this may be excessive. maybe we should just say
pick one target; 1 point of damage destroys it, 2 pts destroys it and the
player is allowed to shout "KABOOM!" louder than he usually would. or score a
point of hull damage too, although i dislike this on aesthetic grounds.
define terms: if a system is KOd so it can be repaired (eg threshold) it is
damaged, if it is KOd so it cannot (eg shipboard needle beams) it is
destroyed.
if we use the 'needle fighters damage systems' rule, then maybe getting 2
points means the damage was extra heavy, and is treated as system destroyed
(ie, cannot be repaired). this i like. this would apply to
multiple successes for each-fighter-rolls mode.
note that needle fighters should be able to target systems which have been
damaged in an attempt to destroy them (the Horizon is drifting helplessly, but
nonetheless the Equinox launches needle fighters to see the job is properly
finished...).
> >count turkeys as one fighter less
squadrons with aces make an attack at one less strength (the ace is not
involved) but get the ace's attack as well. or just get +1 on the roll,
or count as 1 stronger (the opposite of turkeys).
> How about collapsing that to a single die roll to resolve the attack?
faster is better.
> The squadron gives up it's normal attack and instead:
the nice thing about rolling a normal beam attack die is that it allows
fighter types to differ: needling ordinary fighters roll a straight beam die;
needling attack fighters do the attack fighter thing and add one.
ok, so can torpedo fighters do the trench run?
also, my rule is totally unlike the rule for ordinary needle beams. Jared's
rule is unlike beam or needle rules. this may not be a problem.
> I would still
fair enough. with a bonus, as has been suggested.
> >strong - replace anti-ship attacks with needle attacks; thus fighters
so do i! this was one of the parts that fell victim to the 0200 effect; i was
going to go into more depth, but basically it consists of removing the normal
attack mode altogether.
i think that screens can be ignored: if you're using needle fighters, the
weapon punches through them; if you're using the trench run, the fighters duck
in below the screen. do we have a consensus?
i have analysed the statistical characteristics of the proposed systems. to
recap, we have damage mode (each rolls a beam die for damage), needle mode
(each rolls a needle die for knockouts, max of 1 total), mark (shurtleff) mode
(each half rolls a needle die, max of 1 total), tom mode (morale check and
beam die for knockouts, max of 1 total), jared mode (roll under strength to
get a knockout). iirc, needle die score 1 on the roll of a 6.
thus, i give you formulae. where N is the number of fighters in the squadron
and R is the result (damage or knockouts):
Damage: R = N/2
Needle: R = 1 - (5/6)^N
Mark: R = 1 - (5/6)^floor(N/3)
Tom: R = N/12
Jared: R = (N-1)/6
this is all normal squadrons. these versions are a bit simplified and rule out
secondary targets, attack fighters, etc.
a table:
N 6 5 4 3 2 1
D 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 N 0.67 0.60 0.52 0.42 0.31 0.17 M 0.31 0.17
0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 T 0.50 0.42 0.33 0.25 0.17 0.08 J 0.83 0.67 0.50 0.33 0.17
0.00
The Needle mode is probably the most powerful in combat situations (ie
strengths of 4 or 5 are typical); Jared's is a close second. mine is less so
and falls of linearly, like Jared's; Mark's is the least powerful. we just
have to decide how we want this.
hope this helps (and is correct), Tom
> Jared E Noble wrote:
You never what weirdos will show up on the net;)
> if we can develop a good mechanism for fighter needle attacks, people
Certainly - Though I prefer it a tactic, not a fighter type - so you
have 3
attack types with fighters - Dogfight, Anti-ship, and Trench run.
> >- nominate primary and secondary target systems
or
> score a point of hull damage too, although i dislike this on aesthetic
I think 2 systems detroyed is indeed excessive, but read on
> define terms: if a system is KOd so it can be repaired (eg threshold)
it
> is damaged, if it is KOd so it cannot (eg shipboard needle beams) it is
Yes
> if we use the 'needle fighters damage systems' rule, then maybe getting
This best, IMO. Which ever die mechanic you use, 1 pt damages system, 2 pts
destroys it.
> note that needle fighters should be able to target systems which have
Agreed
> >count turkeys as one fighter less
I would word it 'Squadrons with Aces count as 1 stronger' This way you benefit
even if you use a reversed die roll like I proposed (where you want
to roll low). I don't think I would split the Ace off - He may be the
hot shot, but the squadron still stays together on the trench run. You could
make his needle attack separately, but this would seem to imply a split
squadron. If you do want to make his attack separately, I would say he must
attack a system adjacent to the main squadron's target (adjacent system on the
SSD) or better yet, declare his separate attack and allow PDS to specifically
be used in targetting him. If the PDS targetted at him scores a hit, the Ace
is toast.
> How about collapsing that to a single die roll to resolve the attack?
An interesting idea, at least - I like fast - I've modified my proposal
(see below)
The squadron gives up it's normal attack and instead:
- Declare the intended trench run (but not it's target)
- Resolve PDS
- Nominate the target system
- Roll a die and compare it to squadron strength
(Turkey groups count as 1 less, Groups with ace as 1 more)
-- If above squadron strength, nothing happens.
-- If equal to squadron strength target system damaged.
-- If below to squadron strength target system destroyed.
> the nice thing about rolling a normal beam attack die is that it allows
That is true, but would those factors alter the Trench run abilities very
much? And if they do, could attack fighter groups simply add +1 to the
squadron strength? (just like having an ace, but it is cumulative) Personally
I don't think fighter type should significantly alter the trench run, buy YMMV
> ok, so can torpedo fighters do the trench run?
hmmm...I've mixed emotions on this one. I sort of think that the same
abilities (maneuverability, agility, etc.) that make a good dogfighter also
go a long way in making a good trench fighter - at the same time you
want
anti-shipping guns to take out the larger targets...
Or do you? Perhaps at these close ranges, small anti-fighter guns are
as
effective as larger anti-shipping weaponry. Could it be that the Trench
Run is closely akin to dogfighting a ship? The maneuvers to approach a target
so closely as to guarantee that your attacks will not only penetrate the
shields, but also be focused only on that system? That would almost suggest
that Torpedo fighters couldn't do it, and that even attack fighters may not be
very good at it. What do you think? Might interceptors be the best trench
fighters?
If this is the case (which it may not be) then perhaps we should change how we
handle the PDS during a trench run. Fighters that get a bonus to dogfight
(interceptors) are attacked by PDS as normal. Fighters without
bonus (multi-role,F,H,LR) are attacked with a +1, fighters penalized in
close combat (attack, Torp) are attacked at +2.
> also, my rule is totally unlike the rule for ordinary needle beams.
That's OK - we'll call it a trench run, and say fighters don't have the
targetting system to accomodate the normal needle system (so say nothing of
the size), and so must make up for the precision with proximity. Poof -
non-standard needle argument solved!
> Jared's rule is unlike beam or needle rules. this may not be a problem.
Now as to my new mechanic...umm...it's a new mode of operation - is a
new mechanic all that bad? Even your mechanic takes liberties with the
fighter/beam system (rather than 1 die per fighter you _might_ roll 1
die -
depending on the number of fighters in your group)
> I would still
Agreed - is +1 enough?
> >strong - replace anti-ship attacks with needle attacks; thus
I've other thoughts on this (If I remember them I'll address them later)
> i think that screens can be ignored: if you're using needle fighters,
Well, the 2 of us do on this point...does 2 on a list of 180+ make a
consensus?;)
> i have analysed the statistical characteristics of the proposed
I'm not sure about this - with my system, even having 1 fighter you can
score 'damaged', if not a 'destroyed' (of course this is my new system -
previously it was only 1 DP - so that may be what you meant)
> this is all normal squadrons. these versions are a bit simplified and
we
> just have to decide how we want this.
However, will 4-5 remain typical if PDS gets a bonus vs trench runs?
> hope this helps (and is correct),
Looks good to me...nice job
> Jared E Noble wrote:
[snip]
> The squadron gives up it's normal attack and instead:
So the probabilities for various squadron sizes would be:
Remaining
Fighters% no effect% damaged% destroyed
--------- --------- --------- -----------
6+ace 0% 0% 100%
6 0% 16.7% 83.3% 5 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 4 33.3% 16.7% 50% 3 50% 16.7% 33.3% 2
66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 1 83.3% 16.7% 0%
So there's always a 1/6 chance of damaging a system, but the
chance of destroying one covers the full range. If this turns out to be too
powerful (i.e., too many "destroyed" results),the damage rules could be
changed to
-- If above squadron strength, nothing happens.
-- If equal to or below squadron strength, target system damaged.
-- If below half the squadron strength, target system destroyed.
This would give the following probabilities:
Remaining
Fighters% no effect% damaged% destroyed
--------- --------- --------- -----------
6+ace 0% 50% 50%
6 0% 50% 50% 5 16.7% 50% 33.3% 4 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3 50% 33.3% 16.7% 2 66.7%
16.7% 16.7% 1 83.3% 16.7% 0%
So the chance of destroying a system outright never exceeds 50%, but
the chance of damaging a system varies from 1/6 to 100%, instead
of being a constant 1/6.
There would still be an advantage for an ace squadron with these
probabilities, in that the probabilities of damaging or destroying a system
remain higher as the squadron strength drops (through unfortunate encounters
with PDS).
Note that I did not round the 1/2 values; half a squadron strength
of 3 is 1.5, so "below 1/2 squadron size" is 1, or 16.7%, but "equal
to or below squadron size" includes 3, 2, or 1; exclude 1, since that's
a "destroyed" result, and you get 2/6, or 33.3%.
This second distribution appeals to me more than the first, but I have no idea
how either one would work in play. Definitely needs some playtest.
- Sam
> Jared E Noble wrote:
> I would word it 'Squadrons with Aces count as 1 stronger'.
agreed. this is clearest.
> I've modified my proposal
good thinking - keeps the defending player guessing about what goes
where. otoh, it means that you can commit three squadrons, and after pds fire
you can assign the strongest to what you want destroyed most, etc.
this may not be realistic - squadrons would have their runs lined up in
advance.
in fact, i think a ship's crew would be able to figure out the target
from the attack trajectory, fighter fire-control emissions, etc.
"they're targeting our weapons systems!" is a classic space opera phrase.
> - Roll a die and compare it to squadron strength
i see where you're coming from - this is the DS2 penetration rule!
however, the chance of destroying a system is far too high. how about
reversing the results, so you have a constant 1/6 chance of destroying
and a varying chance of damaging. with only one fighter left, it's either
destroy or fail, a suitably tense and operatic situation!
> >the nice thing about rolling a normal beam attack die is that it
i can see your point - the trench run is about precision, not power.
> Or do you? Perhaps at these close ranges, small anti-fighter guns are
no. for theoretical reasons - ship systems will have their own armour
(like Harpoon's Critical Hit Protection), and so you need big guns, not
rapid-fire light-weight stuff like an interceptor's. for game reasons -
interceptors are for fighting fighters, atack fighters are for fighting ships.
> >> I would still
yes.
> >i think that screens can be ignored: if you're using needle fighters,
yes, if i'm one of them :-). does anyone else out there have any
feelings on this?
> >thus, i give you formulae. where N is the number of fighters in the
well, given that you had not posted your new system, and possibly had not even
thought of it, when i did this analysis, yes, that is what i
meant! next time i'll engage my clairvoyancy mode :-).
> >The Needle mode is probably the most powerful in combat situations
we
> >just have to decide how we want this.
and if it takes place first. if a full-strength squadron attacks a ship
and gets fired at by 1 pds, it can expect to take 1 casualty (FT pds here); i
don't know how it works in FB.
Tom
> i see where you're coming from - this is the DS2 penetration rule!
I agree on that point--maximize drama
> i can see your point - the trench run is about precision, not power.
Right--trench runs are where you dive your big, ungainly attack craft in
to point blank range, jinking and weaving as your buddies fall to enemy
interceptors and continuous laser bursts, paying the price in blood so you
can jam a fusion-tipped payload right down his throat. Let those
arrogant
interceptor pilots brag about their scores against enemy fighters--when
it comes time to hunt big game, you call for Attack.
> How about allowing fighter needle damage to be repaired? The system is
This makes for the problem of more paperwork and hassle in keeping track of
what damage can be repaired, and what can't. On small ships, the chance of
repairing damage, with so few DCPs, is pretty slight.
I prefer the mechanic of limiting their attacks.
> Jared E Noble wrote:
> The squadron gives up it's normal attack and instead:
Good point - added to revised sequence below
<snip old damage resolution>
> i see where you're coming from - this is the DS2 penetration rule!
Another good point - I was looking for something easy, but missed that
implication. Actually, Sam Reynolds posted a suggestion which I think
sounds nice - so here's the revised resolution:
The squadron gives up it's normal attack and instead:
- Declare trench runs and targets
- Resolve PDS (I like varying bonuses-see below)
- Roll a die and compare it to squadron strength
(Turkey groups count as 1 less, Groups with ace as 1 more)
(other possible mods for ftr type - see below)
-- If above squadron strength, nothing happens.
-- If equal or below squadron strength target system damaged.
-- If equal or below half squadron strength target system destroyed.
*note - this does muck up the destroy/fail drama on the last fighter,
unless you add the ruling that a 1 on the resolution die always destroys the
system
So here's the chart everyone seems fond of.
Size Destroy Damage Nothing
6 1-3 (50%) 4-6 (50%) -
5 1-2 (33%) 3-5 (50%) 6 (17%)
4 1-2 (33%) 3-4 (33%) 5-6 (33%)
3 1 (17%) 2-3 (33%) 4-6 (50%)
2 1 (17%) 2 (17%) 3-6 (66%)
1 -* (0%) 1* (17%) 2-6 (83%)
* Adopting the 'heightened drama on a 1' rule would shift these two results
> >the nice thing about rolling a normal beam attack die is that it
Well, I've already changed my thinking (not a lot though). I feel that fighter
type could affect the trench run, but not totally
dictate/dominate
it. It seems maneuverable fighters would be more survivable in a trench run,
while those with the heavier guns would be more successful in attacking the
target system. (and coincidentally, there are 2 steps in the
sequence for PDS and then damage resolution - luck or conspiracy?)
> Or do you? Perhaps at these close ranges, small anti-fighter guns
OK - I can accept that (at least partway)
So does that mean that Interceptors can't do trench runs at all? Or perhaps
their attack resolution should be penalized to represent their weaker guns
(looking for clarification here)
For example - Normal fighters resolve damage as given above,
interceptors subtract 1 from squadron strength, attack fighters add 1 What is
your current take on Torpedo fighters? Is the torpedo accurate enough for the
precision strike? It's pretty powerful, would it do more damage in addition,
or should we just say that giving 1d6 damage per fighter for a possible 1
system hit per squadron would be silly, thereby disallowing trench runs by
them (that seems kind of arbitrary to me)
> >> I would still
Although when the idea came to me about varying the PDS bonus based on the
percieved 'agility' of the fighter type, I really liked the feel of it. Or is
it too much of a complication?
<snip>
> well, given that you had not posted your new system, and possibly had
Thanks- that would be of great help to everyone involved ;)
> >The Needle mode is probably the most powerful in combat situations
we
> >just have to decide how we want this.
PDS in FB:
As FT *DAF except 6 is a reroll. (2 pts+roll again - continuing rerolls
possible)
> Tom
> Kind of silly to followup to my own reply, I know, but I had another
I assume the the damage rolled is not actually applied to the target ship else
there would be no reason not to do a trench run every turn of attack. I still
like the other version better, once die roll instead of many.
Kind of silly to followup to my own reply, I know, but I had another thought
on a damage mechanic for the Trench Run (needle attacks)
The squadron _modifies_ it's normal attack follows:
- Declare trench runs and targets
- Resolve PDS (I still like varying bonuses for ftr types)
- Roll normal damage per fighter and compare total to the following:
(No turkey penalty, Aces roll 2 dice as stated in MT)
(Attack ftrs already get +1 on die)
-- If below 'damaged' target # nothing happens.
-- If equal or above 'damaged' # (say 2) target system damaged.
-- If equal or above 'destroyed' # (say 5) target system destroyed.
you keep the familiar die rolls (except torpedoes - still thinking on
those) The difference is that instead of applying the damage to the SSD,
you compare it to 2 different threshold levels - 'Damaged' and
'Destroyed'. 2 and 5 were arbitrarily chosen so that a single fighter can
damage a system, even without additional damage from the reroll on the 6, but
2 fighters cannot destroy a system without a successful reroll. According to
my math the average roll for 6 fighters will be about 4.77 - so just
under half the time a full strength squadron would destroy the target system.
As an added bonus, the MT rules already define combat for aces (they add 1
extra die to the squadron), attack fighters (add 1 to the individual die
rolls), and rerolls are per FTFB (only reroll on natural '6').
Biggest 3 remaining questions -
1 - Are the dmg/dest target #'s appropriate?
2 - What about torpedo fighters - can they also resolve their attack
normally use the same 2/5 damage/dest chart? And if you can and do
surrender 1d6 damage per fighter for a chance to damage a single system, then
what exactly are you smoking?;)
3 - How about interceptors? I still think they should be capable of a
trench run, just not as effective at it. My proposal is the following:
Standard fighters get 1dB (1 beam die) vs Ftrs and 1dB vs ships. Attack
ftrs gain +1 to the die vs ships at the expense of only scoring 1 on
ftrs
on a 6. I think Interceptors should be the converse - +1 to die roll vs
ftrs, at the cost of only scoring 1 pt vs ships on a 6. Rerolls should still
apply in both cases.
Comments? Flames?
> Personally I don't think fighter type should significantly alter the
Well, I've already changed my thinking (not a lot though). I feel that fighter
type could affect the trench run, but not totally
dictate/dominate
it. It seems maneuverable fighters would be more survivable in a trench run,
while those with the heavier guns would be more successful in attacking the
target system. (and coincidentally, there are 2 steps in the
sequence for PDS and then damage resolution - luck or conspiracy?)
> no. for theoretical reasons - ship systems will have their own armour
OK - I can accept that (at least partway)
So does that mean that Interceptors can't do trench runs at all? Or perhaps
their attack resolution should be penalized to represent their weaker guns
(looking for clarification here)
For example - Normal fighters resolve damage as given above,
interceptors subtract 1 from squadron strength, attack fighters add 1 What is
your current take on Torpedo fighters? Is the torpedo accurate enough for the
precision strike? It's pretty powerful, would it do more damage in addition,
or should we just say that giving 1d6 damage per fighter for a possible 1
system hit per squadron would be silly, thereby disallowing trench runs by
them (that seems kind of arbitrary to me)
> >> I would still
Although when the idea came to me about varying the PDS bonus based on the
percieved 'agility' of the fighter type, I really liked the feel of it. Or is
it too much of a complication?
> Tom
You are correct - the damage is not applied to the target ship, only
resolved against the table
2 different approaches that have been discussed were Tom's and Mine (not the
only 2, but Tom and I seem to have been the most vocal on this subject).
Tom's system uses 2 dice to resolve - 1 to see if you get a chance of
success, second to see if you actually succeed. The first roll was dependant
on the strength of your squadron and the pilot quality. After
that, it was a 1 die crap-shoot to see if you succeeded- though you used
a
standard-mechanic beam die to resolve that last part. Your success on
the second roll was completely independant on the strength of your squadron.
My system used a single die roll against the strength of your squadron (with
various suggested modifiers for fighter types or pilot quality) and the degree
of success was based on how successful you were in beating your
target number. I like the idea - success is directly tied to the
strength
of your squadron. But using a single die (using a non-standard mechanic,
at that) it is hard to get a nice smooth distribution, or a deliberately
skewed one for that matter. There are some statistical anomalies with this
system, but all in all I don't think it's bad
What I have tried to do this time is combine ideas and integrate standard
fighter mechanics as well. With this proposal Up until the time you mark
damage on the SSD, the only difference from a normal fighter attack is that
you declare a specific target SYSTEM, not just the target ship. When you mark
the damage, instead of marking off so many boxes on the damage track, you
instead comare to a very brief (and easily memorized) chart and mark the
target system accordingly.
The modifiers I have put in (bonuses to PDS based on ftr type) are a
trench-run change easy to implement to give a little more flavor with
(IMO)
no complication.
Of course, there is something to be said for simplicity and speed. I figured
getting people's comments would be useful.
Jared
"Dean Gundberg" <dean.gundberg@noridian.com> on 01/12/99 12:04:04 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: RE: [FTFB] "Needle" fighters?
> Kind of silly to followup to my own reply, I know, but I had another
I assume the the damage rolled is not actually applied to the target ship else
there would be no reason not to do a trench run every turn of attack. I still
like the other version better, once die roll instead of many.
Dean
> Jared E Noble wrote:
well, i've webbed some portion of this:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~univ0938/gzg/needlefighters.html
and will add improved jared mode and the consensus mode if we get one.
> Tom's system uses 2 dice to resolve - 1 to see if you get a chance of
After
> that, it was a 1 die crap-shoot to see if you succeeded
what a thoroughly dispassionate way of looking at it! yes, the second step is
a crap shoot. in fact, it is basically a morale test followed by a single
attack, which is needle rather than damage. you could see this as the whole
squadron diving in and doing the trench run, but with one man actually
assigned to make the shot, and the others distracting and attacking defences,
going ahead to scout the target, etc. highly operatic. i don't know how you'd
do this if you were using the MT morale rules, as (iirc) a morale roll is
needed to attack a ship anyway; require two successes to do a trench run?
> - though you used a
both mechanics are off-the-shelf FT/MT standard, chartless to the max.
> My system used a single die roll against the strength of your squadron
and
> the degree of success was based on how successful you were in beating
new ideas and a table was involved, although it wasn't hard to remember.
> I like the idea - success is directly tied to the strength
as in mine, just differently. not to be confrontational, mind.
> But using a single die (using a non-standard mechanic, at
very true!
> What I have tried to do this time is combine ideas and integrate
design by committee...
> > Kind of silly to followup to my own reply, I know, but I had another
could be. i say +1 due to the close range, at least.
but let's not forget the needle fighter as fighter type crowd here -
it's hard to justify bonuses when the attack is much like a normal attack.
> > - Roll normal damage per fighter and compare total to the following:
hmm. quite nice. this is actually a little more complex than any of the other
proposals so far, needing a roll of one die per fighter, followed by an add
and a compare. not bad, really.
my biggest objection to this is the somewhat arbitrary constants 'say 2' and
'say 5'; i accept that this system is playable, it's just not terribly
elegant.
Tom