Full Thrust vs Starmada

Interesting discussion on TMP, although it seems a little onesided:

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=38256

Maybe a couple of you FT gurus might like to wade in and give an alternative
viewpoint.

Cheers,

Well, the arguments that FT has a slow publication schedule, rules spread over
multiple books, and a broken points system are all true to one degree or
another. For better or worse, GW has conditioned the market to expect some new
product every 3 months max. And new FT stuff is seen far less frequently than
that in North America.

Woah, that's a thread I started back in February... Can't believe that's still
getting attention.

Hopefully I don't get cast out from this list for heresy! *grin*

--Tim

> Paul J Foster wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:00:40AM -0400, Flak Magnet wrote:

I still reckon FT has a far superior movement system. The SX weapons
are nice, but primarily because you can fine-tune them - when it comes
down to it they all come out as "roll a bunch of dice to hit, then to
penetrate shields, then to damage". You don't get configurable
placed-marker ordnance or much of the other interesting stuff.

> Hopefully I don't get cast out from this list for heresy! *grin*

'Course not, as long as you keep your tithes up. Do you have the new ESU
miniatures yet?

R

> McCarthy, Tom wrote:

I don't think that it's a GW-fostered expectation of myriad rapid-fire
releases that's given FT a rep as having slow releases. I've been into
FT for years and I haven't seen a new release rules-wise in all that
time in spite of a seemingly obvious need for it. Sure, beta rules for the UN
have come out on the web, and awesome new models have come out of the FT line.
Personally, I'd rather see the new figs than a FB3. Even
so, I would rather see a new release/compilation of all the rules in one
volume (FT, 3rd Ed.) than the new figs, hopefully with some updates to the
rules to settle down the fighter debate.

To characterise complaints about a slow release schedule of GZG's rules
as a result of GW conditioning or some other MTV-attention-span related
cause seems dismissive and possibly offensive. (I'll assume it wasn't intended
to be, just becuase it probably wasn't.) I'm also a historical wargamer, so I
hardly require new releases for a game to hold my interest. I also despise GW,
yet I would still like to see FT updated sometime sooner than later.

There is something to be said for the fact that GZG.com is primarily a
miniatures company that's produced some excellent rules, while MJ12Games
(Starmada's publisher) is a rules publisher that produces no figures of their
own.

That means that GZG's bread and butter (and lunch money) comes from the
figs...  Rules are back-burnered, though I imagine those in the inner
circle of GZG's playtesters might disagree with that statement.

--Tim

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:00:40AM -0400, Flak Magnet wrote:

> Hopefully I don't get cast out from this list for heresy! *grin*

WOOSH!

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Our Chief weapon is Surprise. (etc etc)

Unrighteous creature.... How do you plead?

> Roger Burton West wrote:

Yes, I definitely agree.  The vector movement system is hands-down
better than SX's. Though my group is still interested in playtesting the SX
movement system (regular and vector) in order to fully get a feel for
"vanilla" SX gameplay, the general feeling is that we'll bastardize FT's
vector movement system onto SX's rules.

> Hopefully I don't get cast out from this list for heresy! *grin*

St. Tuffley still gets his semi-annual(-ish) tithe from me and my gaming
buds.

--Tim

> That means that GZG's bread and butter (and lunch money) comes from the

True

> Rules are back-burnered, though I imagine those in the inner

Partly it's that the test list is working on FT3 and FMAS and DS3 and so forth
at the same time. And there are some problems which we'd rather fix
*before* releasing--for example, the Great Fighter Problem should be
solved
when FT3 is released--and some of them have solutions which are, hm, not
immediately obvious. But yeah, we'd like to move things along more briskly
than is happening.

> But yeah, we'd like to move things along more briskly than is

Perhaps a solution to this "slow movement" is to segment the test list into
areas of interest. Instead of having all hands look at everything you should
create teams to put their effort into a particular set.

Space monkeys work on FT...ground pounders work on DS, skirmish gamers hit SG
and FMA...

The rest of us continue to wait.

> damosan@comcast.net wrote:

Well, the list kinda sorta does self-segregate already. I'm an avid FT
and DS
player, and have used the test list to dummy-test FMA (since I'm not as
sharp
on it as some of the others, I figure I can find the stupid bits ;-). I
rarely touch anything on there having to do with SGII simply because I have
not played it nearly enough to have any kind of good feel on the rules. There
are those
on the list who are FTers-only, and don't pipe in during the SG3
discussions.
Likewise the groundpounders-only tend to steer clear of the FT3
discussions.
And on the flip-side, some people have their hands/paws/tentacles into
all
four of the rulessets. ;-)

Mk

This may be the wrong forum to rant about the GZG test list, so I'll
just say that Indy is right about people self-segregating.  Imagine if
you will that I pretty much delete out of hand any DS2 post on this list. You
can be sure I do the same on the test list.

But Jon Tuffley is only slightly more active on the test list than he is here.
The test list can go months without Jon throwing an idea on the floor for
discussion. Jon usually spends months compiling ideas in his log book or
computer, then when business warrants it, throws some of the ideas onto the
test list. I get the impression several ideas percolating in his mind never do
hit the list. And generally speaking,
if the business of selling miniatures heats up, rules-writing slows down
or is dropped.

And then when Jon does throw an idea on the test list, you get a lot of
activity, and very few ideas are universally accepted. When 2 out of 6 guys
voice concerns over an idea, and another 2 out of 6 have doubts about another
idea, it can be hard for any idea to get traction. (And it's not like the test
list has just 6 guys, but any given topic usually has a max of 6 guys who say
more than 'I like it' and 'Me, too'.) Many ideas thrown onto the test list
never go beyond debate and into the realm of playtest.

> Well, the list kinda sorta does self-segregate already. I'm an avid FT
I
> rarely

And there are some problems
> which we'd rather fix

I might look a bit naïve but what is actually the Great Fighter Problem?

(it looks impressively dangerous said like this with capital letter... lol)

/morp

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:58:25PM +0200, le morpion wrote:

> I might look a bit na?ve but what is actually the

I'd recommend looking through the archives, but basically:

The cost of your fighter force is linear. Twenty groups cost 20x as much as
one group.

The effectiveness of your fighter force is nonlinear. One group can't
do much against a moderately well-defended ship. Twenty groups ganging
up on a single ship will generally take only minor losses as they wipe it out,
and can go on to zap another ship next turn.

This means that fighter-heavy forces, particularly large fleets, are
disproportionately effective for their point value. Making fighters
more expensive doesn't help very much - it just moves the balance-point
further out, it still doesn't make the effectiveness linear. (And you can't
really say "the 20th fighter group in your fleet costs 60 points rather than
36".)

R

The gist of the argument is this (as I read it):

Fighters are immune to all but selected weapons aboard ships. In effect, they
exist in a 'dimension' or 'game space' where only PDS, other fighters, and a
few select weapons can effect them.

If your opponent puts 80% of his resources in attacking through fighters
and you haven't put all weapon mass into anti-fighter weapons, you lose
(and don't even enjoy it).

To shift the balance back to allow balanced fleets to battle
fighter-heavy fleets, you need to make fighters harder to use or
targetable by all weapons (albeit at reduced capability).

But Jon definitely feels some settings demand fighters that are immune
to anti-ship weapons, and leans towards making fighters harder to use.
And making them harder to use without making the game hard to learn is a
challenge.

Oerjan's take would likely be more detailed and accurate.

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

> To shift the balance back to allow balanced fleets to battle
And making them harder to use without making the game hard to learn is a
challenge.
> [quoted text omitted]

Hmm, sounds like this one of those cases where a "setting specific" rule is
going to be needed. Of the settings that I can think of where fighters are
 anti-ship immune, the fighters themselves are the main anti-fighter
weapons. As such, you'd be crazy to *not* take pds and fighters to counter the
other guy's fighters in those settings. Why not make the "fighters are
targetable" rule be the default in the GZG setting, but explain how the system
would work
 in other "non-targetable" settings?  I know it's not ideal to have a
system that doesn't work for all settings, but this may just be a case where
there isn't a system that will work for all settings.

> But Jon definitely feels some settings demand fighters that are

> Hmm, sounds like this one of those cases where a "setting specific"
rule is going to be needed. Of the settings that I can think of where
fighters are anti-ship immune, the fighters themselves are the main
anti-fighter weapons. As such, you'd be crazy to *not* take PDS and
fighters to counter the other guy's fighters in those settings. Why not make
the "fighters are targetable" rule be the default in the GZG
setting, but explain how the system would work in other "non-targetable"
settings? I know it's not ideal to have a system that doesn't work for all
settings, but this may just be a case where there isn't a system that will
work for all settings. <

My initial reaction to this is to think that this is putting the cart before
the horse. Surely it's simpler to have the targetable fighters
rules as optional add-ons in the way that they are now -- keep things
simple and add complexity as desired for the appropriate setting(s). If that
requires a note to the effect that FB designs assume the use of these optional
rules, then so be it; it's still a lot simpler and neater
than to have to take something _out_ when playing in a fighter-heavy
sub-genre.

And, when all's said and done, the effectiveness of massed fighters does
reflect historical experience -- not in space, of course, but certainly
in terms of wet-navy ships and aircraft.

Phil
----
"I think... I think I am! Therefore I am... I think?" -- The Moody Blues

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:57:27PM +0100, Phillip Atcliffe wrote:

> My initial reaction to this is to think that this is putting the cart

And a further note to the effect that the points system is broken, such that
massed fighters will always win, unless these "optional" rules are used? If
that's acceptable, it's a lot easier to write wargames rules than I thought it
was...

It may be realistic but it's not a very interesting game.

R

> On Monday 25 April 2005 17:27, Grant A. Ladue wrote:

I've always found fighters to be far the best anti-fighter weapons.
If the other fleet doesn't have fighters, you can use your fighters to attack
the other fleet. Fighters also protect the entire fleet, not just the carrier
(a PDS only protects the ship that mounts it, so all ships have to mount PDS).

> Damo wrote:

> Perhaps a solution to this "slow movement" is to segment the test list

> you should create teams to put their effort into a particular set.

DS and SG can't be separated very far from each other. One of the goals
with the 3rd editions is to conform those two games to each other - we
*don't* want the current weird situation where equipment used in DS doesn't
exist in SG and vice versa, or having a gadget in DS with the same name as but
a different function than a gadget in SG, or having rules for
Kra'Vak/Phalons/Sa'Vasku which give them completely different behaviours
in the two games, etc... which means that the people working on SG and the
people working on DS have to keep an eye on what the other group is doing.
FMA:S is related to both of these, though more to SG than to DS (for obvious
reasons).

FT could be segregated from the other three... but several of the most active
FT players are also at the same time among the most active in either DS or SG,
so forcing them to choose one game to concentrate on risks
slowing down work on the other game even more :-/

Later,

> > Hmm, sounds like this one of those cases where a "setting specific"
=
> rule is going to be needed. Of the settings that I can think of where
If =
> that requires a note to the effect that FB designs assume the use of =

I would be a little hesistant to do it this way, but I suspect it's just the
semantics of "optional" that I worry about. Perhaps it should be phrased as:
Fighter combat can be handled one of two ways: Option 1 is targetable
fighters, with these reasons for why you might want to use them and what it
leads to.

                Option 2 is non-targetable fighters, with these reasons
for why you might want to use them and what it leads to.

Then people could choose appropriately based on what they want and what genre
they're working from. Heck if you point based them a bit differently, you
could even have different forces using the different options on the table at
the same time. That might even be a good way to simulate one race having very
nimble fighters (only targetable by pds), while another has "older" tech
fighters (targetable by all). Make the "nimble" fighters be
   1/2 again more expensive, and there you go.

The only thing that could really easily balance the problem of many many
fighter groups overwhelming a ship would be to just limit the number of groups
that can attack a certain size of target at once. I mean is it really
appropriate for 20 fighter groups to be able to all target one

destroyer at the same time? Wouldn't a lot of them just interfere with the
others? If the objection to that is that the turn length lets them all make
attack runs, then the pds of the ship should get to fire at all of them as
they come in, not just a few.

> Tom McCarthy wrote:

[snip summary of the fighter balance problem]

> Oerjan's take would likely be more detailed and accurate.

Between the two of you you and Roger got all the important features of the
fighter balance, so I won't have to :-)

> But Jon definitely feels some settings demand fighters that are immune
And
> making them harder to use without making the game hard to learn is a

"A challenge" is an understatement IMO. Frankly, I don't think it is even
possible to achieve a fighter balance if fighters are immune to
anti-ship
weapons *and* fleets are able to spend anything from 0% to 100% of their

resources on carriers like they are in eg. the GZGverse... I believe that
there's a very strong reason why just about every non-FT space combat
game
which both features fighters and allows players to custom-design their
ships, also allows anti-ship weapons to fire at fighters :-/

Later,

There have been suggestions that limit the number of fighters that can attack
a ship in a turn. Number crunching suggest they ameliorate the problem (even
greatly), but some people don't feel they solve it.

> -----Original Message-----
If
> =
fighters
> be

> Tom McCarthy wrote:

> There have been suggestions that limit the number of fighters that can

Show me the number crunching that suggest they ameliorate the problem
"greatly", or even at all. The only number crunching of this concept I've seen
very strongly suggested that limiting the number of fighters attacking a
particular ship in a single turn has virtually *no* effect if the target
ship is a FB-style (ie., limited-PDS) BB or smaller...

While it did make it relatively easy to build superdreadnoughts and larger
that were effectively invulnerable to fighter attack, the big capitals
don't really need to be made even stronger than they already are :-/

Later,

I've always found fighters to be far the best anti-fighter weapons.
If the other fleet doesn't have fighters, you can use your fighters to attack
the other fleet. Fighters also protect the entire fleet, not just the carrier
(a PDS only protects the ship that mounts it, so all ships have to mount PDS).

***Nothing beats a CAP to keep those enemy fighters away...)
The best anti-fighter weapon is a fighter interceptor or air
superiority fighter.....Hate to say it folks but it's true in FT just like
real life.

Ways around it, long range missile strikes on the carrier/base,
decoys, Jamming,and lots more (as Sam says) PDS mounts. Another trick that
(might) work command detonated mines, doesn't have to hit a fighter to give it
a bad day but, that's a one off trick move that your opponents will soon wise
up to.

The bigger issue about games balance really hits home when you play and
attacker entering a enemy controlled planetary system. The defender can have
vast hordes fighters from planets, space stations in orbit, small moons
etc.and still be in line points wise. The attacker really can't hope to have
as many fighters and still have a credible attack fleet to do anything else.
The trick here is to stay at extreme range and ping his bases until you make
enough of a dent before you close with him.

Another way is a campaign setting giving the attacker a three to one points
advantage.......Will still be messy no way around it.

> Tom McCarthy wrote:
Really? I find this a bit suprising, but it depends a lot on how much you
limited the fighters, whether you use morale, etc. For instance, I would think
that if you limited a cruiser sized hull to only 4 attacking fighter groups
(say out of a 6 group swarm), that could extend it's lifetime considerably.
The average cruiser has 3 or 4 pds

doesn't it? Dedicate one pds per attacking group and you should get a couple
of fighter kills. With the morale rules, you've got at least one fighter group
who has to roll before it attacks. If you can get one or two fighter groups to
break off before their attack, you've probably kept the cruiser from going
through a second threshold on that turn. That's much *much* better than what
would happen if 6 fighter groups attacked it under the current system. It
ain't perfect, but it's better. If you also allowed the ship to fire it's
other weapons at the fighters, then the fighters could have a fairly hard time
of it. It's just off the top of my head, but it seems ok
  to me.  For settings where non-targetable fighters are appropriate
have that be another way to run fighters, with the proviso that fighters would
be *very* common in these universes, and forces not equipped with fighters are
going to be at a real disadvantage.

Just one man's thoughts.

Hm. Grants post leads me to a question. OO will certainly know if this

has been attempted, or if it would even work, but here goes.

So, part of the problem as I've been reading it is that a large number of
fighter groups can overwhelm the PDS and take out even a fairly powerful

ship. So, what if each fighter group was engaged by EACH PDS on the ship, and
each attacked individually? Yes, this puts some extra strain on fighter groups
attacking larger vessels, but so what? I haven't looked at the PDS rules in a
while, and my book is at home. But if the PDS does *damage* to the fighter
group, as opposed to "score a hit, kill the group", then each pass of PDS will
reduce the fighter group (potentially), and only on ships with LOTs of PDS,
will they have a good chance at eliminating each entire group as they come in.
And if you do it serially...

fighter group A attacks, PDS attempts to take them out, remaining fighters hit
the ship.
...
fighter group B attacks, PDS attempts to take them out, remaining fighters hit
the ship.
...
repeat until all fighter groups are done...

... then the fighters (survivors) have a shot of doing some damage to the
ships, and possibley forcing threshold checks and taking out the PDS, leaving
the ship a sitting duck.

?

J

John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Grant A. Ladue wrote:

> Tom McCarthy wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 04:49:48PM -0400, John K Lerchey wrote:

> So, part of the problem as I've been reading it is that a large number

Yes, we've looked into it.

ISTR that if you have around 10-15 PDS you become effectively immune to
fighter attacks (cf Oerjan's recent post on making capital ships more
powerful - not really something we need).

R

Hi John,

I think the problem with this approach is that it makes ships with 6 to 8 pds
completely immune to the fighters. On average, 6 pds will kill slightly more
than 4 fighters at a crack, so each 6 fighter group is getting gutted in the
first run.

   grant

> Hm. Grants post leads me to a question. OO will certainly know if

> *damage* to the fighter group, as opposed to "score a hit, kill the

Ok, fair enough. But is that necessarily a Bad Thing (tm)?

So, one thing that I would do, had I both time and energy (;)) would be to
compare that statement with popular sci fi. No one attacked the Star

Destroyers in Star Wars with *fighters*. They kind of went after each other,
and were a nuisance, but there was no evidence that the fighters were a threat
to the SD. Now, OTOH, in Battlestar Galactica, the fighers are a threat. But
how large of a capitol ship is a Battlestar, or Cylon

carrier? And how loaded are they with PDS? In Star Blazers fighters were a
threat, but I'd have to wonder if the Yamato was a *large* capitol ship, or
maybe a FT equivalent of a CR.

I'll grant that having 6 PDS could easily make a ship invulerable to fighters.
I'll only stipulate that if that is *appropriate to the FT unvierse*, then it
a) does solve the problem of fighters being worth too

much, and b) works within the confines of the system.

<shrug>

J

John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Grant A. Ladue wrote:

> Hi John,

> Phillip Atcliffe wrote:

> My initial reaction to this is to think that this is putting the cart

Sure, if you're satisfied with the current "rock/scissors/paper" balance

where battles tend to be decided before you ever put any models on the table.
We in the playtest group aren't satisfied with that kind of game balance,
however.

> And, when all's said and done, the effectiveness of massed fighters

But space fighters aren't analogous to "wet-navy ships and *aircraft*".
Space fighters move in the same medium as the larger spaceships, and are

only moderately more manoeuvreable; aircraft OTOH move in a completely
different medium to the wet-navy ships and are vastly faster and more
manoeuvrable. The closest wet-navy analogy to space fighters vs
spaceships
is "wet-navy ships and *MTBs*"... and the effectiveness of MTBs isn't
nearly as clear-cut as that of aircraft.

Regards,

> Grant A. Ladue wrote:

> I would be a little hesistant to do it this way, but I suspect it's

If done right, it allows a wide spectrum of fleet concepts with varying
numbers of fighters (from none to huge lots) to be roughly competitive against
one another. (Babylon 5 is one such setting.)

> Option 2 is non-targetable fighters, with these reasons for

If you don't put strict restrictions on the number of anti-fighter
weapons
allowed, it leads to the current rock/scissors/paper knife-edge balance
described in my other post.

If you do put strict restrictions on the number of anti-fighter weapons
allowed, *both* sides need to field massed fighters in order to be competitive
(eg. Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica).

> Then people could choose appropriately based on what they want and what

Could work... at least as long as they don't want to play cross-over
battles.

> Heck if you point based them a bit differently, you could even have

'Fraid not. If point basing them a bit differently had been enough to balance
the current Full Thrust fighters (which use Option 2 with no restrictions on
PD weapons carried), then we would have done so years ago... but unfortunately
points cost changes on their own only move the "knife edge" (cf. my other
post).

> The only thing that could really easily balance the problem of many

This was playtested several years ago, but found ineffective except for very
large capital ships. Since we don't want to encourage very large capital ships
even more than the rules already do, this is not a good solution to the
fighter problem.

> I mean is it really appropriate for 20 fighter groups to be able to all

> target one

Depends entirely on the game scale. With a fighter attack range of 6mu and 1mu
= 100km (or 1000km, or more), there's plenty of space for just about

any number of fighters concievable to attack the same target.

What's worse, with this sort of distance scales it doesn't really matter

how large the target ship is - as long as 1mu >> the size of the ship,
you can send very nearly the same number of fighters against a tiny scoutship
as you can against a superdreadnought, since the volume from which the
fighters can attack the ship is almost identical for the two ships. This

means that you have to choose which size of defending ship you want the
maximum number of attacking fighters to balance against: if you set the
maximum number of attacking fighters to balance against the superdreadnought
you get no improvement of the balance for smaller ships

(and thus give the players a very strong incentive to use *only*
superdreadnoughts and larger ships); and if you set the maximum number of
attacking fighters to balance against a small ship you end up making
superdreadnoughts effectively invulnerable to fighter attacks.

Regards,

> >So, part of the problem as I've been reading it is that a large

There are two problems with this. First is that you have to get the PDS v
fighters balance right. This is trickier than it would at first appear, partly
because PDS are so
cheap in terms of mass--you can easily load up on them and could
potentially render yourself invulnerable to fighters (and missiles). This
means they need to have some kind of diminishing returns, so that 2 PDS is not
worth 2 x 1 PDS. I think it's possible to find a balance but others disagree.

Second is that it takes a while to resolve each PDS attack, and much longer if
you're doing the "diminishing returns" route.

> Roger Burton West wrote:

> And a further note to the effect that the points system is broken,

No, the manouver-10 megaship with the B-10/1 firing out of a rear-side
arc wins. It stays at speed 100 or so, out of range of fighters, and plinks
off the carriers. All you need is a ballroom floor to play in, and a few spare
days of
die-rolling (on one side), and frustration on the other.
Personally, a root-canal therapy looks like a good alternative.

But that requires design-your-own ships, breaking of the "unwritten
rule" about asymmetrical weapons, a huge area to play in, and is no fun
anyway. So I'm not concerned about the problem.

FWIW there appear to be 2 competing ways of making fighters more linear.

1. Allow ordinary weapons to fire at them. 2. Require them to attack in
"waves"

As an example of 2), perhaps require each fighter group to attack one facing
(ie 1 hex side). PDSs are then allocated to facings, and can fire

on all fighter groups attacking through there, maximum of 1 PDS per
facing, as they self-jam a la Vulcan/Phalanx.

(Yes, there are complications when firing at missiles, but let's keep it

> 1. Allow ordinary weapons to fire at them.

An alternative to this version of waves is to say that fighters carry
a single effective anti-ship attack.  Once you've dropped your one
bomb/torpedo, you can use anti-fighter weapons (including against
ships) until your fuel is gone, but you won't be terribly effective in
the anti-ship role until you go back and re-arm.

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Laserlight wrote:

> An alternative to this version of waves is to say that fighters carry

This gets to my two favourite FT fighter-fix ideas:

1. Treat fighter main armament as PDS instead of a half-range B1. You do
*1* point on a 6 vs ships then. (PDS don't get re-rolls vs ships, do
they? They shouldn't...)

2. Discard the 'standard fighter' entirely. Allow interceptors, torp fighters,
and that's about it. (This is pretty much the same as Laserlight's proposal
above, taken a short step further.)

Of course, junking the things entirely might be considered...;) Jutland is far
more interesting to wargame than Midway, IMNSHO...

> John Lerchey wrote:

> So, one thing that I would do, had I both time and energy ( ;) ) would

Hm? Check out Lando Calrissian's order in RotJ that the fighters break off
their attack on Death Star 2 (since the energy shield was still up) and
instead attack the Star Destroyers "to draw their fire off the [rebel]
cruisers"...

Simply put, if the fighters were not a threat to the SDs there would be no
way in which they *could* draw the SDs' fire off the rebel cruisers -
which in turn would mean that Lando's order was completely pointless, and all
he achieved by the order was to expose the fighters under his command to more
enemy fire than necessary.

> I'll grant that having 6 PDS could easily make a ship invulerable to

It does solve the problem with large numbers of fighters being worth *too
much*, all right - it makes the fighters worth roughly zero points, thus

eliminating the reason for using them at all. It does *not*, however, solve
the problem with *small* numbers of fighters being worth *too little*; instead
it makes that part of the problem even worse than it is now.

Later,

> John Lerchey wrote:
would be
> to compare that statement with popular sci fi. No one attacked the
and
> instead attack the Star Destroyers "to draw their fire off the [rebel]

> cruisers"...

Fair enough. Fighters can do damage to the SDs.

> I'll grant that having 6 PDS could easily make a ship invulerable to

> instead it makes that part of the problem even worse than it is now.

Not if you put limits on the number of PDS available to limit them as well. If
the PDS is a "system" and not a "gun" or "gun turret", then it

can be defined as a series of light weapons turrets designed to intercept
fighters, missiles, and other fast moving, easy to kill targets. The PDS would
be also then be defined as the ships ability to protect itself from such
threats. The PSB can be worked out (if anyone cared) with some better writing
than I'm willing to do before my next meeting.;)

So one way to help to restore balance would be to make the PDS BIG in terms of
mass. If it can protect the ship, then it needs to be able to provide coverage
from all angles. The bigger the ship, the bigger the *system* needed to
protect it. If each PDS costs you something like 25%

of the ships overall mass, ships will carry a maximum of 3, 'cause you have to
have mass for things like engines and FCS and other stuff. For smaller ships,
you need to seriously consider using 25% of your avaiable able space to carry
fighter protection. For larger ships, you will still have mass available for
real guns and other systems. Also, if capitol batterys (beam weapons, scatter
guns, etc.) can still fire at fighters with reduced effect, then they can be
used to augment the PDS.

My take, granted, without having playtested it, is that it has a better shot
of working than adding things like shield overloads, limiting the number of
fighter squadrons that can attack, or much of anything else that I've seen
posted.

I'm sure folks will disagree. I accept that. Being that I haven't played FT in
a while, and am NOT a playtester, feel free to ignore the post.

I'm not tyring to offend anyone, but my take so far is that what I've seen
suggested is either completely artificial, or attempts to throw in special
anti fighter tech, none of which look like they'll actually solve the problem.
Maybe I'm just doing the same thing.;)

I'm going to drop this thread now.

Thanks,

> On Tuesday 26 April 2005 18:00, John K Lerchey wrote:
[...fighters v Star Destroyers...]
> Fair enough.

Remember also, that it was a single A-Wing crashing into the bridge
of the Super Star Destroyer that ultimately destroyed it...

If the PC game X-Wing is anything to go by, it's possible to take
out a Star Destroyer with a single fighter.

Of course, there's always this... :-)
http://www.glendale.org.uk/ft/starwars/designs/imperial.gif

I also believe that the fighters, while not able to directly kill a SD were
able to knock out a shield generator and leave it vulnerable to attack from
the Rebel capital ships.

So perhaps in this case they were acting more like a needle beam, capable of
bypassing the normal defenses and attacking a specific ship system.

Also the implication that the fighters could draw fire away from the Rebel
fleet implies that the SD's had weapons that weren't just
anti-fighter specific, but more along the lines of dual-purpose Class
1's.

--Binhan

[quoted original message omitted]

In message <Pine.GSO.4.58.0504252209440.22334@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca>
> Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Laserlight wrote:

I actually posted a slightly less severe version of this to the playtest list:

Mine was standard fighter inflicts 1 hit to a ship on a roll of 5+,
but with a re-roll if not KV. Vs. non-KV fighters, screen-1 negated
rolls of 5, and screen-2 negated rolls of 5 & 6, but not the re-roll.
The re-rolls also inflict damage on a roll of 5+, and are there to
prevent screen-2 ships being immune to standard fighters.
Attack fighters just do a normal beam dice to ships (like standard fighters do
in the FT 2 rules).
I'm tempted to tone down Torpedo fighters as well - suggestions?

Important Note:

It should be noted that, by itself, this will not solve the massed fighters
problem, it just moves the point at which fighters become overwhelming up a
bit.
> 2. Discard the 'standard fighter' entirely. Allow interceptors, torp
Jutland
> is far more interesting to wargame than Midway, IMNSHO...

Or have fighters move like ships (and even designed like ships), yes
this would slow the game down if you have lots - but that may not be a
wholey bad thing:)

> Samuel Penn wrote:

> If the PC game X-Wing is anything to go by, it's possible to take
They overdid that a bit.

> Of course, there's always this... :-)

If you use the old MPC Star Destroyer kit that SDD would be in scale with most
FT minis.

:)

Mike

[quoted original message omitted]

> On Wednesday 27 April 2005 06:11, Katrina Brown wrote:

What, the one on this page?
http://www.glendale.org.uk/ft/photos/1997.html

> >Of course, there's always this... :-)

:-)

The rest of them are here:
http://www.glendale.org.uk/ft/starwars/index.html

And no, I've never played any of these designs in a game.