Oerjan asked me to forward this on to the mailing list. He's currently
reassembling his computer at home, as he is currently in the middle of a move.
---
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:50:51 +0100 , Ohlson Ãrjan
> <orjan.ohlson@dynamics.saab.se> wrote:
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> Your above statement is certainly correct for the *currently
Well, it is correct for five out of the seven published "official" fleets,
and the FB2 Sa'Vasku are so totally out-of-balance anyway that they
hardly
count either - not when they're likely to get a complete re-write as
soon as
possible :-/
> Allan was, however, talking about the playtest list's proposal for
Similar decoys ("banzai jammers", or "BJs" for short) have been in use since
about one month after FB1 was published, and are quite effective against
fleets which rely too heavily on missiles - but can be effectively
countered
by eg. FSE-style forces which combine missiles with decent beam
armaments. Yes, they will take heavier losses than they would if they didn't
have to
get within the enemy's beam range before launching missiles - but
they're still quite capable of winning battles.
However, unless you also change the rules for anti-fighter fire such BJs
have no effect whatsoever against the *fighters* which are the subject of the
current discussion...
> If you allow fractional mass for FTL drives and main
Apart from the "PDAF" which is no longer used in the FT/FB rules (PDS
has not only a different name, but somewhat different abilities as well), this
ship is perfectly legal under the current (FB2) ship design rules. No need for
"fractional engine masses".
> or a mass 3 decoy with 1 hull integrity, FTL, thrust 4, and PDAF for 10
This, however, is not legal without a rules change.
> In a game I fought a couple of years ago, the ESU player took about 6
In other words, you launched your missiles too early and paid the cost for it
<shrug>.
***
> CS Renegade wrote:
> I hope I haven't missed anything here. Any proposed solution is
Correct. This is the very purpose of the playtest list :-/
Mind you, just like Jon T. the playtesters pick up a lot of interesting
ideas on the various open GZG-related mailing lists (including this one
-
remember the "all stuff posted here is the intellectual property of GZG" bit
in the "welcome to this mailing list" post you got when you subscribed?), so
don't be surprised if the 'official' fighter-balance fix resembles some
of
the stuff you've seen here :-)
[...]
> I must admit that the second stage of my suggestion ("Part V")
Not only did it nullify screens against fighters; it also raised a bunch of...
interesting questions about Heavy, Attack and Torpedo fighters, and also about
how ADFC are intended to work. (Plus of course the ones about SMs and PBs that
Allan asked earlier.)
(Side note: although the re-rolls are described as an "recommended
optional rule" rather than a compulsory one in FB1, the various weapon costs
are
determined assuming that it is in use - so if you don't use it, you'll
probably find beams to be a fair bit underpowered/overpriced compared to
P-torps and K-guns :-/ )
On PDS vs SMs:
> Wild totally-untested idea: when rolling for the number of
If it makes PDS too *weak*? I'd say that they make PDSs much too *strong*
instead...
> or class 1 beams in PDS mode.
You're looking at the wrong end of the mass range here. B1s don't add much to
the defence of LARGE ships, because large ships usually have a relatively
large number of PDSs and rather few B1s.
It is for the SMALL ships, up to about DD size, that the B1s' PD capabilities
have their largest impact. Under the current rule 33% of the
anti-fighter firepower of an NAC Ticonderoga comes from its B1
batteries; for the NAC Tacoma or ESU Warsaw the corresponding figure is 50%.
> {stage whisper} If FB1 had to be reprinted, it would be an
FB1 was re-printed and had its typoes corrected a couple years or three
ago.
Later,
Oerjan
> In other words, you launched your missiles too early and paid the cost
No I didn't. What killed me was his four Gorshikov's that launched the same
time I did. Those strike cuirsers can be very nasty. If I had waited I would
have still have had 3 gutted Jerez's... The ESU fleet can do Salvo missiles
right. Gorshikov's with Kamorov's for picking off decoys and FB1
described Beijing B's ADFC varient for Anti-fighter defense make a nasty
force to reckon with. Try 3,000 points with 2 Kamorov's, 4 Gorshikov's, 2
Beijing B ADFC's, and 4 Lenovs...
> Mind you, just like Jon T. the playtesters pick up a lot of
bit
> in the "welcome to this mailing list" post you got when you
Hopefully not the chart and/or the PDS percentage of mass schemes. I'd
rather just have a lower mass ADFC (mass 1) and more escort varients that give
a few weapons for ADFC and more PDS. Or the second PDS phase.
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 09:30:25PM +1100, Hugh Fisher wrote:
I strongly recommend you read the archives at
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/ :-)
> Is increasing the cost of each fighter not an option? Seems
The problem is that under the current rules fighters have a non-linear
effectiveness because they can swarm an enemy (who will eventually run out of
PDS). So having eight fighter groups that move as a single unit is worth a lot
more than eight times one fighter group.
> Hopefully not the chart and/or the PDS percentage of mass schemes. I'd
OK, I'm new to Full Thrust so am probably sticking foot in mouth here...
Is increasing the cost of each fighter not an option? Seems a lot easier than
coming up with new weapon rules or even reprinting the fleet books.
Is it really that painful to exchange 2 mass of other gear for an ADFC on
capital ships instead of relying on specialised escort vessels?
(I'm just bitter because my fighter-heavy NACs just got thumped
at a convention, so don't want them made less effective :-) )
> On 5 Feb 2003 at 21:30, Hugh Fisher wrote:
> Is increasing the cost of each fighter not an option?
The problem is that the effectiveness of fighters do not scale linearly. 20
fighters groups are more than 20 times more effective than 1 fighter group.
So either, the cost needs to be some sort of function of the number of fighter
groups (which could be an option for tournaments, but has too many knock on
effects for casual or campaign play). Or, the rules need to be tweaked to make
the effect of fighters more directly proportional to the numbers.
There's also the "realism" question - why can't ships fire at
fighters that are just loitering within range? Any modifications in this area
also have to be checked to see whether they impact on the points cost issues.
> Is it really that painful to exchange 2 mass of other gear
That's how many custom fleets work. But if you're using standard FB fleets
then dedicated escort ships are the only ones that carry ADFC.
> (I'm just bitter because my fighter-heavy NACs just got thumped
How fighter heavy? Just FB fighter heavy or really fighter heavy?
None of the FB fleets have enough fighters to really demonstrate what they can
do in large numbers. The NAC carriers could easily trade B2s, shields, armour
and maybe thrust for more fighter groups. Keep the carriers well away from the
fire fight and they don't need any of that stuff.
Oerjan is still working at getting his home computer put together, so he asked
me to forward this on to the list...
Allan
---
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:32:54 +0100 , Ohlson Ãrjan
> <orjan.ohlson@dynamics.saab.se> wrote:
Hi Allan,
no, I *still* haven't managed to hook the computer up :-( So once again
I
have to ask if could you forward this to the main GZG list for me... :-/
> CS Renegade wrote:
> Oerjan asked me to forward this on to the mailing list.
I've been worrying about the FT fighter balance issue for the past several
years, so I would've been more impressed if I had managed to *stop* worrying
about it just because I'm moving house... besides, it gives me a reason to
take a short break from unpacking stuff <g>
> Not only did it nullify screens against fighters; it also
As long as the fighters were beam-armed (ie., not Torpedo-armed) ones,
yes.
Trouble was, the level-3 screens cut all *other* beam weapons (ie., the
ship-mounted variety) down as well, and not just to to size but all the
way
down to outright impotence - which made any weapon which ignored
screens,
eg. P-torps, very valuable indeed.
[Revised fighter CRT snipped]
> Unfortunately this doesn't work, at several levels.
Right on target :-)
[Examples why the revised CRT doesn't work snipped]
> (Side note: although the re-rolls are described as an
...presumably because the absence of beam rerolls make them overpowered
:-/
> and I've never fought modern KV. Are there any
About 1 pt/Mass (so 4xMass for P-torps, 5xMass for K-guns). Not so much
for a single ship, but it adds up quickly if you use many of them.
> On PDS vs SMs:
> If it makes PDS too *weak*? I'd say that they make PDSs
Er... not exactly; you've not taken the probability of overkilling the missile
salvoes into account here, so you overestimate the PDS kills a bit even before
the "not all PDSs get to fire" bit. If only one PDS fired at each SM salvo
*and* every SM salvo rolled a '2' or higher for the number of missiles on
target, *then* each PDS would shoot down on average 0.666...
missiles - but that's not a very realistic scenario :-/
If (which is the normal case) the SM salvo rolls a normal D6 (ie., roughly 1
salvo in 6 only gets 1 missile on target, then the average PDS missile kills
per salvo become:
#PDS: No PDS re-roll: With PDS re-roll: PDS gives -1 to SM roll:
1 0.64 0.71 1.00 2 0.60 0.66 0.92 3 0.56 0.61 0.83
As you can see, your "PDS gives -1 to SM roll" variant allows each PDS
to
shoot down some 35-40% more missiles *per shot* than the current rule
with rerolls, and around 50% more missiles *per shot* than the current rule
without rerolls. That's quite a lot.
> The rating proposal has each PDS bagging 1 missile with no
There are fewer *PDSs* with a 2%-of-TMF mass cost, but since each of
these enlarged PDSs can fire at an infinite number of attacking missile
salvoes (and fighter groups) each turn instead of at just a single one, the
number
of PDS *shots* is unlikely to be any lower - and when in addition each
PDS
shot has its firepower increased by 35-50%, the end result is a
significant increase in PDS firepower vs salvo missiles.
> From my very limited experience with salvo missiles, a
As you say, your experience with salvo missiles is very limited. I strongly
suspect that if you had had more experience with them, you would have figured
out effective counters to them fairly quickly just like virtually all FT
gaming groups who play often I know of have done. (At the moment I can't think
of any, but since I've probably forgotten one I put that
"virtually" before the "all" :-/ )
> Even when a very large vessel is under attack, how much
Irrelevant? Sorry, but that's bull.
This extra PD firepower is very relevant indeed when a small ship comes under
fighter attack (which is the main subject of this thread, right?) since the
fighter casualties add up from turn to turn, and also when it is hit by a
single salvo missile salvo where the pair of B1s significantly increase the
probability of the ship getting away with no damage at all. If the ship is hit
by two or more SM salvoes, then it is of course most likely toast.
> I can see that this has turned into a "knock the salvo missile"
posting.
Yep :-/ Very similar to the ones we used to have in the first few months
after FB1 was published and no-one had figured out effective anti-SM
tactics, in fact <g>
As for the low-speed problem, a thrust-4 ship needs to fly at speed 8 or
so in order to be able to dodge a single SM salvo. Formations need to fly
faster, of course; how much faster depends on the size of the formation
-
but even if a dodge doesn't take the formation completely out of the missiles'
attack envelopes, it often causes the missiles to attack the wrong
target. (Cf. Imre's irritation of having two Lenov-class scouts draw a
large number of missiles away from their intended targets <g>)
> FB1 was ... corrected a couple years or three ago.
Don't think so :-( (Even if it does, I doubt if it'll have any FB1
errata in
it - it'd be both cheaper and quicker to make a single-page errata sheet
:-/
)
Later,
Oerjan
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:30:25 +1100, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
> OK, I'm new to Full Thrust so am probably sticking foot in
Hi there!
> Is increasing the cost of each fighter not an option? Seems
As mentioned, the problem is one of scaling fighters. A single fighter
squadron has a pretty accurate cost. If you have 5 or 6 squadrons, you're cost
is still pretty accurate as far as their capability. If you have a force of 15
to 20 squadrons, you'll pretty much beat anything out there that doesn't use
the same thing.
One of the big problems is that of a "soap bubble carrier". This is a carrier
that has very little other than a drive, FTL, and hangar bays. The rest of the
points are spent on fighters. The math's been shown here before, but if the
flock of squadrons concentrate on one or two ships at at time, they can
destroy the ships before they've lost anything close to the equivalent points
in fighters. In the end, the other fleet is destroyed and the fighter fleet
wins.
We could come up with a point system that works for scaling fighters, but the
math gets nasty without the use of a calculator. The idea is to keep the point
system simple. Also, we want to keep the points for the existing fleet book
ships as they are, and validate the ship designs in the fleet books.
Obviously, if soap bubble carriers worked _so_ well in the "real life"
of the Tuffleyverse background, you'd see NAC, NSL, ESU and FSE soap bubble
carriers. So, the fix for fighters would hopefully justify the designs in the
fleet books (they may not be optimal, but they should at least be somewhat
viable).
> (I'm just bitter because my fighter-heavy NACs just got thumped
Were you using ships out of the fleet book? If so, the designs in there are
fairly balanced. If you were building your own ships, you probably didn't
build enough fighters! If you are playing fleet book ships, you shouldn't
worry as the new fighter rules are particularly interested in huge swarms of
fighters.
> (I'm just bitter because my fighter-heavy NACs just got thumped
When you say "fighter heavy", what do you mean? How did you use them? And what
did your opponent do? Was everyone using FleetBook 1 ships or were there
custom designs allowed?
I've fought a battle in which the other side brought 14 fighters, but he
attacked with 2 squadrons on each of my ships and got toasted. If he'd had all
14 on one of my capital ships at a time, it would have been a different story.
[quoted original message omitted]
The use of scatterguns implies that you have to be Kra'vak. Fighters are
employed by all races. The problem is that PDS and ADFC don't get good until
you can concentrate a bunch (i.e. 12 or more) in one place. Spending 12 mass
per ship on something that may or may not show up can cripple your fleet. One
solution are Aegis cruisers that mount 18 PDS and 2 ADFC, that can cover two
other ships plus themselves. The downside again is
that you've devoted an entire cruiser to basically AF/AM defense.
As to your reference of a 10,000 point game, if building soap-bubble
carriers it would equate to 250+ squadrons of fighters.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
<<SNIP>>
(2) The scale of the battle. Twenty fighters is far less impessive over a
10,000 point battle than it is in a 1,000 point battle. In the former, it's
almost laughable... in the latter, it's indeed nearly unstoppable without
bringing either scatterguns or a similar number of fighters.
<<SNIP>>
> And of course, this is the main hang-up some people have that I don't
Just one comment, that I think explains at least some of the difference in
viewpoint...
> --- Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
..because most of the games played by many people (though not you & your
group, I know, but it is something to always keep in
mind), even with custom-designed ships, use human tech only. So
you don't *have* scatterguns (or MKPs) to work with.
Apart from that (and I don't have my rules books handy), I thought that
scatterguns were downgraded from the MT version in FB2? Not sure what version
of what you're using in your game, but I *think* it's different... so many
people wouldn't be using scatterguns even on Kra'vak. (And lots of people
don't have MT anyway.)
Or I could be mixed up a bit (it's been a while since I played!)
but the human tech-only custom ships comment still stands.
'Til later,
> From: ~ On Behalf Of Allan Goodall
Thanks for acting as relay on this one, Allan.
OO>> (Side note: although the re-rolls are described as an
> "recommended optional rule" rather than a compulsory
> CS Renegade wrote:
> No, but then I wouldn't permit designs armed exlusively
> ...presumably because the absence of beam rerolls make
Before that point, objections would be raised about the cheese factor. If the
design was swallowed nonetheless, there would then be a general lack of bright
ideas as to how to deal with the monster, which would then go on the rampage.
> and I've never fought modern KV. Are there any figures
> About 1 pt/Mass (so 4xMass for P-torps, 5xMass for K-guns).
Thanks for that. I'll implement those figures in my design tools.
> On PDS vs SMs:
NG>>>.. when rolling for the number of missiles in each salvo
> that strike, deduct the ship's PDS rating. If that makes
> If it makes PDS too *weak*? I'd say that they make PDSs
> ...each PDS currently shoots down 0.66 of a salvo missile.
> Er... not exactly; you've not taken the probability of
Yes, I'd grabbed at the average 3.5 missiles per salvo versus the basic 0.66
kills per PDS and neglected all the special permutations.
> If (which is the normal case) the SM salvo rolls a normal
(Oerjan's table in plain text sans tabs, if I got them all)
> #PDS: No PDS With PDS PDS gives -1
> 1 0.64 0.71 1.00
So the re-roll rule increases the effectiveness of PDS by 10%?
It's a shame there's no easy way to ease that into the points too. Defence
subcontractor special offer: order 9, get 1 free.
I'm a bit uncertain about the use of overkill here. A simple average is no
longer a good enough measure unless you turn the problem on its head and say
"for these defences, what is the chance of a weapon getting through" which is
something a
real-world architect might worry about. To measure PDS
effectiveness by including the relative availability of targets seems strange.
> As you can see, your "PDS gives -1 to SM roll" variant
It's slightly less than the figure I had in mind.
> The rating proposal has each PDS bagging 1 missile with
> There are fewer *PDSs* with a 2%-of-TMF mass cost, but
I wouldn't object to a corresponding drop in the price of SM systems. It looks
as if the thread could gravitate toward
"this weapon is too powerful / the proposal upsets the
existing balance" argument, so rather than turn it into a salvo missile victim
support clinic I'll go back to Roger's archives and see what I can dig up.
NG>>> Even when a very large vessel is under attack, how
> much do B1s add to the defence?
OO>> It is for the SMALL ships, up to about DD size, that
> the B1s' PD capabilities have their largest impact.
> This extra PD firepower is very relevant indeed when a
I'll certainly accept that for most fighters.
> and also when it is hit by a single salvo missile salvo
Also true. But if just one missile gets home, a typical
two-column frigate is almost certainly taking its first
threshold check and possibly its second at the same time.
Another gross simplification coming up: each B1 shoots down 0.33 missiles. Our
plucky frigate has 1 PDS and 2 B1
against a single salvo. With the chance of a re-roll on
the PDS, it should on average knock down 1.37 salvo missiles. The salvo has on
average 3.5 missiles on target. Yes, I know it's a travesty to say from that
that two missiles should hit, but the p(Ouch) remains high.
I may have made a complete shambles of that. Somebody wake me up if the
aggregate knockdown climbs much above
1.5!
Nathan "hasn't stopped digging his hole yet" Girdler
> To measure PDS
But needful since you have to asign targets before rolling for kills.
I can tell you that rolling 5 sixes in a row (on a 1-missile
salvo--"just to see") is annoying, particularly when you then have 3
PDS miss the next (5 missile) salvo entirely.
> Another gross simplification coming up: each B1 shoots
Granted. But maybe your B1 gunners are really on the ball--eg I had
one which knocked out an entire fighter squadron with a B1 a couple of games
ago, and got 3 of the next squadron on the next turn. (Too bad they couldn't
shoot down the 10 Ptorps too...)
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
Amalgating a few similar responses into one:
Roger Burton West:
> The problem is that under the current rules fighters have a non-linear
Salvo missiles seem to have much the same characteristics, although presumably
if I search the archive I'll find grumbles about them too? I was thinking more
that right now a fighter is costed (points) as a Class 1 beam, but regarded as
being more effective.
Isn't a certain amount of non-linearity unavoidable, or even
to be expected? One big ship seems to beat up two or more smaller ships, even
if the points values are nominally the same.
Steve Pugh wrote
> How fighter heavy? Just FB fighter heavy or really fighter heavy?
Standard FB1 (and FB2, but only one Savasku showed) fleets, 1800
/3000 pt fleets, I had six to eight groups. (Plus a couple of
actions with smaller capital-free fleets.) No doubt I could have
used more effective tactics, but they weren't any kind of wonder weapon at
these fleet sizes.
> None of the FB fleets have enough fighters to really demonstrate what
I was thinking just that myself...although not going for the soap bubble
approach, the NAC could build 'American' rather than 'British' carriers that
were only protected to battleship levels. Well, I'm already using Babylon 5
Earthforce Omega miniatures...
> B Lin wrote:
Which is why I asked about fitting ADFCs on most/all ships that
are big enough, so the PDS cost is spread over a number of ships and they're
still effective for other purposes. Didn't the WWII American fleet form their
battleships into a 'PDS screen' for the carriers?
> Scatterguns kill 1d6 fighters. Each. If they're heavy fighters, it's
Eric, I just wanted to make sure of the way you play this if I remember what
you have said in the past.
For all those fighter groups, it is your assumption that they all are
attacking as one mass super group or are they attacking as separate groups
during the same turn?
Also, are you still applying the total damage resulting from the scatterguns
to the fighters in general, and not assigning each scattergun to a specific
group?
One more, question. Are you your comments based on a few very large ships, or
a mixed fleet of ships that correspond to the Fleet Book designs in size?
Thanks,
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:39:47 +0100 , Ohlson Ãrjan
> <orjan.ohlson@dynamics.saab.se> wrote:
First, I'll echo CS Renegade's thanks to Allan for acting as a relay!
(BTW,
Allan, don't worry about not being able to forward these posts
immediately -
if not for you, these posts would've been sent at best several days later, and
at worst (? <g>) not at all!)
***
> Imre Szabo wrote:
> In other words, you launched your missiles too early and paid the cost
Launching missiles before you have cleared enemy Banzai Jammers away
definitely qualifies as "launching too early". You launched before you had
cleared the enemy BJs away.
The cost of launching too early in this fashion is that you risk having your
missiles hit the BJs instead of the larger ships. You paid this cost in full.
In other words, you launched too early and paid the cost for it - which
is
exactly what I wrote above :-7
> Try 3,000 points with 2 Kamorov's, 4 Gorshikov's, 2 Beijing B ADFC's,
> Lenovs...
Been there, done that, posted two AARs from very similar battles to this
mailing list some years back (an archive search should find them).
OK, I haven't faced this *exact* enemy fleet, but I have encountered and
defeated fleets which were quite similar. Eg., the ones that were smashed by
my FSE forces in the above-mentioned AARs were NSL, but overall I'd rate
them as harder missile targets than the above ESU fleet: more point and area
defences (in one of the AARed battles including a pair of interceptor
squadrons), more direct-fire weapons to hurt the FSE ships, and
considerably more numerous and individually tougher Banzai Jammers making it
very much harder for the FSE to clear them away before launching missiles. The
NSL opening missile salvo wasn't quite as strong (4 and 5 SMLs respectively,
compared to the above ESU force's 8 SMRs), but I don't think that another
3-4 salvoes in the NSL's initial launch would've changed the overall
outcome of the two AAR battles much.
> ...so don't be surprised if the 'official' fighter-balance fix
If all you want is more escort variants, why don't you design those for
yourself? That's the reason why the Fleet Books include ship design rules, you
know... and also the reason why the Fleet Books explicitly state that the
designs shown therein are only a small subset of the designs used by the
various powers <shrug>
However, since none of the other options you mention give the effects we're
looking for (see Allan's reply to Hugh Fisher), I don't think we'll pick any
of them up <g>
***
> CS Renegade wrote:
> No, but then I wouldn't permit designs armed exlusively
"Cheese" in gaming means "exploiting weaknesses in the rules or
design/points system to get an advantage over your opponent".
In this particular case the weakness (P-torps being more powerful than
the same cost of beam batteries) stems from your not using the reroll rule.
If OTOH you had used the reroll rule then this particular weakness wouldn't
be there, and a ship armed with a pure P-torp armament would be no
"cheesier" than a ship armed with a pure beam armament... FWIW more than half
of the warship designs in FB1 are armed with pure beam armaments, so I
do hope that you don't consider pure-beam armaments particularly
"cheesy"
:-/
> If the design was swallowed nonetheless, there would then be a general
> of bright ideas as to how to deal with the monster, which would then go
It'd go on the rampage for a few battles, until some of the other players *do*
come up with bright ideas for tactics to deal with it. After all many other
gaming groups have faced the same type of designs and dealt
successfully with them by using effective counter-tactics; I see no
reason why your group wouldn't do that as well given the chance.
On PDS vs SMs:
> Yes, I'd grabbed at the average 3.5 missiles per salvo versus
Trouble is, those special permutations get important surprisingly fast
:-/
> If (which is the normal case) the SM salvo rolls a normal
I know... different mail handlers treat tabs and spaces differently, so when
an email is forwarded any tables in it will almost invariably get wrecked no
matter how they're typed in :-(
> #PDS: No PDS With PDS PDS gives -1
Roughly 10%, yes. (In contrast it increases the effectiveness of beam
batteries firing at ships by 20% against unscreened targets, 27% against
targets with level-1 screens and 40% against targets with level-2
screens;
ships usually have enough damage boxes that the risk of losing re-roll
damage to overkill is very small.)
> I'm a bit uncertain about the use of overkill here. A simple
Strange? Not at all - you can't determine the one without calculating
the
other. If your real-world architect had *not* included the availability
of targets (in this case the number of missiles on target from a particular
salvo), he would underestimate the probability of an enemy weapon getting
through the defences he is designing (IOW, he'd overestimate the effectiveness
of the defences).
For example, a single SM salvo is engaged by 3 PDSs. How many missiles will,
on average, get past the PDS and hit the target? The too-simplified
analysis says "Well, the average number of missiles on target is 3.5, and each
PDS
shoots down on average 2/3, so 3 PDSs shoot down on average 2 missiles
which leaves 1.5 to hit the target". However, the real value is ~20% higher
(just over 1.8 missiles)... and it is the very same availability of targets
that you feel is strange to include which causes this 20% difference.
> and also when it is hit by a single salvo missile salvo
Sure, as long as it is unarmoured (otherwise the ability to eat a single
missile without taking even one threshold check increases dramatically).
OTOH your typical two-and-a-half-column-plus-some-armour destroyer is
quite *likely* to take a single missile without reaching even the first
threshold
:-/
> Another gross simplification coming up: each B1 shoots
If you use the reroll rule the B1s get rerolls as well (so the simplistic
kill number is 0.40), but in spite of that the aggregate knock-down is
only 1.35 due to the limited availability of targets. Even so, that's enough
to give the frigate a 26% chance of getting away with no damage at all and
another 16% to get hit by a single missile only (with a roughly 50% chance of
getting killed or knocked out of the fight for the FB1 frigate designs),
giving an overall p(Ouch) of 60-65% Without the B1s, the overall
p(Ouch) is
75-80% instead Dunno about you, but reducing the p(Ouch) by 15
percentage
points doesn't look *that* irrelevant to me :-/
***
Re: Stiltman and Aaron:
No, Aaron, the KV scatterguns were not reduced in power vs. *fighters* from
their MT incarnation. It was their anti-*ship* performance which was
seriously degraded.
Your points about most groups not mixing technologies is very valid, however.
What's more, Full Thrust is supposed to be a generic space combat game system
which can be used to fight out battles in a wide range of
backgrounds for SF movies, TV series or books - and AFAIK very few such
backgrounds have any single-shot scatter-gun-style anti-fighter/missile
weapons at all, whereas most of them do have PDS-style defences... so
the
current need to rely on scatterguns for your anti-fighter defences
seriously reduces FT's genericity.
It is also worth keeping in mind that the difference between "too few
PDSs/scatterguns to give any significant protection against enemy
fighters"
and "so many PDSs/scatterguns that the enemy fighters are completely
wiped out" is surprisingly small. No matter in which direction you err in the
amount of point defences you bring, the battle is likely to be quite short.
Re: Binhan Lin: Considering that the cheapest possible FTL-capable
soap-bubble carriers cost 63 pts per (standard) fighter squadron
carried,
I'm a bit curious about how you manage to get 250+ fighter squadrons
into a
10,000-pt battle...?
Later,
Oerjan
> >The problem is that under the current rules fighters have a
If you're moving > 24" ( > 36" if he has fast fighters), the fighters can't
keep up with you for long (three turns for standard, four to five turns for
Long Range) and you can either get to his carriers (one round of fire should
reduce most of his soap bubbles to scrap), or force his carriers to go to
similar high speeds which will prevent him from recovering his fighters.
That's how you deal with soap bubble carriers...
> Isn't a certain amount of non-linearity unavoidable, or even
The advantage of the big ship over the little ship is concentration of
firepower. The only counter I've been able to come up with is very small
"gunships" with two needle beems. The theory is you swamp the enemy's leaving
fire control with targets, he overkills a few leaving the rest to shoot at his
fire controls to exasperate the problem. Typically the enemy will go to FTL,
so you have to shoot his FTL drive first (usually just the big valuable stuff,
just shoot the smaller ship's fire controls and let them flee.). You can also
loose spectacularly if he can keep the range open. I've done both...
> >None of the FB fleets have enough fighters to really demonstrate what
I once took three Ark Royals and two Furious escorts and and 18 fighter groups
against my ESU nemisis. He took his usually mix of Kamorov's, Gorshikov's, and
Beijing B ADFC's. It didn't last long. I hit both of his Beijing B's with 9
fighter groups each. He conceded in furry by going to FTL after he realized he
couldn't catch the carriers and that the fighters were going to reduce him to
scrap. He started out way at too slow of a speed (four inches) for him to put
pressure on the carriers...
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:41:12 -0800, "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> I'm sorry, this is flat out wrong.
No, it's not, but I was implying FB ships, and I don't think that came out
clearly. It's easy to build a ship that will defend against 15 or 20 fighter
squadrons... but it won't be much use against anything else.
> Bring twenty fighters, and your opponent brings
That's assuming you're using KV, isn't it? This gets you into the same
situation where you buy a scattergun only fleet to deal with soap bubble
carriers, which then puts you at risk to a fleet with long range beam weapons,
which in turn is vulnerable to fighters.
For me, the fun is in fighting out the battle, not designing a "knock out
fleet". It's the difference between enjoying playing a collectible card game
more than enjoying building a collectible card game deck.
> So why are people not simply just throwing the scatterguns together and
Because some of us find soap bubble versus scattergun games to be boring? Just
as soap bubble versus any other fleet is boring? It starts to look a lot like
a game of rock/paper/scissors. You brought your soap bubbles? I brought
scatterguns; I win. You brought scatterguns? I brought B4s; I win. You brought
B4s? I brought soap bubbles; I win.
So, how does your group play? Do they just allow any design and hope that they
chose the right specialization to win that battle? Or do you make some sort of
announcement as the type of fleets to bring, and battle with similar fleets?
For me, I usually cut to the chase and go with the latter idea of "similar
fleets", the similiar fleets in this case being fleets out of the fleet book.
> Which is why I asked about fitting ADFCs on most/all ships that
Yes they did. I can do it in Full Thrust with the Phalon's
Pachydem-E's...
If you stick an ADFC on each ship you again get dilution of firepower -
you are paying for 10-12 ADFC when you only really need 3-6. The
additional mass used by the ADFC's could be used to bulk up more dedicated PDS
ships. Then if you are going to go down the dedicated PDS
ship, then you end up the Aegis type cruiser with 12-18 PDS and 2-3
ADFC.
So if the enemy shows up with 6 or less squadrons, you're practically immune
to fighter attack
> -----Original Message-----
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 23:26:12 -0800, "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> But the simple statement, "Fighters' strength scales non-linearly" is
Sorry, you're wrong. The point value of 20 fighter squadrons is less 20 x the
point value of 1 fighter squadron. The effectiveness of 20 squadrons is
greater than 20 x the effectiveness of 1 squadron. This has been shown several
times on the list. The simple statement that "fighter strength scales
non-linearly" is true.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 00:39:37 +1100, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
> Salvo missiles seem to have much the same characteristics,
Salvo missiles blow up in a specific location. When they first came out people
thought they were unbeatable... and then players started getting good at
avoiding them. You can also use "Banzai Jammers" (the unfortunately acronymed
"BJs"). These are simply small ships that you use to screen your big ships.
Since salvo missiles target the closest ship, they'll tend to target the BJs.
They'll destroy the BJs, but usually with massive overkill, which means wasted
shots and the big ships are all untouched. You have to take out the BJs first,
which allows the other side's bigger ships to take on your salvo missile armed
ships.
> Isn't a certain amount of non-linearity unavoidable, or even
That's _another_ issue. Yes, small ships are less effective than the
equivalent cost in big ships. Oerjan has a calculation that allows you to get
a more realistic point calculation for smaller ships. The problem is that it's
hard to come up with a simple point system that works without requiring the
use of a calculator.
> Launching missiles before you have cleared enemy Banzai Jammers away
Oh really? Half my launchers DIED on the turn I launched. If I had waited, it
would have been even worse... Sure I would have been able to burn the Lenov's
down with beams, but that would be that many beams that didn't fire at his
ships, and it would have made no difference in the number of Salvo missiles in
my next barrage, except that one of his Beijing B ADFC's would have been still
been arround to shoot them down...
> OK, I haven't faced this *exact* enemy fleet, but I have encountered
They are when they hit the ships you can least afford to loose.
> If all you want is more escort variants, why don't you design those
I do. They work against regular fleets. We usually use FB ships and FB ships
that have been mentioned in the descriptions, and FB ships with some
modifications (10% of mass, round up on ships of mass less then or equal to
30, round down on ships over mass 30). Usually the other guy has to approve of
the modifications in advanced, but just because he approves a design doesn't
mean you bring that design to the floor...
> For me, the fun is in fighting out the battle, not designing a "knock
I completely agree Allan... You go into the game knowing you could easily
loose IF, A) you have bad tactics, B) bad luck, or C) both!
If you have a "knock-out," unbeatable fleet, what is the fun in that?
The fun is knowing that you have the same equipment available to you as the
other guy and you come out on top because of a superior way of thinking about
the outcome of your actions, and the gumption to take calculated risks....
that is the fun for me. That is why my favorite type of game is a
double-blind or sub sim type of game. One wrong move and it's all over
for ya!
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:13:15 +0100 , Ohlson Ãrjan
> <orjan.ohlson@dynamics.saab.se> wrote:
And one for the main GZG list:
> Imre Szabo wrote:
> In other words, you launched too early and paid the cost for it -
Yes, really. Send in your escorts to take out the Lenovs one turn BEFORE the
missile units get into the enemy's range; while the escorts will almost
inevitably take a very severe drubbing their sacrifice allows your missiles
to hit worthwhile targets. (Lenovs are very, very easy to destroy - even
a
crippled Athena-class corvette usually manages to nail one :-) )
(Before you say that "all this will accomplish is to get my escorts wiped out
for no benefit", please consider that the BJ screens used by the NSL fleets in
the AARs I mentioned in the previous post consisted of 16
Strochen-class corvettes @ 6 damage points in the first battle and 14
Falke-class scouts @ 3 damage points in the second. Each of those
screens is very much more difficult to take out than the 6 Lenovs @ 1 damage
point in the ESU fleet you described, yet my FSE light units were able to
destroy enough of them that they didn't interfere with my heavies' subsequent
missile launches... and the two battles reported were no freak accidents,
either; this is one of my standard anti-BJ tactics for FSE-style fleets
faced with BJs, and so far it has given me victory against BJ-believers
about two-thirds of the times I've used it.)
If you can arrange for the escorts to approach the enemy from another
direction than the missile units, that's an extra bonus - either the
enemy spends thrust points (or, in Cinematic, come to a full stop to spin in
place) to turn to face each of your squadrons in turn (in which case he'll be
less able to dodge your missiles), or at least one of your squadrons will
be able to avoid his full direct-fire firepower.
Of course this tactic requires you to actually bring FSE escorts to the battle
(something many players don't bother with since small ships are 'worthless' in
Full Thrust except as BJs), and it also requires you to split your forces
(something which many players believe is tactical insanity which allows the
enemy to defeat you in detail). Breaking two basic
rules-of-thumb
for success in Full Thrust ("use large ships only" and "don't split your
fleet up") may seem a bit counter-intuitive at first, so if the battle
you describe was the first time you had encountered Banzai Jammers it is quite
understandable if you didn't think of it :-7
***
> In another post, Imre wrote:
> The advantage of the big ship over the little ship is concentration of
Well, that's *one* of their advantages at least (concentration of firepower
means that they fire more weapons earlier in the Ships Fire phase of the
turn than multiple small ships do) :-/
Their *other* advantages are that they also have a better concentration of
hull and armour boxes (so start losing weapons later than a number of small
ships with the same total number of damage boxes) and a better concentration
of DCPs (so far more likely to repair the weapons they lose than small ships
are). All things considered, I'd rate the concentration of hull and armour
boxes as somewhat more important than the concentration of firepower.
***
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> If you stick an ADFC on each ship you again get dilution of firepower -
> are paying for 10-12 ADFC when you only really need 3-6. The
The problem with dedicated ADFC ships is that they tend to become priority
targets for the enemy. In order to take out a single Aegis cruiser with 18 PDS
and 3 ADFC, the enemy is typically able to kill all those PDSs and ADFCs
by inflict about 25-30 points of damage on that one ship; if instead
those PDSs are spread out over six cruisers each with a single ADFC each he
needs
to inflict some 150-180 points of damage do get them all. That's a
pretty big increase in weapon survivability, especially considering that it
only
cost you 3 extra ADFCs (35-40 pts when the extra hull and engines are
included).
FWIW many groups which use custom designs do both of these - put an ADFC
on
every ship, *and* bring a dedicated ADFC cruiser or two :-/
***
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> Salvo missiles seem to have much the same characteristics, although
The big difference between SMs and fighters is that fighters are far more
accurate. SMs can (and often do) miss entirely or hit something you don't want
them to (eg. a tiny scoutship), whereas fighters will almost invariably hit
exactly the target they want to thanks to their secondary move and ability to
target any one enemy ship within their weapons range (instead of the closest
one only).
> I was thinking more that right now a fighter is costed (points) as a
The fighter *itself* is costed as a B1, but you also need to buy a fighter bay
to carry the fighter in. When you include the fighter bay as well the basic
hull structure and engines needed to support each of the systems, the fighter
costs about twice as much as the B1.
> Isn't a certain amount of non-linearity unavoidable, or even to be
> values are nominally the same.
The big-ship advantages (discussed a bit above) are another problem
area,
yes, but the non-linearity you get there is considerably smaller than
the
fighter non-linearity.
> Standard FB1 (and FB2, but only one Savasku showed) fleets, 1800
Six to eight fighter groups in a 3000-pt fleet is not exactly what I'd
consider "fighter heavy", though... Imre's 18 groups in a 3000-pt battle
is more like it, but he is still a bit on the light side (those NAC carriers
spend a LOT of mass and points on screens and armour...) :-/
Later,
Oerjan
> Yes, really. Send in your escorts to take out the Lenovs one turn
You are assuming that his Lenovs weren't a range band behind until the turn we
closed to salvo missile firing range. It's an old WWI naval trick. The
destroyers stay back while the battle line closes then dashes through to make
their attack (usually to cover the battle lines withdrawl, or crush a crippled
enemy), or in this case to soak up missiles.
> (Before you say that "all this will accomplish is to get my escorts
Were his escorts about 8 to 12 inches behind his battle line until he needed
them? This particular battle I took 8 Ibiza's and no San Miguels, so shy of
sending a cruiser up, I had that could range on his escorts until he brought
them up.
> If you can arrange for the escorts to approach the enemy from another
Or send a few fighter squadrons out to crush them.
> Of course this tactic requires you to actually bring FSE escorts to
Actually, I usually bring 4 to 8 Ibiza's and 1 to 2 San Migueles. Both class
of which attract a lot of firepower if anywhere in or infront of my battle
line. The Ibiza's are a real fire magnet until after the submunitions have
fired...
> Well, that's *one* of their advantages at least (concentration of
I'd argue it's synergistic.
> FWIW many groups which use custom designs do both of these - put an
The old, "well make this a target to draw fire." If done properly, it can work
very well.
> The big-ship advantages (discussed a bit above) are another problem
The problem with small ships is that they need more one-shot high damage
weapons to be effective against larger ships. This goes back to my World War I
analogy. The torpedoe boots could cripple or sink a battleship, but then they
were out of weapons that could effect the battle line. And this assumes they
could close to the range needed. My version of the Ibiza, one less class one,
one more submunition pack illustrates what I'm talking about. I'd prefer
MKP's, but they are a Kravak weapon...
> Six to eight fighter groups in a 3000-pt fleet is not exactly what I'd
I think the point is that they are as close as you can get to soap bubble
carriers in ships from the Fleet Book. I will not use soap bubble carriers,
because if your opponent counters with high speeds and calculates his closure
rate correctly, you will almost always loose. Soap bubbles pop very easily.
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> Imre Szabo wrote:
> >Yes, really. Send in your escorts to take out the Lenovs one turn
No, I'm not. If you had looked up those AARs I mentioned, you would've
known that the NSL player tried exactly this in one of those battles -
without success; I nailed the BJs anyway :-)
What I am assuming, however, is that you have a large enough gaming table
that the FSE is not automatically forced into a head-on collision but
instead have some room to manoeuvre before entering weapons range - I
find tables of this size to give a lot more tactical variation than the
smaller tables.
> Were his escorts about 8 to 12 inches behind his battle line until he
In order to answer that, I must first ask you to define exactly where "8 to 12
inches behind his battle line", when my two squadrons approached from
either side close to perpendicularly to his capital ships' course...
Simply put, if the NSL BJs had tried to position themselves 8 to 12 inches
behind his battle line from the perspective of my light units, they would've
been roughly 6 to 10 inches *in front of* his battle line from
where my heavies approached and vice versa :-)
> >If you can arrange for the escorts to approach the enemy from another
"A few fighter squadrons" will have certain difficulties crushing 5-700
points worth of light ships in time to stop them from killing BJs,
particularly if the light ships in question are themselves accompanied by a
few fighter squadrons of their own :-) (Which they tend to be if they're
my light ships...)
> Actually, I usually bring 4 to 8 Ibiza's and 1 to 2 San Migueles.
That's nice to hear, since many players don't bother with escorts at all.
> Both class of which attract a lot of firepower if anywhere in or
Sure. Which is why you want to fly fast enough that the Ibizas hit their
own weapons range at the same time as the enemy gets to shoot at them -
once again see the "big enough table to manoeuvre on" comment above :-)
[On big-ship advantages]
> >Their *other* advantages are that they also have a better
Certainly. Nonetheless, the concentration of damage boxes usually contributes
more than the concentration of firepower.
> >The big-ship advantages (discussed a bit above) are another problem
Sorry, but one-shot high-damage weapons won't help the light ships at
all.
Thanks to the big-ship advantages, those one-shot weapons are more
effective on large ships than on small ones (just like any weapons are), so
if your opponent puts those one-shot high damage weapons on large ships
he'll still beat your small ships carrying the same one-shot high damage
weapons...
Your WW1 analogy fails in one critical aspect: in WW1, MTBs were usually
faster than their enemies. In Full Thrust, that's not a given. (WW1 MTBs
also didn't face the strict initiative-order sequence of fire their Full
Thrust relatives do!)
What the small ships need to be effective in equal-points battles is a
points system which takes the big-ship advantages into account - unlike
the
current one :-/
Regards,
I would find that remarkably confining... what are you using for ships, rice
grains? <g>
on 03.2.10 9:57 AM, Imre A. Szabo at ias@sprintmail.com scribbleth:
> I play on the floor, about 8" by 16". Tables are too confining...
> What I am assuming, however, is that you have a large enough gaming
(In a thick mexican accent) Table? TABLE? We don't need no stinking TABLE! I
play on the floor, about 8" by 16". Tables are too confining...
> In order to answer that, I must first ask you to define exactly where
Well that answers that.
> Simply put, if the NSL BJs had tried to position themselves 8 to 12
That easy if you start from a flanking positions. If you start head on and
then try to use the FSE supperior thrust to get to flanking positions, it's a
different story. I drove several ship into a planet back accident once while
zooming around at 18" (or some high speed in that region) trying to flank him.
I haven't had much luck using high speeds to flank or get behind my opponent.
> "A few fighter squadrons" will have certain difficulties crushing
Then you send more fighters...
> Sure. Which is why you want to fly fast enough that the Ibizas hit
The problem with Ibiza's and high speed is that you have 6" range bands on the
submunitions to work with. It's really easy to goof or have the enemy make
just the right speed adjustment or turn. There's nothing like having them fly
in fast and windup just out of arc of what you most need to
kill...
And the watching them get lit up...
> Sorry, but one-shot high-damage weapons won't help the light ships at
True, but big ships tend to have lower thrust which restricts their ability to
turn at speed and keep those weapons in arc.
> Your WW1 analogy fails in one critical aspect: in WW1, MTBs were
I know, but I'm the only one I know of who habitually starts superdreadnoughts
out at a speed of 12, or higher...
> What the small ships need to be effective in equal-points battles is a
True enough.
> (In a thick mexican accent) Table? TABLE? We don't need no stinking
That was supposed to be 8' by 16'...
On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 22:01:02 +0100, Oerjan Ohlson
<oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Your WW1 analogy fails in one critical aspect: in WW1, MTBs were
It fails in a second critical aspect, too. In WW1 a smaller ship was harder to
hit. Likewise, a fast ship was harder to hit, so a small, fast ship was much
harder to hit. In FT the size and speed of the vessel doesn't affect combat,
just the range. Now, speed does affect it in the sense that faster ships will
be in the enemy's range less often and has a better chance of dodging SMs,
while having a better chance of getting into enemy rear arcs. However, FT
doesn't apply modifiers based on speed.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:20:34 -0800, "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> If I've got a 1000 point fleet that has the scatterguns to
You didn't answer Dean's question about how you resolve scatterguns versus
fighters. I'll refrain from answering until I see your response to Dean.
Allan said:
> It fails in a second critical aspect, too. In WW1 a smaller ship was
You could house-rule that each thrust point which is not otherwise used
may
be aplied to evasive maneuvers (eg "1 Thrust = +6mu" or "1 Thrust =
increase range by 25%" or something similar).
Size is a little trickier. For those who want to get really detailed (you
Noam who you are), you could define the L/W/H ratio for each ship and
give
them different range band modifiers for different angles--eg most ships
are going to be harder to hit from the front, and easier from the sides,
because you have more surface to shoot at.
Assuming each ship has the same proportions as all the others (an invalid
assumption, but it's a start), then we see that as length, width and height
each increase by x2, then target profile increases by x4 and mass increases
by x8. That means (I think) that Target Profile = (Target Mass/Standard
Mass)^(2/3). If we set Standard Mass as 100, then a Mass 12 ship should
effectively be at 4xRange; Mass 19 at 3x Range; Mass 35 at 2xRange; and
Mass 282 at 1/2 Range.
Note that I'm not suggesting that this be applied to vanilla FT.
> It fails in a second critical aspect, too. In WW1 a smaller ship was
The problem with small fast ships in WWI wasn't the speed, it was the rate of
which they could turn. This ment that when they went evasive, it rather
difficult to score a hit on the ship that was erratically turning rather
quickly.
[quoted original message omitted]
> What the small ships need to be effective in equal-points battles is a
I know. Has anyone done any work to developing such a formula?
With an initial simplifying assumption that mass is proportional to hull
integrity (total number of boxes, not percentage), this implies that the
larger the ship, the more the error in the points. We could then divide the
mass by a constant to a get percentage of error. Larger ships appear to be
much more effective then smaller ships implies the function we are after could
be exponential. However, even the largest ship is probably not worth twice its
point value in frigates, so the constant should be greater then 280.
This all results in the following formula:
corrected point value = points * [1 + (mass/300)^(3/5)]
NOTE: This is off the top of head and has NOT been playtested. If you use it I
would love to hear the results of the battle; but do not blame me if the
battle is unfair.
This will increase the cost of all ships:
Mass: Points Multiplier (rounded to two places):
5 1.09
10 1.13
20 1.20
30 1.25
40 1.30
60 1.38
80 1.45
100 1.52
120 1.58
140 1.63
160 1.69
180 1.74
200 1.78
220 1.83
240 1.87
260 1.92
280 1.96
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:20:34 -0800, "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> Which, incidentally, is exactly what I said: their effectiveness
No, the fighters are scaled non-linearly. Period. One fighter squadron
is
worth much less than 1/20 the power of 20 fighter squadrons. This has
been shown time and time again.
What you're pointing out is that scatterguns are really, really good at taking
out fighters. This is because scatterguns themselves are inherently unbalanced
in their anti-fighter capabilities.
A scattergun costs 1 mass and 5 points. It does an average of 3.5 fighters
worth of damage. A fighter costs 3 points. This means a 5 point weapon takes
out -- without any risk to itself -- 10.5 points of fighters. It's even
more unbalanced when you take into consideration hangar bay costs and mass, as
a scattergun costs only 1 mass point.
Even if you roll a 2 on the scattergun, it will take out 6 points of fighters
at a cost of 5 point of its own. Scatterguns are, therefore, overpriced. They
also have an inherent ADFC ability without needing a special ADFC.
This overpricing of scatterguns doesn't change the fact that fighters are not
linearly scaled.
> And frankly, I don't really care how many times it's been "shown"
otherwise
> on the list. If I've got a 1000 point fleet that has the scatterguns
True, but that's because you're using a weapon that's more unbalanced against
fighters than fighters are against anything else. Forcing players to mount
scatterguns doesn't fix the fighter balance issue.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:56:24 -0800, "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> That's assuming you're using KV, isn't it?
The scatterguns aren't exactly generic. Though they have a mass and point
value that you can use in a human-based weapon, they aren't modelling
anything
I've seen in other sci-fi universes. I don't know of any universes that
use a
single shot, shotgun-like weapon. Most use things that look a lot like
PDS versus fighters.
> If your house rules are allowing soap bubble carriers and aren't
Perfectly good as it's unbalanced in its own right versus fighters. Stopping
one unbalanced weapon system with another unbalanced weapon system isn't
helping matters. The lowly PDS is way underpowered compared to scatterguns and
fighters, for instance. If a point system says, "Such and such a weapon system
is completely useless, use this other system instead," there's a problem with
the point system.
Now, I understand the rock/paper/scissors balance that occurs in
wargames. I play American Civil War games, and it's easy to see this between
infantry, cavalry, and artillery. They each have different effects on one
another, so giving one generic point total for infantry, for instance, means
that the cost is going to be unbalanced with regard to either artillery,
cavalry, or other infantry.
However, this is a different case. PDS has an anti-fighter capability
and an
anti-ship capability. So do scatterguns. Scatterguns are far better at
killing fighters than PDS. They cost more than PDS, but their cost is not high
enough to justify their abilities. They can engage multiple targets without an
ADFC, and they have a much higher average fighter kill rate.
In order to bring fighters and scatterguns into balance with PDS, we must
really lower the cost of PDS; increase the cost of fighters and scatterguns;
change the capabilities of PDS and/or fighters and/or scatterguns. Since
we want to also keep the Fleet Book ships as viable, we want to do this
without
making changes -- unless absolutely necessary -- to the number of PDS
and/or
scatterguns on ships and without playing around with the point totals. This is
why getting fighters and anti-fighter defenses balanced is so difficult.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:20:34 -0800, "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> Which, incidentally, is exactly what I said: their effectiveness
Allan replied:
> No, the fighters are scaled non-linearly. Period.
I see Eric's point ("fighters aren't worth much if the other guy brings lots
of scatterguns on every ship") but that argument can apply to anything (lots
of weapons aren't worth much if the other guy brings B4's and Thrust 8, for
example).
> Allan Goodall wrote:
[...]
> What you're pointing out is that scatterguns are really, really good
Overpriced? I'm confused; it sounds like you are saying they
are *under*priced in your description of the fighter-scattergun
interaction.
M 'head hurts' k
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:46:20 -0500, Indy <kochte@stsci.edu> wrote:
> Overpriced? I'm confused; it sounds like you are saying they
*L* and Oops! Yes, the scatterguns are underpriced... My mistake!
> Overpriced? I'm confused; it sounds like you are saying they
I assumed 'overvalued for the price', but, heck, Allen's on a roll, and I'm
just standing out of his way. ;->=
The_Beast
PS "D'oh! You're right. Typo!" That's what you get for being a smarty
pants...
> Imre Szabo wrote:
> >What the small ships need to be effective in equal-points battles is
Certainly. The problem isn't so much to determine the ship's real combat
power with good accuracy as to create a formula which approximates this real
combat power reasonably well while still being simple enough to use
without a computer program. The ideal is a formula which can be used with only
pen and paper, of course.
The formula Laserlight gave a link to gives reasonable results up to around
TMF 250-300; larger than that that the ships get more and more
overpriced. I'd prefer that to the current situation where ships get more and
more
*under*priced as the TMF increases, though :-/
> With an initial simplifying assumption that mass is proportional to
The largest FT design I've seen to date was somewhere around TMF 8000 (or was
it 80000? Don't remember. BIF?). It was definitely worth far more than
twice its own points value in (TMF 16-24ish) frigates :-/
If you're talking about "largest" as in "largest of the designs published in
the Fleet Books", then I agree
> This all results in the following formula:
Should work reasonably well, though you need to make some special
allowances for carriers (who don't get the large-ship advantages in as
large degree as non-carrier warships)... and I'd prefer not to calculate
that "to the power of three-fifths" with pen and paper :-/
Later,
> Certainly. The problem isn't so much to determine the ship's real
Ideally pen and paper, but I'd be just as happy with a formula that works on a
calculator, if it works well.
> The formula Laserlight gave a link to gives reasonable results up to
In campaign games, it might be possible to use the existing point system, if
there was a time delay to build larger units. If 20 mass or less ships could
be built in 1 turn, but SuperDreadnought in 6 turns, I suspect smaller ships
would be more useful, especially if total cost had to be paid up front... I
know; I'm getting dangerously close to StarFire again...
> If you're talking about "largest" as in "largest of the designs
Definately Fleet Books. I once tried to build a full size Zentradi Flagship on
a spreadsheet. I never did the ship display, the stats were obscene...
> Should work reasonably well, though you need to make some special
I suppose I could do a modfied version for carriers, that reduce the points
per fighter group carried (and cargo for armed auxialleries). I'll look into
someother way to get the curve I'm after to see if I can get rid of the
three-fifths exponent.