I've been reading some of the fighters debate, hoping that whatever comes out
is simple.
Anyway, I'm wondering whether you _can_ support
contradictory backgrounds with generic rules. Suppose setting A does a lot of
damage to capital ships through fighters, and setting B has defenses on the
big ships that make fighters keep away. Can you really bounce out both worlds
with generic rules? If you provide for the supposition of setting A, aren't
you violating setting B?
Or is that kind of multi-setting support not what is being
discussed?
Side note: I do prefer simple. Ordnance was one of the things I liked about
BFG. Torpedoes can attack ships. Fighters remove all other ordnance and are
removed themselves (they return to carrier). Bombers are removed by fighters
(which go back to carrier), ignore other ordnance, and attack ships. I'm not
saying Full Thrust should do that, but I liked the simplicity and basic
premise for torpedoes, fighters, and bombers.
thanks,
> I've been reading some of the fighters debate, hoping that
I also like the way BFG deals with fighters-- they're attrition units
after all.
I hope the testers and such are looking for balanced "middle ground" examples
of fighters that can be tweaked either upward or downward as required for the
setting.
What I'd be looking for is a fighter design system modeled after the ship
design system. Basic fighter with no weapons and 12" move is N
points. With beams is +N1, 24" movement +N2, etc, etc, etc.
BUT having said all that I'm happy with the way they are presently as most
games I've played weren't with strangers and weren't "lets take N points and
build custom fleets." I like the background and the ships in the fleet books.
I also understand the need for fighters to be balanced within the current
points framework.
Remember fighters are class one gun turrets that are away from their ship.
This means a flock of sublight vessles with class ones could theoreticly do
the same save for the fact fighters are very small and short duration verses
the boats.
Andy Skinner <andyskinner@rcn.com> wrote:I've been reading some of the
fighters debate, hoping that whatever comes out is simple.
Anyway, I'm wondering whether you _can_ support
contradictory backgrounds with generic rules. Suppose setting A does a lot of
damage to capital ships through fighters, and setting B has defenses on the
big ships that make fighters keep away. Can you really bounce out both worlds
with generic rules? If you provide for the supposition of setting A, aren't
you violating setting B?
Or is that kind of multi-setting support not what is being
discussed?
Side note: I do prefer simple. Ordnance was one of the things I liked about
BFG. Torpedoes can attack ships. Fighters remove all other ordnance and are
removed themselves (they return to carrier). Bombers are removed by fighters
(which go back to carrier), ignore other ordnance, and attack ships. I'm not
saying Full Thrust should do that, but I liked the simplicity and basic
premise for torpedoes, fighters, and bombers.
thanks, andy