[GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

21 posts · May 4 2010 to May 5 2010

From: Indy Kochte <kochte@s...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 12:11:27 -0400

Subject: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGreetings,
everyone,

I'm going to orbit drop in on the fighter conversation as it is evolving here
and weigh in with some input from the FT3 working group on
fighters/anti-fighter/anti-ordnance stuff (I also changed the subject
line to help the FT3 working group better track any feedback). You may or may
not like it, you may or may not agree with the mechanics or the balancing. It
is
change from FT/FB*, and it *is* playtest. It's not written in stone. We
welcome knee-jerk reaction verbal input, but much more importantly,
actual
on-table feedback, to this. We have run these rules over the past couple
years at the GZG ECCs with reasonably favorable input.

The current version of the FT3 playtest rules has the following advanced
component:

*Advanced Component: Small Target Dice* (where 'small targets' include
fighters, missiles, plasma bolts, etc).

"Small Target" (ST) dice are d6s rolled against small targets from a variety
of sources. ST Dice: 1 hit on a 5-6

*ST Die Sources:* *PDS:* 3xST Dice vs Any small target *group* within 6 MU.
PDS may fire against ships as per FT, doing 1 pt damage on a roll of 6.

*ADS *(ex-ADFC) : 3xST Dice vs Any small target *group* within 12 MU.
ADS may fire against ships as per PDS.

*Ship Main Weapons*: require a dedicated firecon. 1x ST Die vs Any small
target *group* at 1/2 the range of the weapon (e.g, C1 beams have the
same range as PDS, C2s have the same range as ADS, pulse torps can reach out
to 15 MU, etc)

[note: yes, Virginia, this means you can fire on small targets with both
ship main weapons and PDS/ADS batteries]

*CIDS* (Close-In Defense System) : Currently alpha test material. Last
ditch defense for a ship under attack. Roll 1d6 per level of CIDS (max level
of 3)
against *every* small target attacking a CIDS-armed vessel. Die roll =<
CIDS level = hit. CIDS have *not* been priced out, but we are working with
mass
costs of 5/10/15% or 5/10/20% per CIDS level. CIDS cannot be used in
anti-ship fire mode, nor can it be used against small targets not
engaging the mounting ship.

***** It is important, then, to also understand that the turn sequence has
been tweaked. If you were to use the above small target die rules, you should
use the new turn sequence outlined here:

1) write orders 2) small target movement (fighters and ordnance already on the
table) 3) ship movement 4) launch phase (any fighters launched do not move
away from launching platform; see next step) 5) fighter movement (allows
fighters just launched to react to ordnance movement) 6) ship direct fire
(this includes small target firing outlined above)
7) fighter/ordnance attack (surviving fighters/ordnance, that is ;-) )
8) damage control 9) end turn, congratulate comrades on excellent firing
passes or curse opponents for outwitting your carefully planned maneuver

If you want to chew on these, get out some minis and dice and put in some
actual on-table time with your group(s), feedback would be very welcome.

Thanks, Mk

From: John K Lerchey <lerchey@a...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 13:30:21 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

Indy,

Though I have played with some or most of these rules, and generally like them
(not sure about CIDS yet, as that is a completely new thing that won't be on
current ships, and I also prefer that ADFC simply enhance the range of PDS as
that would seem to fit better with the existing SSDs), I do have a question
about the new turn sequence.

> From what it appears, fighters move twice per turn while missiles and

Thanks!

John

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> [quoted text omitted]
                                      Â
                   *****
> It is important, then, to also understand that the turn sequence has

From: damosan@c...

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 13:30:51 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> ST Die Sources:

So this will require, with my die rolling, 18 PDS to take out a flight of
fighters. With Indy's die rolling he'd need an infinite number...

> ADS (ex-ADFC) : 3xST Dice vs Any small target *group* within 12 MU.
ADS may
> fire against ships as per PDS.

So you have PDS and Advanced PDS now?

> Ship Main Weapons: require a dedicated firecon. 1x ST Die vs Any small

Not letting larger batteries fire at fighters is a hold over from
WW1/2 naval games and I'd be GLAD to see it go.  I don't agree with
the limiting of range though -- a beam can hit a massive thrust-2
dreadnought just as easily as it can hit a tiny thrust-8 scout.

> CIDS (Close-In Defense System)

And I *really* like the idea of a CID system.

Are you doing anything to limit the strength of fighter attacks?

D.

From: Eric Foley <stiltman@t...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:54:37 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

From: damosan@c...

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 13:57:33 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:

> So this will require, with my die rolling, 18 PDS to take out a flight

And yes...I meant 18. My mad dice skills really suck. They just suck less than
Indy's.:)

D.

From: Indy Kochte <kochte@s...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 14:15:34 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l> Though I have
played with some or most of these rules, and generally
> like them (not sure about CIDS yet, as that is a completely new thing

While we have been working on FT3, we have been under the understanding that
the FB* designs may not be fully legal. The FB* ships were meant as a stepping
stone away from FT and on to FT3, not to have people locked into the FB*
designs as "this is how it will be and any rule must fit these ships".

> >From what it appears, fighters move twice per turn while missiles and

Yes, fighters move twice per turn (two separate phases), but ordnance may
ALSO, in effect, move twice (two separate phases, over two sequential
turns). During the launch phase, ordnance moves approx 1/2 what it might
normally (salvos/plasma bolts move 12 MU, long-range salvos 18 MU, MT
missiles move 12 MU, etc). Any ordnance that survives the combat phase then
may move again (same distances as above) during phase 2 of the following turn.

Mk

From: Indy Kochte <kochte@s...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 14:19:05 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, May 4,
> 2010 at 1:30 PM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

You do not have to announce it so loudly.  :-P

> > ADS (ex-ADFC) : 3xST Dice vs Any small target *group* within 12 MU.
ADS
> may

Area PDS is how we've been calling it. But Advanced will work.

> >

Yes, my argument was that in WW2 naval guns were used in anti-air mode.
Not
as effective as dedicated anti-air weaponry, maybe, but nevertheless...

> I don't agree with

Not at this time.

Yes, this means fighter squadrons can pile onto one ship, but recall the turn
order, every ship within range can lend a helping
pre-fighter-pile-on
hand in reducing the pile. This gives justification to those DDE and related
ships (sure, the fighters can pile on the DDEs, but then the accompanying
cap ships can lend *their* fire to the DDE's defense - and DDEs had
better
have CIDS-2 or CIDS-3).

Mk

From: damosan@c...

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 14:19:13 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

If the plan is to go to tactical turns vs. strategic turns then I'm going to
have to throw the "Harpoon flag.";)

D.

From: Indy Kochte <kochte@s...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 14:23:08 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, May 4,
> 2010 at 1:54 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:

> I'm assuming 1 mass and 3 cost for a PDS as before. The ADS is... 3
We don't have all the mass/costs worked out in detail. I have been
working with PDS as per FB rules, and ADS as per ADFC. We would love Oerjan to
break away from everything on his plate and measure in with balancing numbers
on
these and other systems. :-)

If a fighter attacks another ship within 6 MU, do you shoot at the fighter
> as though it's in the same position as the ship or where it came out
Same position as the ship. Fighters and ordnance move to base-to-base
contact with their targets.

> Are we then effectively... what, multiplying the effect against plasma
As with everything, there are trade-offs. I haven't tried min-maxing
things yet. Just trying to play the systems and see how they feel.

> I'll set up a game or three with my co-workers at the studio and see

Would greatly appreciate that!

Mk

From: John K Lerchey <lerchey@a...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 14:38:41 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

Um.. You say "yes", but then you explain something that is "yes but not
yes". ;)

Attempted recap:

2) small target movement (fighters and ordnance already on the table) 4)
launch phase (any fighters launched do not move away from launching platform;
see next step) 5) fighter movement (allows fighters just launched to react to
ordnance movement)

So,

2 - Fighters/Ord not-launched-this-turn may make a full move.
4 - New stuff launched this turn may make a half move.
5 - Fighters on table may make a full move.

Fighters may move either 1.5 max speed (if launched this turn) or 2x full
speed if already out, giving them 2 moves per turn, but one at reduced speed.

Ordnance moves EITHER have speed (if launched this turn) or full speed (if not
launched this turn and on table). Ordnance moves ONCE pert turn, but at
reduced speed if launched this turn.

Yes?

J

From: Indy Kochte <kochte@s...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 15:15:16 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, May 4,
> 2010 at 2:38 PM, John Lerchey <lerchey@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

Nothing to see here. Move along...

> Attempted recap:

No. But yes. But no.

:-)

Ordnance moves effectively half speed in each phase. Thus, salvos, which can
go a total of 24 MU, move up to 12 on launch, and if still around, move up to
12 again.

The fighter movement we have worked with 24/24 (two full moves, or
teleporting fighters), 24/12 and 12/12 (like salvos). We have found that
the
12/12 movement is best (except at Oerjan speeds, but then most ordnance
and
whatnot break at those velocities ;-) ), but please experiment as you
see fit.

Mk

From: John K Lerchey <lerchey@a...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 15:27:36 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

Gotcha. Either none of the moves are "half" as each Small Target moves it's
listed speed, or they're all "half" as each Small Target
moves at half of it's listed speed/range.  As long as it ends up
consistent, I'm fine with it.

I think that the terminology issue would be that if fighters (since they last
more than 2 turns) might have a speed of 12, they'd be listed as being "speed
12" or "move 12" or something, while ordnance, which might have RANGE of 24,
would have an effective speed of 12, and last for 2 turns.

All good.

J

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Eric Foley <stiltman@t...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 12:42:01 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

From: John K Lerchey <lerchey@a...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 15:50:12 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

This is why I stated a preference for the ADFC to be an ADFC, doubling the
range of PDS.

In the proposed version of the rules, the ADS (formerly ADFC) is a double
range PDS.

So if you have a ship with 4 PDS and 1 ADS, you can fire a total of 3
dice at 6.1-12mu and 15 dice at 0-6mu at small targets.

If the ADFC were an Fire Control for the PDS, you would be able to fire 12
dice (from the PDS) out to 12 mu at small targets, unless the ADFC were
disabled, in which case you would fire your 12 dice out to 6mu (PDS no longer
enhanced by ADFC).

Not arguing with Indy any more about it, 'cause they've shot me down on this
about a billion times but that's how I would do it.;)

The CIDS only effects ordnance/fighters attacking the current ship,
but gives you a "kill number" die roll against each incoming attacker.
 So a CIDS-2 equipped ship being attacked by 12 missiles would roll 12
dice, scoring hits against the missiles on any rolls of 1 or 2.

J

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> Wait, so what exactly is the effect of the ADS? It extends the range

From: Indy Kochte <kochte@s...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 15:54:30 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, May 4,
> 2010 at 3:42 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:

> Wait, so what exactly is the effect of the ADS? It extends the range
Yes, an ADS is basically a long-range PDS. It is a separate system from
the PDS. It is *not* an ADFC.

So a DDE would use CIDS mainly to keep themselves from getting mobbed?
> (I'm assuming that it can't be used in an area defense role
Right, CIDS can only be used for self-defense.

Personally, my DDEs would have CIDS-2 and a suite of ADS's, with an odd
PDS
to fill in a left-over point of mass (or pick up some armor, but I think
I'd
rather throw three more dice to miss hitting fighters with ;-) )

Mk

From: Tom B <kaladorn@g...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 21:01:36 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'm bogged at
work, but I'll try to find some time to give these fighter rules a whirl.
Don't expect feedback quick, but I'll add it onto the queue because it seems
to have some interesting aspects.

I need to be sure I understand something:

PDS can attack any target in range (not just those attacking). ADS ditto, only
with longer range. Yes?

ADS should be "Area Defense System". Actually, if PDS can attack things not
attacking it, calling it a point defense system may be a little inaccurate.
Hmmm.

Perhaps: Area Defense System and Wide Area Defense System? (ADS and WADS?) Or
Long Range ADS? (LRADS or contracted to LRDS which you know the Brits would
pronounce "Lords")

That's all nomenclature, but if it can engage over an area without the
precursor requirement of an attack being launched by the fighters, then it
isn't point defense IMO.

Looking forward to trying some of this stuff out. Not sure how it will make
small fighter contingents feel though.

From: damosan@c...

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 21:07:56 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looking forward to trying some of this stuff out. Not sure how it will

On the surface I'd think those pilots will be a bit more depressed when they
launch...

D.

From: John K Lerchey <lerchey@a...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 21:23:48 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

Tom,

Yes, you are correct. The PDS and ADS (only difference in game play is the
RANGE) fire at small targets during the ship firing phase of
the turn.  They do NOT fire at incoming munitions/fighters as part of
the fighter attack. CIDS now does that.

So, ships and missiles and fighters fly around.
Ships fire all weapons - capitol weapons against other ships or
against small targets, and any PDS/ADS against any small target in
range. Then the surviving small targets attack in accordance to their attack
rules.

John

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Eric Foley <stiltman@t...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 22:03:45 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

From: Eric Foley <stiltman@t...>

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 22:08:23 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

From: Indy Kochte <kochte@s...>

Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 07:34:18 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, May 4,
> 2010 at 9:01 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm bogged at work, but I'll try to find some time to give these

No worries! I totally understand.

> I need to be sure I understand something:

Affirmative

> ADS should be "Area Defense System". Actually, if PDS can attack

I understand your reasoning. But "PDS" is very ingrained into FT. People know
what it is and what it's functionality is supposed to be. Better than renaming
the system wholesale. ADS came as an extension of PDS as it flows off the
tongue melliflously, better than ADFC.

And CIDS would be the new "point" defense. :-)

> Looking forward to trying some of this stuff out. Not sure how it will

This is why I'm hoping people will be able to get some table time in, with
small and large fighter contingents. :-)

Mk