For some time I've been working on new rule mechanisms for fighters and point
defence in Full Thrust. (Seems to be an epidemic of this going around.)
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~laranzu/fullthrust/rules/HughsNewFighterR
ules.pdf
The intent is not to 'nerf' fighters or stop fleets with large numbers of
fighters from being able to win. These rules are intended to make battles less
predictable, less determined solely by fleet composition. And they also
attempt to address the opposite end of the scale, where too few fighters get
predictably slaughtered.
The new rules seem to work, but my ideas for test cases are frequently not
representative of how other people play FT. So I'd very much appreciate other
people trying them out.
Any and all feedback welcome.
cheers,
I'll start off by saying that I like the general idea, although I think it
needs some tuning.
My first observation is that while salvo missiles are not significantly
different than they were before (you can overkill one salvo and spill the
extra onto the next), while fighters, heavy missiles, and (possibly) plasma
bolts potentially can be completely stopped by just putting up a high enough
point defense level. This potentially makes salvo missiles a lot more powerful
just by virtue of their being the one thing that isn't drastically affected.
I would suggest that the following changes be made to the way fighters strike:
1. Attack fighters keep their current +1 to which PD band they strike
in, but also get a +1 to their to-hit roll.
2. Torpedo bombers should get a +2 to which PD band they strike in, and
keep their current ability to retain their to-hit roll as their damage
die on a hit. (i.e. if they need a 6 to hit and get it, they do 6 damage, etc)
Torpedo bombers should be worth that 36 NPV cost, and they
_should_ be terrifying to a fleet when someone's willing to expend the
budget.
3. (Maybe) Heavy fighters also get a +1 to which PD band they strike
in, because their pilots feel less deterred to break off an attack by point
defense fire.
I'm not sure what to do with plasma bolts under this system either. They're a
very powerful weapon as they are, and to some degree I like them that way
because they strongly discourage fleets from piling their entire force into a
single bunched formation that is vulnerable to being wiped out at all at once,
and thus force admirals to space out their ships more and maneuver. It does
also happen to leave them more vulnerable to fighters while they're at it when
they can't pile the whole force into an area defense formation, but the rest
of this system reduces that threat somewhat. The flip side is, at sizeable
fleet levels it gets easier and easier for plasma bolts to wipe out an entire
fleet without a whole lot of effort, too. I've usually resisted dramatic
changes to plasma bolts, and I'm not a big fan of allowing any task force or
squadron that can put up 11 PD hits between them to completely ignore them
here, either. I've been pondering allowing
plasma bolts (and/or mi
ssiles) to always be allowed to hit on a to-hit roll of 6, but that
still seems a little too easy to ignore them. I'll think about it, but it
needs work.
Will think on it more and probably have more thoughts later.
E
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 5:11 PM -0500 26/11/10, Eric Foley wrote:
I did start redesigning salvo missiles as well... but I got
better :-) Working well enough, no need to change.
As to the other weapons, fighters can still be deadly, just not so
overwhelmingly "this battle is predetermined, why don't we just go get a
drink?" as before. A large fighter force can still chew through an opposing
fleet, but will take longer and probably require some actual tactics rather
than just forming up the Swarm Of Death.
Heavy missiles can be completely stopped, but any ship with that high a point
defence level would have shot down most or all under the existing rules
anyway. And heavy missiles aren't (?) used much.
> 1. Attack fighters keep their current +1 to which PD band they
That +1 band is a significant advantage to fighters attacking
heavily defended targets. And because fighter casualties are lower, the
fighters get more opportunity to attack. Over a few
turns, that extra +1 really adds up.
> 2. Torpedo bombers should get a +2 to which PD band they strike in,
I'd agree that torpedo fighters ought to get the same +1 band
as attack fighters, since they're also anti-shipping specialists.
The D6 damage per hit is to remove a special case and make them work the same
as other torpedoes and missiles. Plus it makes them more dangerous against
poorly defended targets. But I don't feel too strongly either way.
> 3. (Maybe) Heavy fighters also get a +1 to which PD band they
That was in an early draft, because it simplifies casualty allocation. But
heavy fighters are already better than anything other than interceptors in a
dogfight. I don't want to make them better than regular fighters at attacking
ships as well. In FT the 'special advantage' of heavy fighters is taking fewer
casualties, not dealing out more damage. Attack fighters are
the FT equivalent to something like a current day A-10.
> changes to plasma bolts, and I'm not a big fan of allowing any task
I don't believe these rules make plasma bolts less effective, in fact I worry
that they will become more powerful!
Under the existing rules, the ships in the target area of a plasma bolt
combine their PDS fire. Under my suggestion, the plasma bolt rolls against the
PD level of each individual
ship. So if there are 4 class-5 plasma bolts hitting the
squadron, under the existing rules they have to get 20 PDS hits between them
to be safe. Under the new rules, EACH ship has to get 11 hits to be safe. Any
ADFC escorts in the zone can only contribute to another ship's defence by
sacrificing themselves.
Could you try recreating a turn or two from a battle you've played that
involved plasma bolts? Put the same kinds of ships in a squadron, hit them
with the same number of and classes of bolts, and see what happens?
cheers,
[quoted original message omitted]
> The main issue I have with this is that torpedo bombers are not
Torpedo fighters could roll to hit as if they were heavy missiles (one band
lower if possible, like attack fighters)
and use the to-hit roll as the damage as well. They'll do
slightly better again undefended targets because a 2 is becomes a hit, and
against well defended targets hits will be rare but dangerous. And this would
remove an extra die roll.
> Well, given that 20+ scatterguns and/or 25-30 PDS have been
5-10% of capital mass and 20%+ for escort cruisers being
spent on PDS isn't balanced to me, but then I did
say I wanted to find out what other people do :-) Your
campaign is evidently one of those where the optional
rules for fighter suppression/assistance should be used.
As for heavy missiles and plasma bolts, how about at
the 11-15 band they need a 6 to hit AND do one die less
damage, at 16+ 6 to hit and two dice less damage. So
heavy missiles always have a chance of doing some damage, and while you can
bounce off class 1 or 2 plasma bolts, class 3 and up (Phalon heavy cruiser or
better) still hurt.
Oh, and anyone else want to jump in? Or has the Comic
Sans font seared the eyes of most readers? :-)
cheers,
[quoted original message omitted]
> Well, I was describing about where we found the balance where you
OK, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't particularly want to
change salvo missiles. There are problems with plasma bolts, but I already
suspected that.
My priority is to change the fighter/point defence rules
for games where Fleet Book 1 and the new human fleets on Star Ranger are
typical. People who play very different styles of FT can adapt them or ignore
them as before.
I'd really like people to try these rules with FB1/new
human fleets against say, Cylon Basestars and let me know what they think.
Anyone? (Doesn't have to be right away either, I'm going to leave these on my
website for a couple of months at least.)
cheers,
[quoted original message omitted]
I've begun looking into Hugh's new fighter/antifighter rules.
A couple quick thoughts, because I've still missed most of the conversation.
My first reaction is I think they (the new roles) weaken Heavy missiles and
fighters significantly (It doesn't take a great deal of
fleet modification/sacrifice to make a task force effectively HM and
fighter proof.) and leave salvo missiles almost intact, unless you're going to
convert PDS systems in to%ship mass systems. I think any system that grants
virtual invulnerability after a certain, relatively low threshold is too
flawed. An average PD of 11 is granted with an
array of 14 PDS - not too much to ask from a DN, or even a BC going up
against a known Fighter heavy fleet.
I was very interested in Eric's playtest, but unless he's made a compensatory
(and significant) recalculation of cost, he's misplayed torp fighters. FT 2.5
Torp fighters are one shot. They can't make two attacks, much less three, so
the Phalons in the playtest should have clashed nearly full strength with the
Kasparovs. The outcome would have been quite different.
Also I'm unclear why the phalons didn't drop a couple plasma 1's on top of
themselves when the fighters attacked. They could take the paint scratching
easily to completely wipe out every fighter group in the bolt range.
N
---
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Of course, so
does falling down a flight of stairs. - Richard Doty
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Fri, Dec 3,
> 2010 at 4:34 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
Concur.
> >I was very interested in Eric's playtest, but unless he's made a
Eric, it was wholly unclear that the fighters were relanding and reloading
from your AAR. I was sharing Noam's confusion on how you were using the torp
fighters.
That said, torp fighters as written are one-shot weapons, not reloadable
in a scenario. There is an optional rule for rearming fighters. But that rule
also has one roll 1d6 per group rearming to see if or when they will be
refurbished.
How fast were the ships all going? What speeds of fighters were you using? At
120 mu apart at the start, the Phalons should have easily been able evade
multiple fighter attacks.
> >From my experience, torpedo bombers would be _underpowered_ for their
Fair point.
> Thus, any unblocked plasma would have hit most or all of their own
What sort of loadout were the Phalons carrying for their pulsers?
It seems as if this was a small recreation of the Can-Am battle at GZG
ECC
lo so many years ago, where the American force fielded a fighter-*heavy*
fleet and the Canadians had a mixed arms force (I don't remember if or how
many fighters the Canadians might have had; if they had any, it was a
negligible amount, as was their anti-fighter capability). The Canadians
had their heads handed to them, the Americans took little or no damage.
Anyway, it seems as if the Phalon fleet in question was woefully inadequate to
and incapable of handling fighters in any realistic manner.
Mk
> -----Original Message-----
> Eric, it was wholly unclear that the fighters were relanding and
Sorry.:P
> That said, torp fighters as written are one-shot weapons, not
Yes, I know about this one. My games have always simply allowed fighters to
land and reload, and relaunch at some point afterwards. We
used to require 3 turns in 2nd edition, but we've always used next-turn
in 2.5. The amount of point defense we play with is high enough that we've
never seen it as a problem.
> How fast were the ships all going? What speeds of fighters were you
The Phalons were coming in starting at 8, accelerated to 12 to approach, and
then started decelerating as they got closer to plasma range so as not to
overshoot with such unmaneuverable ships. The Kasparovs started at 6, and
decelerated to 2 in order to extend the amount of time they held the range
advantage in turn.
> The Phalons were in a tight formation and their smallest plasma bolt
> Fair point.
> Thus, any unblocked plasma would have hit most or all of their own
> What sort of loadout were the Phalons carrying for their pulsers?
The Voths were in 3 far, 3 medium, 5 close. The smaller ships were in similar
proportions.
> It seems as if this was a small recreation of the Can-Am battle at GZG
> Anyway, it seems as if the Phalon fleet in question was woefully
Well, I did have a suspicion as to how the battle was going to turn out before
I ran it. Part of my observation going in was that, unlike my Teracron
designs, the Phalons are not able to throw enough plasma to be
a serious threat to a well-screened capital ship at the same time as
they throw enough fighters to punish them for scattering in order to
keep more than one ship from getting hit -- or, for that matter, to keep
themselves from getting hit by fighters either. However, the Phalons
_did_ have more plasma in this force than my designs have ever thrown
for similar cost, and while it's possible that evading more fighter strikes or
starting closer together might have helped them, I'm unconvinced that it would
have been decisive against ships with level 2 screens and 100 hull. If the
Phalons had brought enough fighters to properly protect themselves, they
wouldn't have had nearly as much plasma as they did. I can try running the
fight again with a light carrier or two on the Phalon side to keep the
Kasparovs more honest, but if they'd brought enough fighters to shut down as
many as 14 from the Kasparovs, they probably would be giving up around a third
to half of their plasma firepower.
The general results were dismaying enough though that it's led me to
rethink the plasma-and-fighters the Teracrons use. Nova cannons to
clear away banzai jammers and ER salvo missiles might be a better plan.
:P
E
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIndy said:
"It seems as if this was a small recreation of the Can-Am battle at GZG
ECC
lo so many years ago, where the American force fielded a fighter-*heavy*
fleet and the Canadians had a mixed arms force (I don't remember if or how
many fighters the Canadians might have had; if they had any, it was a
negligible amount, as was their anti-fighter capability). The Canadians
had their heads handed to them, the Americans took little or no damage."
-------
Yes, well, there was an *intelligence failure* that led to this. When my
pre-game intelligence was something like 'the bars are all full' or
something like that, I think I took that to mean all the fighter pilots were
groundside, rather than on the fleet, where what it meant was 'they've brought
every fighter they could buy borrow or steel'.
And Jim's ship got away unscathed. Adrian's was eaten by fighters and mine was
damaged by fighters and by the direct fire once it was the only target (since
Jim purposefully or accidentally missed the gravitational slingshot manouver
to engage the enemy fleet).
I believe the other side had perhaps 25+ fighter groups, of mixed types,
and we had possibly 4 or 6 groups of Heavy Interceptors. Those things killed a
lot of enemy fighters, as did our PDS DDs (of which we did not have enough due
to the intelligence failure). But with a huge enemy wave, and existing FB
rules, even with losses, they still had a boatload of fighters who lurked,
struck single targets who had less than 10 PDS, and just ate their way through
our capships.
It was inglorious, but I think of it like the raid on Dieppe; It was a
learning experience for some future game where I make sure my intelligence
people write clear summaries like "I counted over 500 pilots in the bars, all
wearing ship's squadron flashes for various vessels."
> Noam Izenberg wrote:
I thought it was reasonable, the 14 PDS needed for safety against regular
fighters (not attack or torpedo) requires a capital and two escort cruisers
for any of the FB 1 fleets or
their expanded versions at star-ranger.com. And you still
have to make the rolls, it's not automatic. The new rules also make it
practical for the fighters to divide across multiple targets, splitting the
ADFC escorts.
But point taken, even short-term invulnerability is a Bad Thing.
Slightly modified "December" version of the new rules now has
heavy missiles / plasma bolts now hitting on a 6 but doing
one or two die less of damage at the top bands, and the fighter assistance
rules no longer optional. So now it's always possible to do some damage.
Some more on the rationale for the mechanics:
I'm trying for no new systems, and as far as possible no changes to the mass
of existing systems. Redrawing SSDs is much more annoying than changing points
costs or rules. If it's between changing human fleets and changing aliens,
keep the humans.
The first idea is that point defence should be screen like rather than
individually aimed. The table is designed to give diminishing returns from
more PDS. At the bottom, even a small amount helps, but it gets increasingly
difficult to 'level up' from there. Because it's random rather than fixed,
even a weakly defended ship can make itself almost invulnerable with a series
of good
rolls - but only for that turn.
The other idea is to split casualties from effectiveness. In these rules
fighters are always at risk of some casualties, but it gets rid of the current
feedback effect where more PDS both reduces the damage you take AND inflicts
more on the enemy, as if screens not only blocked beam fire but actually
bounced it back.
On salvo missiles, my thinking is to leave them alone for now. To me, the
priority is fixing the massed fighter problem that is a sore spot for many FT
players. If I seem cavalier about dismissing issues with missiles or plasma
bolts, it's not that I don't care, but the fighter issues need to be resolved
first.
(If you do have ideas about how to apply the "point defence as
screen" to salvo missiles, please let me / the list know. I
am interested and will respond, but maybe not straight away.)
cheers,
[quoted original message omitted]
> Eric Foley wrote:
Most likely true, but irrelevant. In the GZG setting AFAIK fighters
have human pilots. (Plus some AI wingmen - er, wingdroids - in one
of Beth's stories.) Human fighter pilots, or aliens with similar behaviour,
are the dominant trope in the "cinematic" science fiction (both written and
screen)) from which I draw inspiration for FT:XD.
Salvo missiles represent kamikaze RPV/USV type fighters fairly well
already. And if you want to devise new rules for robotic fighters or alien
psychologies, I'm certainly not going to stop you.
> They work well when played within their own universe and present a
Me, I want to see Cylons take on NAC take on Starfleet... So I want the new
rules to work with fleet book designs. I guess that is another section for my
rationale.
cheers,