_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Well, I have to ask the question, why can't you launch a fighter with both
Interceptor and Attack roles?
I ask, because my group have used them, and while the cost is higher they
still dies just as fast.
My Modular Fighter rules from Jared Nobles ideas are located here:at the
bottom of the page
http://www.freewebs.com/heavymetaldrake/ftbetascenarios.htm
DOC AGREN
Lurker on the Digest
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
No, Eric, tell us what you REALLY feel... ;->=
Don' t forget, the folk riding herd on the appropriations don't always intrude
in a positive manner. But that's going pretty much astray.
I'm not sure I'd make the multi-role QUITE so expensive a formula. In
the
case of interceptor+anythingelse, you have to remember it's not just
fighter v. fighter, and your expensive dog dies as easily to a PDS as my
single-role. Long range and heavy are less so, but I still think there's
an all eggs in one basket effect somewhere. On the other, other hand, any
saved fighter bays should be impressively expensive.
Heavy-fast gunboats also seem like something that should definitely be
expensive, with good reason, both play balance AND PSB.
Unfortunately, I fear it'd take a table of all the possibilities with adjusted
costs for each to get close to real play balance, but the number crunchers can
and should correct me.
The_Beast
Eric Foley wrote on 04/14/2009 06:20:38 PM:
> As much fun as this might be, I personally would only run with it in
The question I see raised by all of this is whether we intend to raise the
effectiveness of fighters relative to other ships' improvements.
Ideally, we want things set up so that points-balanced fleets can
engage one another and have the battle decided through good tactics rather
than good ship design. I feel like FT has been slowly drifting towards being
decided in the drydock.
Also, the effectiveness of attack craft are partially balanced by the fact
that you don't really know ex ante which types you will need. Do you assume
your opponent will bring lots of attack craft of his own (and bring
interceptors to prepare for it)? Or do expect a foe without fighters, leading
you to take attack or torp fighters? Swing role or multirole fighters let you
make that decision on the fly. So you're paying points for the bays you save
(and the mass of structure and drives that support them), and you're ALSO
paying for reducing risk and uncertainty.
Besides, we already HAVE multirole fighters. They're called "fighters" and
they're the default that you buy if you don't want to mess around with upgrade
rules. If what we really want is to have Really Good Multirole Fighters, then
why not have a design that optimizes some of those into Really Good
Interceptors, Really Good Attack Fighters and Really Good Torpedo Fighters?
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> I'm not sure I'd make the multi-role QUITE so expensive a formula. In
I have a single, and very simple objection to the idea of combined fighters,
at the very least allowing it cheaply, probably at all: heavy
+ interceptor = you win absolutely every dogfight. We had very few
house rules in our games beyond the basic rules sets throughout our gaming
group's history, and disallowing heavy interceptors was one of the first.
Allow complete mixed role fighters for any kind of cost effectiveness and
throwing torpedo, attack, or both on top of that becomes your unstoppable
Munchkin. Thanks, but no thanks... and this is coming from one of the most
manic carrier buffs on the list, for what that's worth.
E the Stilt Man
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
The concept of multi-role fighters seems a bit sketchy in the context of
a miniatures game. Even true multi-role fighters generally only fulfill
one role at a time. I just don't think you are going to see a fighter leaving
the carrier outfitted for both strike and interceptor roles.
Maybe the rules should allow fighters to land and change roles if they
are multi-role fighters, but fighters generally don't have a lot of
wiggle room when it comes to mission roles. A fighter designed as a general
purpose fighter might be okay at several roles but not as good as a dedicated
craft for the intended role.
When it comes down to it, use the rules you want and have fun with it.
-Eli
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lEri
c,
Are you saying that X value (points) of Heavy Interceptors is going to (on
average) be worth more than X value (points) of Standard fighters?
Assuming the point values are somewhat accurate, this should not prove true.
[1]
You should get fairly many more standard fighters than the heavy interceptors.
The interceptors kill faster and last longer, but one would think the points
differential should mean there are enough standard fighters to see that, on
average, most fights end about even.
Eric Foley wrote on 04/16/2009 01:52:41 PM:
> I have a single, and very simple objection to the idea of combined
My experience wasn't near as painful, but for a very limited period a long
time ago, and I will bow to your knowledge.
emu2020 on 04/16/2009 02:16:45 PM:
> When it comes down to it, use the rules you want and have fun with it.
Definitely, even for the combined fighter; still, I'd hope the rules would
have strong warnings of fromage issues.
The_Beast
Most of the fictional settings we are trying to reproduce do in fact
have multi-role fighters. In star wars, during the destruction of the
first Death Star, the X-wings were clearly multi-role. In babylon 5,
you similarly see (usually) starfuries both dogfighting and striking capital
ships as required. BSG's raptors could be argued to be similar
to attack fighters (though IMO multi-role military shuttles should be
something else entirely) but while they are a bit inconsistent about
it, it appears that Vipers have an anti-ship capability.
So, sure, if it fits your setting do whatever as always. But that's hardly an
argument. In any science fiction setting that has fighters,
you see plenty of room for multi-role ships. A system intended to let
us reproduce those should do the same.
What I think people are reaching for with these kinds of rules permutations
are really ways of improving fighter quality. So a
Thunderbolt Starfury really will beat a Raider Delta-V, even though
they are the same role. Instead of mucking around with
multirole-but-not-multirole fighters, just make role one variable and
quality or tech base another.
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:16 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
Robert Mayberry suggests: Instead of mucking around with
multirole-but-not-multirole fighters, just make role one variable and
quality or tech base another.
I have to agree, and just to be rude about it (or at least stretch logic and
etiquette), I'd say Jon Tuffley does too. Reading Earth Force Sourcebook, he
clearly felt a need to make a matrix showing relative quality of various
races' fighters against each other, but because they all filled multiple
roles, they all stayed "fighters" (i.e. unspecialized).
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
I think the point may be lost. The X-wing is multi-role, but it is not
as good a bomber as a Y-wing, nor is it as good an interceptor as an
A-wing and when it comes to anti-ship combat, nothing beats the B-wing.
The X-wing would fall into the category of the generic fights baseline
in the rules.
In B5, the Star Furies are used for multiple roles, but not usually at the
same time. Raptors in BSG are a lot like current Wild Weasel
aircraft like the Intruder and such. They carry complicated ECM/ECCM and
also can be loaded up with bombs and such but they are not really fulfilling
multiple roles at the same time.
Having an anti-ship capacity and being good at it are different
things. Sure there may be fighters that seem talented in multiple roles but
how do they stack up against the other dedicated ships in their settings?
-Eli
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> As much fun as this might be, I personally would only run with it in
I hope the point system(s) doesn't try to reflect setting cost, I hope it at
least tries to measure game effectiveness in some sort of overall sense (that
can be broken in single specific scenario). The
simple fact is that one fighter that can do A+B will always be less
game effective than one fighter of A + one fighter of B, if only
because that is two fighters to defend against, not one and because a single
fighter can only do one thing at one time, whereas two squadrons get to do
two, even if its just drawing fire. Thus there is
no way that charging A + B + premium in any way makes sense to me.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> I have a single, and very simple objection to the idea of combined
You have points you can spend on Heavy Interceptors, if you choose to
bring sub-optimal defenses to defend against them then it's your
fault, not the system and I'm sure we can come up with at least one example of
a heavy interceptor equivalent in either the real world
and/or fiction. Now if you chose to play in a setting where they
don't exist that's one thing, but that they shouldn't exist in the game at all
is what I challenge.
Point systems have flaws, but allowing Heavy Interceptors or other
multi-role fighters isn't one, what they need to cost in points can
certainly be argued, but saying that a Heavy Interceptor should cost more than
a Heavy plus an Interceptor is where I have issues, just from the basic math.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAt
the level youâre talking about, I think the fighter specializations in FT
are too extreme.
From: gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of
emu2020@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:03 PM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters
I think the point may be lost. The X-wing is multi-role, but it is not
as good a bomber as a Y-wing, nor is it as good an interceptor as an
A-wing and when it comes to anti-ship combat, nothing beats the B-wing.
The X-wing would fall into the category of the generic fights baseline
in the rules.
In B5, the Star Furies are used for multiple roles, but not usually at the
same time. Raptors in BSG are a lot like current Wild Weasel
aircraft like the Intruder and such. They carry complicated ECM/ECCM and
also can be loaded up with bombs and such but they are not really fulfilling
multiple roles at the same time.
Having an anti-ship capacity and being good at it are different things.
Sure there may be fighters that seem talented in multiple roles but how do
they stack up against the other dedicated ships in their settings?
-Eli
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
You are leaving out TIE Fighters here, I'd argue that TIE Fighters are the
basic fighter, with TIE interceptors being Interceptors and the rebels not
really having any basic fighters.
(I'm lacking in-depth knowledge of B5, so can't comment on them)
> Having an anti-ship capacity and being good at it are different
X wings, probably from dramatic necessity, seem to outperform just about
everything else in the setting. I'd want to emulate that if I were playing in
that setting.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Yeah, without some sort of technological relativity built into the system,
those sorts of things are hard to calculate in game terms. the GZG games
pretty assume a certain status quo when it comes to tech shared between races.
All perform at the same levels. It is only in the racially specific
technologies that we see any variations between species.
I would say that if you wish to have tech level reflected in your games
then it should come down to some sort of performance-enhancing modifier
determined by the tech levels. However, I am not entirely sure that GZGs
system has a wide enough spread of statistical variation to allow for more
than a couple distinct levels of tech without rewriting the whole system.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Robert Mayberry
<robert.mayberry@gmail.com>wrote:
> Most of the fictional settings we are trying to reproduce do in fact
Hmmm. I don't think I ever saw the raptors in any role vaguely resembling
attack fighters*. We've seen them do ECM/ECCM roles, and we've seen them
do assault shuttle roles, and we've seen them be missile platforms, but by and
large they never really mixed it up like fighters did.
* - at least now how "attack fighters" are defined in my universe (and
we
all know it's all about my universe, whether you got the memo or not ;-)
).
> but while they are a bit inconsistent about
<nod>
Yeah, that goes for both incarnations of the series.
The way I'm running my Vipers right now is like interceptors, but they get to
act like PDS against ships. So they have some limited, very limited,
anti-ship role.
I'm still wrestling with how to best represent Cylon Raiders. Right now toying
with the old series being attack, and the new series being standard.
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Ryan,
This is where point systems need to show finness. Instead of A+B=X,
these multiple role fighters should come down to A+B(c)=X where "c" is a
modifier, making the second role cheaper than it would be if it was the sole
role of the fighter. This would reflect that the fighter has extra
capabilities, but that the limitations on the fighters' ability to act within
the rules hampers those extra capabilities.
-Eli
Point systems have flaws, but allowing Heavy Interceptors or other
multi-role fighters isn't one, what they need to cost in points can
certainly be argued, but saying that a Heavy Interceptor should cost more than
a Heavy plus an Interceptor is where I have issues, just from the basic math.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Ryan Fisk <ryan.fisk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
Make 'em heavy fighters? Not for their ability to necessarily "absorb hits",
but their ability to survive and outperform everything else around them.
Given the number of Cylon raiders vs the number of Vipers we've seen in
repeated engagements (both series'), I'd really be sorely tempted to list
Vipers as heavy interceptors. If only to reflect their survivability against
the odds. How did the quote from the Old Series go?
*
Apollo <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0368745/>*: No way those guys can
outfight us without a 10-to-1 margin.
*Zac <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0819782/>*: Apollo, look at your
scanner...
[*a solid wall of Cylon ships is chasing them*]
*Apollo <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0368745/>*: No, but 1,000-to-1,
that's not fair.
Mk
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:02 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
See below for (many) examples.
> In B5, the Star Furies are used for multiple roles, but not usually at
The raptors are multirole in a different way; as I point out they aren't
really represented in FT2 at all (though I think they should be). Inasmuch as
they do any fighting at all, they resemble attack fighters (Indy: I mean in
the FT2 sense of attacking capital ships). I mention this only because I
wanted to clarify that the colonials don't exclusively use vipers on antiship
missions. However:
Vipers do actually attack both ships and other fighters. Usually it's the same
characters doing both. So they're not just interceptors sweeping up lots of
multirole Cylon Raiders.
It's hard to track in B5, but in I think it was Severed Dreams, Ivanova
clearly makes a strike run on an enemy destroyer after dogfighting earlier.
There is no sign of any of the starfuries
returning and re-arming to change missions, nor is there time in the
battle to have done so.
> Having an anti-ship capacity and being good at it are different
Y-Wing vs B-Wing: both are attack fighters by FT2's definition. The
B-Wing is clearly superior on every dimension.
TIE Defender vs TIE Advanced: Both are "super-multirole" fighters. The
T-D is clearly better than the TIE Advanced.
X-Wing vs Z-95 Headhunter: Same role, X-Wing wins. Neither fare well
against the TIE Defender, which is also multirole.
TIE Interceptor vs A-Wing: A wing wins every time unless you have an
idiot piloting the A-wing. It's hard to deny that they're both
interceptors.
Minbari Nial vs EA Starfury: The Nial is widely regarded as by far the better
fighter.
EA Starfury Thunderbolt vs Raider Delta-V: Both atmosphere-capable,
multirole fighters. Anyone willing to put money behind the Delta-V?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Well, I was more responding to the earlier post regarding these same examples,
but if by extreme you mean how FT seems to neuter the other abilities in
deference to a specialty, yes.
[quoted original message omitted]
Incidentally, once we solve the fighters problem, I'd like to work out the
answer to the Death Star vs Unicron question. One thing at a time though.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
This is where a simple game system breaks down. TIE fighters are generally
more manueverable than anythign the Rebels used, except for
the A-wings. The empire has it's own variation on their base fighter,
but the base fighters between the two factions do not stack up.
TIE is fast and manueverable but they are gnats that pop if you look at
them funny. X-wings are robust, have shields and more firepower, but
they are slower and less maneuverable. They also carry a hyperdrive which is
one of the reasons they are so much bulkier.
I think if you were wanting to play in a specific setting, it might simply be
easier to rewrite the fighter rules element of the game so that it fits your
setting but also fits the rules. Get rid of the
variability and simply write stats for TIEs, X-wings, B-wings, etc.
-Eli
"You are leaving out TIE Fighters here, I'd argue that TIE Fighters are the
basic fighter, with TIE interceptors being Interceptors and the rebels not
really having any basic fighters.
X wings, probably from dramatic necessity, seem to outperform just about
everything else in the setting. Â I'd want to emulate that if I were playing
in that setting."
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAn
example of the combat.
A 4 squadron Fleet book carrier with say 2 squadrons of interceptors and 2
torpedo bombers is confronted by an equivalent ship with 4 squadrons of
multirole fighters. The carrier with the multirole fighters launches 4
squadrons of interceptors. The opposing carrier launches it's squadrons.
In a simplified version of the combat, loaded with assumptions.
The squadrons meet and the interceptors kill each other on a 1-1 basis
and the two remainign multirole fighters kill the torpedo bombers for no loss.
The two remaining multirole fighters can now go back and rearm at their
leisure. The opposing carrier has no squadrons to defend itself and so has to
withdraw or risk getting bombed by the torpedo bombers. No FB1 ship has a PDS
grid sufficient to stand off 2 squadrons of torpedo bombers.
To duplicate the combat power of the multirole fighter squadrons you need a
much larger carrier at much larger cost.
With each squadron having a 9 mass bay and tube and an associated increase in
hull drives and mass, the cost of extra squadrons gets very expensive very
fast.
________________________________
From: "emu2020@comcast.net" <emu2020@comcast.net>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2009 8:26:10 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters
Ryan, Â
This is where point systems need to show finness. Instead of A+B=X,
these multiple role fighters should come down to A+B(c)=X where "c" is a
modifier, making the second role cheaper than it would be if it was the sole
role of the fighter. This would reflect that the fighter has extra
capabilities, but that the limitations on the fighters' ability to act within
the rules hampers those extra capabilities. Â
-Eli
Point systems have flaws, but allowing Heavy Interceptors or other
multi-role fighters isn't one, what they need to cost in points can
certainly be argued, but saying that a Heavy Interceptor should cost more than
a Heavy plus an Interceptor is where I have issues, just from the basic math.
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
> This is where point systems need to show finness. Instead of A+B=X,
And where A would be the most "expensive" role, in the end we are discussing
whether c is a value above or below 1. I say it has to be below 1 or the point
system totally fails.
But essentially I agree.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
I would agree that conclusions of your comparisons are correct, though in most
cases it does come down to the one thing that has been mentioned in a couple
of posts already and that is tech level.
Y-wing is older than B-wing though the B-wing is described as being more
of a heavy bomber than the Y-wing.
Z-95 Headhunter is ancient compared to the X-wing.
A-wing and TIE Interceptor have serious differences in systems (A-wing
still has shields)
Really trying to come up with a one-size fits all system is nearly
impossible and the best bet, if you are going to use one, is to focus on
capabilities and not thematic specifics. As has been mentioned by other
posters, if a fighter is surivable it might be best statted as a heavy
fighter. This sort of "re-theming" happens all the time in minis games.
It's how you end up with a halfling army using a goblins army list and other
strangeness.
-Eli
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
I think you got my drift. I'm not math guy and the formula was more for
demonstration purposes rather than accuracy. Yes, most expensive role should
be A with all additional roles added at a discounted cost.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:11 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
I did get your drift, I just added that bit for completeness. Wasn't
trying to be argumentative :-)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Didn't think you were which is why I said you "got" my drift...;)
Personally I thinhk if the details are important enough then you might want to
make up new fighter charts and types specific to your universe. If you are
planning on sending Vipers after Starfuries then you may want to use the
systme as is and find a happy medium based on retheming the rules as they are
or finding a subtle tweak to the system that allows a greater degree of flex
but still remains simple enough so that you are not doing all the work of
rewriting the fighter rules anyhow.
-Eli
In an effort to add to the conversation I computed the individual fighter
point costs (FB2) per type of single role fighter (based on FB2 in 5% hull
increments) including the hull, Main Drive and FTL costs and put the results
here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=plDL85rSH0VB8Wz9RdF0bZQ&gid=1
The data is there, please let me know if anyone finds anything wrong, if by
some miracle anyone but me can understand it.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Okay, Mixed Role fighter yep they are going to be higher cost then normal
fighters. Â The set of rules I showed for earlier
http://www.freewebs.com/heavymetaldrake/modular Fighter Designs.pdf
Part of that increase in cost is based on how much stuff you try to squeeze
into a fighter body, and if U put in to much even extra change to squeeze it
in. Â Look at the these 2 examples of fighters used in our games, both by my
Midgard Herding Nation.
1st is a very advanced fighter:
Star Falcon (Fast Long Range Advanced Fighter) Base Cost: 15
per Fighter (Squadron: 90)) Eff 8, +6Â
These will be replacing the older Star Hellcat 2s
Notes:Vrs Enemy Fighters or Missiles, 1 DP= 3 or 4, 2DP= 5 or 6
Vrs Enemy Ships:(Treat as B1 with 6â range)
Combat Endurance:9
Movement: Launch 36â, Movement 36â Secondary 12â
Damage from enemy fire: 1 DP= 4 or 5, 2DP= 6
(Can add to all Fighter) Base Cost: 1 per Fighter
(Squadron: +6)
Extrnal Orbital Booster Pack unit Note: Has 2 Turns of Endurance for leaving
AtmosphereÂ
Movement with Boosters: Launch 24â, Movement 24â Secondary 9â Normal
Movement: Launch 36â, Movement 36â Secondary 12â
Damage from enemy fire with Booster : 1 DP= 3-5, 2DP= 6 Damage from
enemy fire without Booster : 1 DP= 4-5, 2DP= 6
2nd is basic multirole fighter: (Would cost -1 point if you drop
streamlining)
0AStar Hellcat 3 (Multi-role Streamlined Aerospace Fighter) Base
Cost: 4 per Fighter (Squadron: 24)
These will be replacing the older Star Hellcat 2s as primary trainers
Notes:Vrs Enemy Fighters, Missiles or Enemy Ships:(Treat as B1 with 6â
range)
Combat Endurance:6
Movement: Launch 24â, Movement 24â Secondary 12â
Damage from enemy fire: 1 DP= 4 or 5, 2DP= 6
(Can add to all Fighter) Base Cost: 1 per Fighter
(Squadron: +6)
Extrnal Orbital Booster Pack unit Note: Has 2 Turns of Endurance for leaving
AtmosphereÂ
Movement with Boosters: Launch 16â, Movement 16â Secondary 8â Normal
Movement: Launch 24â, Movement 24â Secondary 12â
Damage from enemy fire with Booster : 1 DP= 3-5, 2DP= 6 Damage from
enemy fire without Booster : 1 DP= 4-5, 2DP= 6
While the 1st one is nice for killing other fighters, it still dies just as
fast as the 2nd. Â I still end up fielding on my carriers and planet bases a #
of Star Hellcat 3, why? Â The cost of the Star Falcon,
I can field 3+ squadrons of the Hellcats 3 and should I get into
shooting war, as an accountant friend of mine pointed out, it might be better
to have those Hellcat 3 available as a reserve force to resupply carrier
wings. Â While we build both Falcons and Hellcat 3. Â I find my Falcons
limited to my better pilots.
Can I summarize here? It sounds like we have an interaction term. So are
fighters worth more or less than the sum of their roles?
More than the sum of their roles:
0) PSB. Answer: Winchell Chung points out we shouldn't be using fighters at
all.
1) The cost of extra bays to house extra fighters should include the added
hull, drives and maybe defenses. If I add 6 mass of payload, I shouldn't
ignore the 2 hull boxes, 2 mass of drives, and 1 mass of FTL that supports it
(and even arguably the PDS installation that defends the correspondingly more
juicy target). Multirole or swing fighters avoid this cost, so more of your
fighters points end up in "fighters" than "launch overhead". This is an
advantage that should cost.
2) Swing and multirole fighters reduce uncertainty. Part of the points cost
reflects the fact that the fighter may not be actually useful in a particular
scenario against a particular enemy. Flexibility like this eliminates risk and
uncertainty, and should be paid for in points.
3) Swing and Multirole fighters can adapt during a battle. That is, they can
launch as Interceptors early on to sweep enemy fighters away.
Then (in the case of Swing fighters, after re-arming) they can start
strike runs against enemy ships. Clever tactics pits each type according to
its mission. Multirole fighters are always the right mission for the job.
OK arguments that they're LESS than the sum of their parts
0) PSB. Answer: Winchell Chung points out we shouldn't be using fighters at
all.
1) You can only die once. PDS or interceptors will clear our multirole
fighters, reaping far more points than they cost. The only upgrade that helps
survivability is Heavy, and that doesn't help all THAT much.
2) You only get so many turns per battle. In a 10 turn battle, if I'm spending
2 turns maneuvering (and maybe 3 turns returning and rearming for swing
fighters, of course, fighter endurance means you might need
to return and re-arm anyway), then I only get 3-5 turns of
Interceptors and 3-4 turns of Attack runs. Just taking multiple
specialists gives you both capabilities that cover the whole game.
3) There's only so much map space on the board. Multirole fighters might be
great interceptors and great attack fighters, but in a game where there's lots
of fighters on the board and combat is at pretty long range, you'll want
interceptors close to your ships and attack fighters near your opponents'
ships. Multirole might do both jobs, but they can't be in two places at the
same time.
This is the kind of thing that really only playtesting can resolve. However,
my feeling is that the Long Range Heavy Attack Interceptors that people want
aren't really specialist roles, they're a proxy for
superior wealth/technology. If this were a democracy, I'd say separate
quality from design decisions. If nothing else, when we bring our BSG fleet to
fight someone else's Star Wars fleet, and then suddenly some Starfuries pop
out of the local jumpgate at a convention, you still have something that's
roughly comparable but fully reflects the different settings.
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:26 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
Taking the point values in my spreadsheet (which take into account the extra
cost of hull, etc) and assuming that what is suggested below was the actual
result we have the average effect of:
2 Int + 2 Torp = 48.5 + 84.5 = 133 Points (rounded)
vs
4 Int + 2 Torp (being 2 Fighters re-roled) = 100 + 84.5 = 185 Points
(rounded)
In this scenario, Swing Role Interceptor Torpedo Fighters are worth 1.38 as
many points as the dedicated combination.
If we paid for all the abilities of the swing role they would cost,
169 (4 Torp) + 97 (4 Int) = 266, which is a LOT more than their
effective value in this supposed fight. And that said, 52 (the difference of
the two effects)points would make for a lot more PDS or fighters.
All this supposes I didn't make any mistakes in my values and the the results
below are reasonable.
--
Ryan Fisk
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> An example of the combat.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRya
n
That sounds like exactly the calculation to back up my scenario.
Now, if 4 squadons of multirole fighters encounter 4 squadrons of standard
fighters the situation gets a lot more complex.
4 squadrons of interceptors fighting 4 squadrons of fighters. The
interceptors kill all the enemy fighters but suffer 4-5 casualties per
squadron in return. equating to about 1 squadron. They could then rearm as
torpedo bombers and go after the enemy carrier but there is not very
many of them and 3-4 PDS could be enough to ruin their day. At that
point their points value is only marginal against that of standard fighters.
If however as has been noted, the carrier come up upon the enemy ship with no
fighters then it rearms and launches wave after wave of bombers as the
gunships try and close.
John
________________________________
From: Ryan Fisk <ryan.fisk@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2009 10:36:46 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters
Taking the point values in my spreadsheet (which take into account the extra
cost of hull, etc) and assuming that what is suggested below was the actual
result we have the average effect of:
2 Int + 2 Torp = 48.5 + 84.5 = 133 Points (rounded)
vs
4 Int + 2 Torp (being 2 Fighters re-roled) = 100 + 84.5 = 185 Points
(rounded)
In this scenario, Swing Role Interceptor Torpedo Fighters are worth 1.38 as
many points as the dedicated combination.
If we paid for all the abilities of the swing role they would cost,
169 (4 Torp) + 97 (4 Int) = 266, which is a LOT more than their
effective value in this supposed fight. And that said, 52 (the difference of
the two effects)points would make for a lot more PDS or fighters.
All this supposes I didn't make any mistakes in my values and the the results
below are reasonable.
--
Ryan Fisk
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> An example of the combat.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
> I think if you were wanting to play in a specific setting, it might
Just another thought. FT *is* fairly scalable, after all. :-D
Mk
> The only thing that would stop me from using them would be expense; if
Just out of curiosity, would that be the Ur-Quan Hierarchy and its
army of Battle Thralls and if so, do you have stats?
Thanks,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
keep hearing every argument except one. Jack of all trades, master of none.
This was true ferever and still true today.
> --- On Thu, 4/16/09, James Butler <jlbutler3@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: James Butler <jlbutler3@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 7:02 PM
> The only thing that would stop me from using them would be expense; if
Just out of curiosity, would that be the Ur-Quan Hierarchy and its
army of Battle Thralls and if so, do you have stats?
Thanks,
James!
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRea
d back through and you'll see that I have brought up this very point several
times. I just never used that exact saying.
-Eli
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Charles Lee <xarcht@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pedantic counter point: the 12 lb Napoleon gun-howitzer of the
mid-19th century was a fusion of a field gun and a howitzer, and at
the time it performed both roles admirably.
This is the exception that proves the rule, though. It can happen, but it is
exceedingly rare, and when it does it's the obvious "go to" solution.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
A good example of how something can be multi-role. One could make the
same arguement for the German 88 in WW2. I would say, however, that there is a
big difference between the demands placed on an artillery piece and that of
something as complex as a fighter.
For a gun it's all about the shooty. The gun doesn't have to worry about
survivability, manueverability, weapons load, sensors, etc, etc.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMy
compliments to Mr.Mayberry for his decent summary.
Note however that every assessment of fighter worth takes into account some
factors and omits others.
Classic FB fighters (no idea what tweaks have recently transpired) show a
distinctly non-linear behaviour in terms of their value. If you have a
few fighter groups to spare more than the enemy, his PDS still stands a decent
chance of ripping you up. If you have 5 or 6 groups more, he's in some
trouble, etc. The value of 1 fighter group attacking a ship with 3-4 PDS
is very low, the value of a greater number quickly is very much higher. The
problem here is *the value depends on what the enemy brings*.
Then we've got interceptors. Worth nothing against ships. If the enemy jumps
in with a battle line and no carrier.... ha ha ha on you for bringing any
interceptors. Value = 0. Well, better than that because you actually paid hull
mass, etc. for them.
Estimating the value of a fighter plus support systems is still perilous
because in theory, that value would be affected by every system on the ship. A
thrust 10 fighter carrier is far more zippy than anyone else's. So that adds
value to the fighter stored within in some senses. A carrier ridiculously
heavily defended with major beams and such precludes any other ship from
supporting fighters by coordinating attacks. This makes those fighter's value
a bit different. Etc. *again depends what you bring vs. what he brought*.
Further, in trying to assess the value of a standard or attack fighter, you
have to weight its performance in dogfights *plus* its anti-ship
performance. Figuring out how to weight these two aspects is pretty
interesting as a lot depends on who brought what *again*.
Oh, and then we throw in multi-role fighters. Take some of the above and
amplify. Not all combinations are equally useful. Heavy Interceptors are. Fast
Heavy Torpedo fighters might be. Fast Interceptors are of debatable value
given Interceptors will often be screening, so maybe that combo isn't worth as
much.
When I said earlier I had no faith in point systems, this is part of why.
Everything is contextual. Heck, even whether you play with pre-game
strategic intelligence or not would affect point values. If you have some
ideas what sorts of designs an enemy has rolled off his production lines and
in what proportions, that gives you more of a clue than 'he can show up with
anything he designed'.
So you're all busy trying to unfurl the Gordian Knot. The problem here is it
really is the Gordian Knots - 1 per situation. Any generic point value
will be inherently flawed in almost any situation except the specific one from
which it was conjured. This pretty much means that arguing about if a fighter
is worth X or Y more than the book says is a hilarious discussion, because so
much of that evaluation depends on situations used in the assessment.
Not saying you can't come up with something that 'sort of works' some of the
time. That's what point systems end up being. But just trying to restore
perspective in saying you'll always be able to create scenarios which will
break any point system you create, usually quite simply.
Here again we see why I love SG2. You have to balance by scenario with an
experienced eye based on some reasonable examples of scenarios from the past.
It's sort of like a classic craftsman more than an accountant. And you'll get
it right about 2 times in 3 once you get good at it (esp if you can playtest
beforehand). But even then, you'll miss some options of strategy that will
invalidate your balance. But you don't linger under the 'illusion' of a point
system. Thank you very much, Jon Tuffley!
However, keep hewing away with your swords at the Knot. Just make sure they
aren't Damoclean.
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
To summarize what Tom said: Point systems suck.
Agreed.
To add to it (and steal a bit from history):
Point systems are the worst form of game balance for random gatherings of
players, except for every other way. Scenarios are better, but
only when you have set-up time and buy-in from the players.
I used to wargame with a friend without any sort of points balancing
or pre-built scenario. The rules we used: Bring whatever you want,
we will make up a likely scenario when we meet. Sometimes we brought seriously
mismatched forces, like the time he brought all submarines and I brought a
company of mecha. We worked it out each time and had a blast. BUT, we trusted
each other and had spent the time playing against each other in various games
to the point where we felt comfortable with that idea. Outside of that, I
played VERY competitively with tons of other people at a couple of game shops,
where a point system was pretty much mandatory.
I agree that the relative values of units in a game vary considerably based on
many factors. That said, I think the worst problem is that there are
situations where a unit, because of game design, becomes worthless. This is
usually an artifact of fineness, since bringing a pile of interceptors when
the opponent has no targets they can affect in FT is an artifact of the fact
that most games of FT don't require that your opponent wonder if those really
are interceptors or
disguised/mis-scanned torpedo bombers, or even if they are just around
to shoot up the repair crews after the fight, but maybe they really want to
get past the main line and shoot up the supply line (no game
effect, but interceptors probably should be able to hurt non-military
targets in some way).
Having some kind of system that averages out the overall effects of units in a
variety of situations is a worthwhile goal, and most groups after a few games
know where the broken bits are for their groups and either all use them or
prohibit their use within that group, depending on taste. I do like the idea
that the general battle scenario does limit the units that can be taken, and
as much as it pains me to admit it, I think the way that GW did it with the
last version of 40K was done rather well. You had a point system, but you
couldn't bring all heavies to the infantry roast.
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> *the value depends on what the enemy brings*.
Been a while since I played FT but you have the same issue with
screens and k-guns right?
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRya
n,
Well said.
The necessity for an inevitably broken point system in competitive games is
generally why I avoid anything of that sort. I did my time in the trenches
with early to mid SFB. Payed that bill, not interested anymore.
One point I didn't bring out very well was:
Not only does point estimation rely on the particulars of the situation, but
FT has a fairly wide set of mechanics and options. This further compounds the
range of situations you can encounter.
If you had a game with more simplicity and fewer options, balance would be
easier (with good mechanics) because you'd have fewer sorts of option -
You could bring paper, scissors or rock, rather than 12 pound paper, 20 pound
paper, kids scissors, pruning shears, dynamite, gold bars, or Mount Everest.
I guess the key thing I wanted to point out since the argument was going back
and forth was:
The result is driven by assumptions used in the calculations and therefore
there will never be a final answer nor a definitive one. It will always be
possible to question any result from some perspective and so the wheel will
just keep on turning.
That's where I was going with my comments. You can't resolve this because it
is inherently unresolvable to a level of complete satisfaction for all. You
can discuss it, get some value out of the discussion, make up conventions for
your group or even some larger subgroup of all FT players, but there'll always
be contention about some points.
Resolution for all time you will not find.
------------
I do like scenario or mini-campaign constraints to what you can bring,
in the absence of specific scenario contents. That helps keep the range of
scenarios limited and helps make any sort of assumptions about points more
reasonable and balanced. (One example: Disallow Soap Bubbles, max 33% of any
fighter specialty, etc). Pre-game exchange of intelligence can also help
a lot, although this can be totally misleading and end up in a debacle (ECC
Can-Am I (aka "Fighters Eat ESU Fleet - Film at 11") anyone?).
In this sort of more limited venue, you can reasonably determine a fairly
acceptable point score that might actually be useful for balance or VP
purposes.
TomB
> From: James Butler <jlbutler3@yahoo.com>
No, I always like to do my own thing. I will frequently use inspiration from
other sources but I have always enjoyed building my own custom ships and
everything. It's one of the major things that drew me to Full Thrust to start
with, the level of customization was beyond compare. Also why I haven't liked
the ground pounder games as much, they're not as customizable.
The Hierarchy I'm describing is loosely inspired by the Ur-Quan in its
political organization, yes, although that's somewhat where the similarities
end. It was generally good way to dream up a diverse interstellar polity that
might throw any one of a number of different ship design styles from one game
to the next, and from there I peopled it with different custom races that were
vaguely inspired by different
sci-fi settings. I had a bit of a backstory written somewhere for how
all the different races came about, who hates who, who the Hierarchy enslaved
in what order, what ongoing business they're dealing with and other different
subplots. I could dig up some of the info if you want
it, it's actually a pretty well-developed universe... but not everyone
might be interested in it.:P
E the Stilt Man
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:44 AM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
The german 8.8 cm anti-aircraft gun is a poor example of a jack of all
trades claimant. The ballistic requirements of engaging high flying
aircraft and engaging heavy armor are pretty much identical-- heavy
projectile fired at a high velocity. If the gun used the same projectile for
both roles, it would be a winner. For a field gun, it was a pain to limber and
unlimber, so it had better be at the right place when the shooting stops.
Only two things kept the equally magnificent british 3.7 inch
antiaircraft gun from achieving the same fame-- poor crew arrangement
that had the aimer facing the wrong way for field use (not an issue for AA
barrage fire) and the lack of an armor piercing shell.
The reason that the germans used the Flak38 (?) as an antitank gun, at all,
was that they did include some AP shells in the basic unit of fire and there
was nothing else in the area when some allied tanks showed up.
The MG34 and MG42 have better claims. Feed them with a snail drum and they are
good light machine guns. Mount them on a tripod and load them with belts and
they put in good service as a medium machine gun. Add the telescopic sight and
have adequite extra barrels, and it will shoot all day as a heavy machine gun.
An example of the jack-of-all-trades, master of none is the F4 Phantom
II. It can fly as an anti-air missile platform, and carry a ground
attack load at the same time. Going for long range requires the sacrifice of
attack ordnance. However, if it must dogfight on the way, the bombload must be
jettisoned, possibly the extra fuel, as well. The F15C Eagle ups the anty by
being a good dogfighter (something the F4 was not really designed for), and it
can even dogfight in its long range configuration, but even it must jettison
the ground attack ordnance.
The important thing is that an aircraft that can dogfight as well as an F15C,
but does not carry long range BVR missiles, or a large
ordnance load, costs much less than an F15C-- just look at the F20
A fascinating discussion. What is perhaps most interesting is how we have all
interpreted the sources (Star Wars, B5 etc.) slightly
differently - though interestingly not that differently. I know part of
the way I see the fighters from Star Wars is the old Star Warriors board game.
One suggestion, not a good one but possibly interesting. What about a fighter
design system? So you can have an all singing, all dancing fighter but it is
going to cost a lot and you might be swarmed by cheaper horde fighters. This
could become a game within a game though.