_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
I have a set of rules for designing fighters, and it included allowing you to
make these Mixed Roles Fighters, and will allow U to build all of the stock
GZG fighter types at right cost. Â You find that more you squeeze in to a
fighter, it will cost you much in points, and you still find they die just as
fast a stock fighters.Â
http://www.freewebs.com/heavymetaldrake/modular Fighter Designs.pdf
I was planning on using "advanced fighters" only for combat, but for
some designs I have, I can field 3+squadrons of standard multirole
fighters. Â So I find they still have a place in my TOE
DOC Agren
Lurker on the Digest
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Michael R. Blair"
Subject: Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters
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.
Michael
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Doc <docagren@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Doc <docagren@aol.com> wrote:
Apologies for the email that was blank.
That's something I've been wondering about--the various expensive
points values of all-singing, all-dancing fighters emphasizes that
they can do ALL, though only one or two capabilities is useful in any given
situation (excepting Heavy) and costs them such that for a given quantity of
Superfighters I will nearly always be able to field more standards and
interceptors to shoot them down.
The majority of the cost, under the standard point system for single role
fighters, seems to be less the fighters themselves and more in paying for the
carriers to get them to the fight. Superfighters reverse that equation.
> At 5:11 PM -0400 4/18/09, Doc wrote:
So, just for the sake of argument, what if you have a fighter system that's a
full generation
ahead of all of the other space-craft it's up
against. Look at the F22 as an example. The
Super-Bugs (F18) (gen 4.5) F-15s and F16s (Gen 4)
have all had fits trying to get them in their gunsites, let alone shoo them
down. So far as
I've heard, ONE F-18 jock managed to get a kill
shot by violating the ROE for the practice engagement which meant the F22 jock
was probably trying to avoid a collision rather than kill the F18.
In this case it would seem that the F22 is head and shoulders above everything
else. At Red Flag the F22s got 144 kills with no kills on their own side.
I know this makes for gaming that's tough for the guy with the lower gen
fighters, but in theory, the technology between say the NAC and the LLAR
should reflect this. The LLAR doesn't go to war with the NAC because they
don't want to get buried. More or less the same reason a lot of nations don't
go to war with the US or for that point, the Republic of Manitcore. The
functional differences between the tech edge as things have progressed between
the advanced and the slightly advanced have increased dramatically.
John Atkinson pointed to this some time ago with the advent of repeating
rifles vs Fuzzywuzzies. The Fuzzywuzzies could still kill the British troops.
When you get to the point where the enemy can't even get a shot off at your
guys and have to resort to human wave tactics with expensive assets like
aircraft, what do you do?
I mean, can anyone see anyone succeeding against
the US with Mig 17s or Mig 22s against F-22s?
Presumably if the Aerospace Fighters of full thrust are any example, the more
advanced fighters would be able to refuse combat or maneuver to points where
they can kill the lower tech fighters just by running them out of fuel and
killing them at leisure. That's entirely apart from the ability to remain
functionally invisible to the enemy fighters while at the same time killing
them at range before even being detected.
I guess another area where this is a good example is the FAA in the Falklands
vs the British RN. A lot of the Argentine Airforce jets were utterly lacking
in Radar Warning REceivers. They were designed as intercepters and when they
were being tracked and shot at they didn't know they were in
trouble until the AIM-9s were going up their
tailpipes. They were also at such a limit of endurance due to the battle they
couldn't turn and fight nor did they have the leisure to with the AAA
environment. No RWR to warn against being shot at is a critical aspect just
the same as no warning against an F22 that's just rolled up on you from 5
miles back and is engaging you with weapons that don't emit and using sensors
that don't need to emit to detect you. (Admittedly there's also the aspect of
an AWACs in there somewhere) but in the FT environment, presumably the
Carriers, if nearby have some VERY good sensor resolution just based on size
alone.
But, F22s with AWACs vs F16s with AWACs is still no contest. How does this
work in FT?
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> So, just for the sake of argument, what if you
[snip]
> I mean, can anyone see anyone succeeding against
Give it a few years when the USAF has to choose between buying spare parts, or
flying in peace time. If things continue as they are going now, the US may not
even be able to build them without importing chips from China, and inspecting
chips for extra circuitry is actually quite difficult.
Right now, the only way for MiG's to take down F22's is if the country flying
the MiG's has spent the same money on MiG's as the USAF has spent on F22's.
The F22 may be good, but maintaining air superiority at a rediculous
inferiority in numbers against aircraft that spend
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRya
n said:
" I mean, can anyone see anyone succeeding against
the US with Mig 17s or Mig 22s against F-22s?
Presumably if the Aerospace Fighters of full thrust are any example, the more
advanced fighters would be able to refuse combat or maneuver to points where
they can kill the lower tech fighters just by running them out of fuel and
killing them at leisure. That's entirely apart from the ability to remain
functionally invisible to the enemy fighters while at the same time killing
them at range before even being detected."
Tomb:
That's bad news. So you have to change the parameters of the fight. How about
area effect weapons to wipe out the squadrons? Just say 'screw
it... I
can't see you, but I know generally where you are at do to you killing some of
my fighters, so I'll blow up everything in that area'. Presumably the
point cost of a few F22 = 122 F-16s and other fighters (or something
ludicrous to reflect combat power). So if your area effect weapons wipe out
a squadron of F-22s, you're perfectly 'happy' to sacrifice a squadron or
two
of F-16s as bait.
If you have an enemy with clear technological superiority in particular
aspects of military technology, you have to minimize the impact of those
aspects or change how you fight your war to make them less relevant. This
latter step is the core of asymetric warfare - you can't match strength
on strength, so you have to go strength on weakness.
The US has an advantage (or has had) over most of its adversaries in
technology, but more to the point a massive advantage in *economy*. If you win
the economic fight by orders of magnitude, your opponent is kippers on toast.
Smoked, fried and dead.
If you are a great nation fighting another great nation who has come up with
wazoo military tech that is a profound advantage (say A-bomb), then you
work
like a dog to even that gap. 1945 - 1949 there was such a gap. Then the
German's the Russians captured and any intelligence they stole or could buy
helped them reach something somewhat akin to parity. So you avoid outright
warfare or fights that allow the foe to use his advantage and chip away at it
with spies, saboteurs, your own research, etc. Warfare by another name (or
foreign policy by another name if you lean that way).
Strictly on a technical side, FT does not handle vast technological
differences well nor will it anytime soon. The D6 based mechanics have a lot
less leeway for solving this sort of result than other dice systems.
TomB
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Strictly on a technical side, FT does not handle vast technological
differences well nor will it anytime soon. The D6 based mechanics have a lot
less leeway for solving this sort of result than other dice systems.
TomB
I definately agree with this point. FT assumes that all the technologies that
races use are roughly equal. This applies to space craft design as well as
fighter design. It's OK if you are modelling a universe like Star Trek where
all the protagonists appear to have about the same tech levels. Modelling a B5
type universe isn't handled so well, there is no easy way to represent the
tech advantage of the Vorlons and Shadows compared to the younger races.
But if you were trying to fight games as lopsided as F22s vs mig 21s how would
you allocate a points cost? It's not going to be much fun for the mig players
to start with 100 migs against 4 f22s and then fing you need a shovel to
remove the casualties each turn.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
From: Ryan GillÂ
Sent: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters (design system)
At 5:11 PM -0400 4/18/09, Doc wrote:Â
> I have a set of rules for designing fighters, >and it included allowing
So, just for the sake of argument, what if you have a fighter system
that's a full generation ahead of all of the other space-craft it's up
against. Look at the F22 as an example. The Super-Bugs (F18) (gen 4.5)
F-15s and F16s (Gen 4) have all had fits trying to get them in their
gunsites, let alone shoo them down. So far as I've heard, ONE F-18 jock
managed to get a kill shot by violating the ROE for the practice engagement
which meant the F22 jock was probably trying to avoid a collision rather than
kill the F18.Â
Â
In this case it would seem that the F22 is head and shoulders above everything
else. At Red Flag the F22s got 144 kills with no kills on their own side. >>
Sorry I'm on vacation and haven't been checking email.
Well to be fair, if the fighter design system I put up on the web as a pdf,
does address this. Â You can have Obsolete fighters mixing it up with Cutting
Edge Designs. And I have played games where Iâve had 1 Squadron of 4 Large
Heavy Stealth Fighters piloted by Elite Pilots, vrs 6 Squadrons of Enemy
Fighters (2 squadrons were made up of 8 Light Fighters, and have taken out
most enemy fighters. Many without the Enemy getting a chance to return fire.
 I endup having 2 of my Elite Pilots planes being taken out of action.  But
1 of the Pilots who survived, wrapped up 21 shootdowns in that 1 game.
So to go by your design yep the LLAR can firld their Hordes MIG 17 vrs
NAC Squadron of F-22, and the F-22 should do a # of them.