[GZG] Subject: Re: Mixed Role Fighters (design system)

5 posts · Jun 30 2009 to Jul 1 2009

From: DOCAgren@a...

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:30:37 -0400

Subject: [GZG] Subject: Re: Mixed Role Fighters (design system)

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

Sorry Guys and Gals, But I’ve been busy trying to get my Wedding Plans done
after a # of Companys we were dealing with closed between Jan and June(Married
June 20th). I I had this writen but it was saved as a draft not sent.

Message: 5

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:13:23 -0500

From: John AtkinsonÂ

> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Doc <docagren@aol.com> wrote:

> I have a set of rules for designing fighters, and it included allowing

> to make these Mixed Roles Fighters, and will allow U to build all of

> stock GZG fighter types at right cost. ?You find that more you squeeze

> a fighter, it will cost you much in points, and you still find they

> as fast a stock fighters.

> http://www.freewebs.com/heavymetaldrake/modular Fighter Designs.pdf

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.

John>>

Yep John, Superfighter do reverse the curve betwen cost of Carrier and
Fighter. Can U bring enough lower cost fighter to kill the super model.. I
don’t know. I have had a Large Stealth Super Fighter Squadron (4 planes),
piloted by Ace Pilots endup taking down 5 Squadron
(2 Light, 2 Multi-role and 1 Heavy Attack Squadron) at about the same
cost at the lost of 1 plane, and 1/2 way thur I  divived into 2
aircraft flights. Â Sometime tacics and dice luck fall your way too.

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:03:16 -0400

From: Ryan Gill

So, just for the sake of argument, what if youÂ

have a fighter system that's a full generationÂ

ahead of all of the other space-craft it's upÂ

against. Look at the F22 as an example. TheÂ

Super-Bugs (F18) (gen 4.5) F-15s and F16s (Gen 4)Â

have all had fits trying to get them in theirÂ

gunsites, let alone shoo them down. So far asÂ

I've heard, ONE F-18 jock managed to get a killÂ

shot by violating the ROE for the practiceÂ

engagement which meant the F22 jock was probablyÂ

trying to avoid a collision rather than kill theÂ

F18.

In this case it would seem that the F22 is headÂ

and shoulders above everything else. At Red FlagÂ

the F22s got 144 kills with no kills on their ownÂ

side.

=0
A

I know this makes for gaming that's tough for theÂ

guy with the lower gen fighters, but in theory,Â

the technology between say the NAC and the LLARÂ

should reflect this. The LLAR doesn't go to warÂ

with the NAC because they don't want to getÂ

buried. More or less the same reason a lot ofÂ

nations don't go to war with the US or for thatÂ

point, the Republic of Manitcore. The functionalÂ

differences between the tech edge as things haveÂ

progressed between the advanced and the slightlyÂ

advanced have increased dramatically.>>

Well, my fighter design system can handle Advanced and Obsolate Fighters as
well as standard level tech.  So yeah you can mix up MIG17 and F22 see my
comment above about 1 4 aircarft squadron and it’s kills to lost ratio.

But, F22s with AWACs vs F16s with AWACs is stillÂ

no contest. How does this work in FT?>>

The design system you can build an AWACs bird if you wish (giving fighter the
sensor range of a standard warship) pre ourt sensor rules. Â

My system not perfect and I admit but it has made fighter combat around here
different then other places.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:01:32 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: Mixed Role Fighters (design system)

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

From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:38:11 +0100

Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: Mixed Role Fighters (design system)

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 04:01:32PM -0700, Eric Foley wrote:

Actually, the multirole attacker-interceptors seem to be costed about
right - they can only choose role once per turn, after all. Do you
really expect them to beat more than twice their number in standard fighters?

I agree that carrying a lot of fighters and missiles is overpowered under the
current rules, but I don't think there's a lot of contention about that, and
it seems only fair to warn people!

From: Robert Mayberry <robert.mayberry@g...>

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:27:29 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: Mixed Role Fighters (design system)

I had a post a few months back that summarized all the arguments that
multirole fighters were MORE or LESS than the sum of their parts. I can dig it
out if you'd like, because I think it addresses your point. Besides, since you
pay for the carrier that the fighters are deployed from, and since that cost
is typically far more than the fighters themselves, multiroles are actually
not nearly as expensive as they appear. It's just that more of those points go
into teeth than tail with supermultiroles.

Finally, there's the argument that we already have multi-role
fighters: they're called "fighters". I still don't see how confounding
specializations with tech level helps us.

My feeling is that fighters, missiles, area defense and command and
control (not currently in FT at all) are fleet-level assets that add
increasing marginal effectiveness rather than linear, ship-level
components. (I also think that many ship-level components we currently
pay for actually aren't adding effectiveness to the ship or the fleet.)

Rob

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Roger Burton West<roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> Actually, the multirole attacker-interceptors seem to be costed about

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:55:09 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: Mixed Role Fighters (design system)

[quoted original message omitted]