KV Playtest Designs/Fighters

> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

...Snip...JTL
> >I proposed a cost structure:
perfectly.
> Schoon

Hi All,
     Yes I shall stand up and take the credit/blame for this one!!!
When I made the original suggestion, I was very greatly suprised to learn that
none of the players had ever had any contact with the idea!! (I acquired the
concept by reading the rules. I know that is a strange concept, but you will
adapt.)

     OK, back to the discussion!   (I will recycle a couple old
comments, to make a couple of points.)

Heavy fighter for free:   I feel that this is a game device to to allow
'K' fighters to have a form of superior maneuverability (the 'K' strong point
in the rules) without making a lot of strange special fighter rules for the
'K' fighters.

Not all types available: I feel the book rules should be tried as written
first, IF necessary, changes can be made to balence the fighters AFTER
      the knowledge has been gained and evaluated.   Or to put it
another way: DON'T FIX IT IF IT AIN'T BROKE.

Tims cost table:   Having just looked at the table, the price seems to
be about 100 percent higher than the human cost. Unless the combat
effectiveness of the fighters is 100 percent greater, the cost is totally out
of line. (Reguardless of how warm and fuzzy it 'feels'.)

Comments on the 'K' ships:     (All of the following comments are
evaluations based on looking at the 'K' ships on Tims site.) 1) The cost of
the 'K' is up by about 30% (more or less). (As the person who developed and
pushed the three Kra'Vak to two human points ratio, I can only approve.)
      2) The same firepower is contained in the ships as in MT.   This
is
	 acceptable.   The problem is that the firepower is divided
across five areas instead of three. This means the firepower will be reduced
	 across the primary area by 30 to 40 %.   This reduction coupled
with the SML and EPT increased effectiveness, armor and additional hull boxes
will cause most human ships to survive for a much longer period. During this
period the ships will continue to fire and do damage to the 'K" long after
they would have been destroyed in the MT rules.

Questions/comments:
Q) Did anyone playtest the new Kra'Vak rules prior to now?

C) An additional FCS on all 'K' ships would have been helpful to offset the
firepower reduction.

C) The torpedo (H) fighter cost should have been 48, not 42.

I am still in shock that no one has ever suggested/used different types
of fighters for the Kra'Vak.

Bye for now,

> Heavy fighter for free: I feel that this is a game device to to allow

Giving the K'V Heavy fighters for free has nothing to do with maneuverability,
it just unbalances them points wise. Pricing them higher adds no rules. (??)

> Tims cost table: Having just looked at the table, the price seems to

Not true, but it is "one heavy fighter mod" higher. That's the extra ability,
that's the extra cost.

Going through the large pile of "posts to be answered when I get
time"...

> Two weeks or so ago, John Leary wrote:

> > >I [Tim] proposed a cost structure:

> Heavy fighter for free: I feel that this is a game device to to

But the KV superior maneuverability shouldn't be free, unless you want to
throw the points costs out...

> Tims cost table: Having just looked at the table, the price seems

You forgot to include the cost of the fighter bay and the part of the carrier
hull it occupies. Human fighters are balanced at a fighter bay cost of ~70
points (OK, 69 points), so a standard human fighter
squadron costs on average 87 points to bring to a battle - *not* 18
points.

> Unless the combat effectiveness of the fighters is 100 percent

If the combat effectiveness of KV fighters is 100% greater than that of
Human fighters, a "standard" KV squadron should cost some 80-90 points
rather than the 30 Tim puts them at. While the KV carrier is more expensive it
is also more survivable, which partly compensates for the higher cost; this
means that only some of this extra cost can be counted towards balancing the
fighters' increased performance.

'Course, Tim didn't account for the screen-skipping weapons on those KV
fighters, so his costs are probably a bit low all across the range :-/

> 2) The same firepower is contained in the ships as in MT.
This
> is acceptable. The problem is that the firepower is divided

I disagree. The primary target area for KV ships is the front arc,
where the firepower isn't reduced - the arc itself is (by a third), but
I haven't had any problems keeping my targets in arc of my high-thrust
or high-maneuverability ships. The *secondary* arcs, ie the broadsides,
are weakened, but that is a rather minor concern to me.

> Questions/comments:

Not really. The big difference between heavy fighters and standard ones
is that the heavies are more likely to be around for a second attack -
but torpedo fighters are single-shot anyway, so they only get the extra
protection once - ie, being "heavy" isn't as beneficial for them as it
is for other fighter types. The long-range (H) fighters, OTOH, should
probably cost 48 pts (if you ignore their screen-skipping weapons, that
is).

Regards,