Date sent: 19-JUL-1996 14:47:57
> Hiya y'all. It's time for my next question about fighters. I don't
We always play with 'basic' types, not mix and match.
> Also I'd like to advertize the existance of my Java Space Dock
I'll check that out later. Unfortunately Real Life has intruded upon
my gaming time. (don't you just hate it when that happens? 8-) )
> Say, that brings up a third point. If I always round up the amount
OK. two options.
1.) Round up equipment and round down damage.
2.) Round down equipment and round up damage.
Provided damage + equipment = mass, I don't think it matters.
Easy 8-)
> Hiya y'all. It's time for my next question about fighters. I don't
snip
> So what do you do?
I think many people here feel that the costs of multiple capacity fighters
mount up so fast that they become their own handicap- they cease to be
"attrition units" as they become too expensive to risk.
It might be an idea to think of the capacities basic/enhanced/superior,
along the lines of other GZG games, and use a fighter design subsystem like
Steve Gibson's excellent infantry design subsystem for DSII, in which you
choose from "menus" of values for movement, firepower etc and add up the
points for each to give the cost of the element.
snip
> Say, that brings up a third point. If I always round up the amount
Personally, I think using odd-numbered mass that way smacks of the
anorak :-)
My self-designed ships are a mixture of attempts at optimized designs
(eg superdestroyers), and beasties "I just sort of like" (eg my "King James
IV"
(ex-"Indefatigable") Battlecruisers).
> Personally, I think using odd-numbered mass that way smacks of the
OK, I've been wondering this. What does "anorak" mean in the context of games
(specifically wargames, I think). I think it means a parka (and Rob mentions
that later), but I have no idea what the connotation of the word is in this
context.
I found out what grognard meant, but not anorak.
Thanks,
> Joachim Heck wrote:
> think this is really covered by the rules, so I'm mostly just
My group is planning on a civil war campaign, which permits a lot of
commonality of ship and fighter designs. For fighters, each carrier can
specify either heavy or standard fighters, but each player has a number of
squadrons in reserve of the specialized classes, such as torpedo, attack, and
fast interceptors.
One of our strategies is for all players to submit designs for the ships. The
squadrons will be composed of these respective designs and are allocated
randomly to each player. It's possible for a player to not have any of his
designs except for his flagship (SDN).
> Why ever build a mass 36
Maybe your group should standardize on a specific set of hull sizes. It seems
that the nickel and dime design approach superceeds good tactics for some
players.
> At 09:37 AM 7/19/96 -0400, you wrote:
I had worked out a modular fighter idea; basically a standard fighter that
would use mission specific modules to perform a variety of special functions:
Modular Fighters: This technological upgrade allows the player to build
special fighters which can be fitted with mission specific modules. These
fighters, which cost 6 each (36 for a full wing), can take on the
characteristics of any Advanced Fighter (MT, Pg 12) that the player's race can
build. This reconfiguring must be done within a fighter bay and takes several
hours; thus, the player must specify how his fighters are configured before
combat begins. A wing must have all 6 fighters in the same configuration.
These were designed for campaign use only; it allowed players to carry
different fighters to several battles without having to stop at
starbases/planets along the way to trade out their interceptors for
heavy fighters, etc. In straight out one shot battles, however, they just
aren't cost effective.
I also came up with this additional fighter type:
> Joachim writes:
> Say, that brings up a third point. If I always round up the amount
FT _does_ state that you round available mass up for non-FTL ships. (The
example on p26 shows a 14-mass non-FTL ship with 11 mass available for
systems.) But IMHO, allowing that for FTL ships -- which make up the
bulk of
the ships in most campaigns -- doesn't make sense.
Trying to look at it "realistically," if a 34-mass ship can hold 17 mass
worth of "toys", then a 35-mass ship could hold 17.5 mass worth. If you
don't have any systems that take up fractional masses, (I don't) then the
35-mass
ship would hold 17 mass of stuff and have an empty 1/2 point of mass. In
other words, the only difference between a 35-mass ship and a 34 mass
ship is
that the 35-mass ship will cost more for hull and drives, etc.
If you round available mass down, then no one will build odd-massed
ships; if
you round it up, then no one will build even-massed ships. Given a
choice, I think rounding down is much more in the spirit of the game.
On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:37:58 -0400 jheck@sparczilla.East.Sun.COM
(Joachim
> Heck - SunSoft) writes:
I personally don't allow it. Fighters are the most deadly of craft, and adding
"layers" to them is just horriffic... and the point cost for them won't
balance with the damage tehy can deal. Imagine the most deadly dual fighter...
the interceptor torpedo fighter.
> Say, that brings up a third point. If I always round up the amount
In the gaming realm, those people are called "Rules Lawyers"... as well as
other not so nice titles, and I choose not to play with them.
> I personally don't allow it. Fighters are the most deadly of craft,
Fighters become much less effective if the three turn endurance rule is
used. Then there is little incentive to have multi-class fighters since
each attack means you are not using half (or more) of the fighters
potential. e.g. a Torpedo Bomber/interceptor - if i use it as an
interceptor, that is one less attack as a torpedo bomber and vice versa.
Using the three turn limit also makes bombers and more vulnerable since
people are reluctant to use up attacks on fighters and interceptors at the
reduced rate when the number of shots is limited. Using the turn
around times for re-arming fighters also decreases the "horde" mentality
since only a limited number of fighters can be launched, re-armed and
recovered. Currently our fighter stands consist of turrets from Renegade
Legion tanks mounted on Epic Figure stands with a micro die to indicate number
of fighters. Type of fighter is indicated by color of the die (i.e. red is
standard. Blue is Heavy and green is torpedo) and using the
5 indentations to indicate number of attacks (0-3 +1 for extra stores)
The nly problem is that the dice are a little larger than the
indentations and thus do not sit flush. Some work with an x-acto on the
indentation has solved this for some of the stands, but this is labor
intensive. I'm going to try a heated square nail in the future. To balance out
victory conditions you can count fighter squadrons as a fraction of the
mothership's cost, i.e. if a 200 point carrier has 2
fighter groups, the fighter squadrons are counted as each being 1/10 the
value of the carrier. Thus if a fighter squadron is destroyed it count's
1/10 of the VP wile the carrier would then be worth 9/10 if the other
squadron was still on board. Abandoned squadrons count as being killed.
This prevents the jump on board, launch a fighter wave, jump off and come back
after the battle kind of tactic. A similar VP cost can be used on
missiles - i.e. if a person launches a bunch of missiles then jumps
most of his ships out, I'll do the same and I'll win by the virtue that the
missiles are worth VP.
> Currently our fighter stands consist of turrets from Renegade
> 5 indentations to indicate number of attacks (0-3 +1 for extra stores)
Do you use the bodies of the Renegade Legion tanks as ships, too? I intend to
get Full Thrust (when I can justify it to my wife after having spent some
money on other stuff recently), and I noticed that those
tanks (which I got to use with Dirtside or made-up
Eldar units in Space Marine) would make good spaceships. I'd even thought of
using the turrets as fighters, so now I know someone else thinks they'd work.
But I've not played or read the game yet, so I don't really understand some of
the specifics of how you mounted them.
> Do you use the bodies of the Renegade Legion tanks as
The stands are from GW's Epic 40K game system. Something like 20 stands
come in a pack and you pay the inflated GW prices ($3-4) but I use them
for 2 reasons, 1) the stands are the perfect size to mount magnetically and 2)
the indentations (where space marines normally go) is
approximately the right size for micro-dice.
A GW Epic stand is about 3/4" x 3/4" with a 1" banner pole in
the middle of one side. The top half of the banner pole needs to be clipped
to mount a Renegade Legion turret more firmly. I use the smaller turrets for
fighters and have considered mounting some of the larger ones to represent
torpedo or heavy fighters, but the large turrets can be as big
as an inch in length. The turrets are atached with cyano-acrylic glue.
The bodies are currently in use as ships with conglomerations of
up to 6 bodies around a piece of balse making a battlecruiser sized ship.
Additions of RL turrets or other small bits of wire, plastic, wood are used to
finish off the ships. I Currently use 9mm shell casings as engine units with
primer caps being used as additional decoration.
Reasonable merchant/tankers can be made by epoxying 4-6 marbles
in a pyramid/double pyramid shape with an engine pod or two tacked on.
Another source of big ship parts is Sculpey modeling clay which can be
hardened in the oven. Smooth ellipses and disks are moderately easy to form
and can always be shaped with sandpaper after hardening. Fine lines can be
engraved into the hardened clay to accentuate details.