Fighters that go ZING.... I tried the following system for fighter movement
the other day in my ongoing effort to make fighters feel more like little
nimble ships. I want fighters to be able to move as fast as ships and to have
to worry at least somewhat about their speed, but not to have to fiddle to
much when moving.
The fighters movement is used as Thrust, and a record is kept of the fighters
speed from turn to turn. This can be accomplished by using a chit placed on
the fighter stand, or by simply recording the speed (which seems to be
easier). When a fighter squadron is moved, the fighters may use any portion of
their thrust to change speeds and must then move the full amount of their new
speed. Any amount of thrust not used to change speeds may be used to turn (up
to a maximum of six). The fighter may turn UP TO half of this amount before
moving and UP TO half of this anount at the midpoint of their move. All other
fighter rules remain unchanged.
This allows fighters to still move more nimbly than ships since they have
great turning capacity and are not locked into any set amount of turn at each
step. However, they cannot just spin 180 degrees and head back the other
direction. Instead they have to make two 90 degree turns, which forces them to
move in arcs more akin to ships. Fast fighters become worth their cost since
they can truly whiz about the board. Keeping track of the fighters speeds was
not hard, since you just decided how much change to make when the fighter
group was moved and then recorded the new speed. When testing this, I did have
a couple of fighter groups overshoot their targets and also had a couple
unable to maneuver into optimum firing positions due to the two step turns and
their need to slow down.
Wild Weasels: A wild weasel is a fighter which has had its weaponry replaced
with a suite of jammers and defensive electronics. Any squadron may replace
one of its standard fighters with a wild weasel. The squadron then has one
less fighter available for attacks (but is considered full strength for morale
checks). When fired upon, the wild weasel gives all fighters of the squadron
the
equivalent of level one screens (-1 damage from scatterpacks). Heavy
fighters with a wild weasel have the benefit of level two screens. When the
squadron takes damage roll to see if the wild weasel is destroyed.
Dedicated Fire Control: This system is used most often with torpedoes, but can
possible be used with other weapons as well. The dedicated fire control is
associated with one weapon or group of identical weapons facing into one arc
only (shown on the ship diagram as a line connecting the weapons and the FC).
This FC can only be used to direct fire from its associated weapons and those
weapons may only fire under the direction of the dedicated fire control. This
specialization of function adds +1 to all to hit rolls made by the
weapon. A dedicated fire con is mass 3 and costs 15. If replacing an existing
firecontrol the cost is 5 and no mass is required.
Evasive Maneuver: I am of the school that escorts should be faster than
heavies and should have a fighting chance against an equal mass of heavies.
Evasive maneuvering can be used by any ship, but is written to give a greater
advantage to faster ships with the idea that fast attack ships will be able to
close with heavy capital ships without being mowed down. Also evasive
maneuvering should be more effective at longer ranges where the time lag makes
sudden changes in position more effective.
A ship may initiate evasive maneuvers by indicating so in its orders. Evasive
maneuvering requires 3 thrust. The remainder of the ships thrust is available
for maneuvering as normal. While engaging in evasive maneuvers, the violent
motions prevent firing of weapons or point defense, operating active sensors
or ECM, launching fighters or missiles, or conducting damage control. When a
ship is conducting evasive maneuvering, all ranges to the evasive ship are
effectively 150% of the measured range. This includes fighter and missile
attack ranges, weapons ranges, active sensor scans, etc. E.g. An evasive ship
is targetted by two enemy vessels. The first is at range 22" and the second is
at range 7". Against the first enemy, the effective range is 33" (22 x 1.5)
which will greatly lessen the effectiveness of the ships fire. Against the
nearer enemy however, the effective range is 10.5" (7 x 1.5) which will make
little difference against fire from the enemy vessel.
Long Range Missiles: Long Range Missiles are in every way identical to
standard missiles except that they have 6 turns of endurance and do d6 damage.
Any comments/thoughts on any of the above.......
Later
Brian
> On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 BJCantwell@aol.com wrote:
> Fighters that go ZING....
Has anybody else experimented with this kind of system? To what results?
> Wild Weasels:
This is a really good idea. I kind of feel that the advantage of getting one
level of screan at the cost of only one fighter is a rather good deal though.
I would suggest that the first fighter killed be the Wild Weasel, putting out
all that noise and what not.
> Evasive Maneuver:
I was thinking of something along the lines of linking a system for EM to the
size of the ship and its speed. Define perhaps three levels of EM. A ship may
generate one level of EM at the cost of two thrust points per size class. Just
exactly what one level of EM is we haven't decided. One thought is a screan
level while the other is a fixed addition to the range of fire to the ship
(maybe 6 inches).
> Later
Just a thought
I think this fighter discussion has gone way too far... Keep it simple folks,
we don't want Full Thrust to evolve into Star Fleet Battles. I don't want to
have to take a Bar examination to play the game... All rules additions should
come from the standpoint of how to add dimension to the game without adding
too much confusion or rules and complications. Adding Hyper Space capable
fighters and Needler fighters is one thing, changing the simple rules for
fighter movement is asking for trouble.
Phil
Brian wrote,
> Fighters that go ZING....
Sounds good; I've occasionally thought of trying something along those lines,
but haven't tried it out. It keeps fighter movement simpler than writing out
full orders.
Chad wrote,
> > Evasive Maneuver:
One
> thought is a screan level while the other is a fixed addition to the
Using 2 Thrust for evasive maneuvering acts like 1 level of screens -- I
like the sound of that, as it sounds very quick and simple and doesn't really
invent any *new* rules, just new ways to use existing rules, if you follow my
meaning. I'd say evasive maneuvering gives no effect above LVL-3 screens
> AEsir@aol.com writes:
@:) All rules additions should come from the standpoint of how to
@:) add dimension to the game without adding too much confusion or @:) rules
and complications. Adding Hyper Space capable fighters and @:) Needler
fighters is one thing, changing the simple rules for @:) fighter movement is
asking for trouble.
On the other hand, changing the fighter movement rules to make them more
similar to the ship movement rules actually REDUCES the complexity of the
game. I support any attempt to make fighters act more like ships for purposes
of simplification.
> At 10:37 AM 2/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
I was under the impression these were optional rules, Phil. Nobody is forcing
you to use them, nor is anyone suggesting they become Law. I think that we
would all would agree that much of Full Thrust's appeal is that it is an
elegant and simple system, and nobody wants to see that change. On the other
hand, if I want to add a higher level of realisim or enjoyability at the cost
of additional rules and complexity, that option should be available to me. I
personally kinda like a lot of homebrew fighter rules in my games, but that's
mostly because I come from a heavy Wing Commander background. I also have
always thought that the 12" max speed on Fighters was a little limiting, and
I'm all for a redesign of the fighter dynamics. However, I wouldn't expect (or
want) any of these changes to leave the "optional rules" category.
Take care,
> I think this fighter discussion has gone way too far... Keep it simple
I totally agree! No objection to people coming up with whatever house rules
they want, but for the basic game we're trying to keep everything as simple as
possible. What we're working on is ways to make the fighters play better
without adding extra complications or record-keeping if at all possible.
The fighter rules may change slightly for FTIII, but they WON'T be more
complicated (promise!).
> Brian Cantwell wrote:
I like this idea!
> When the
How will you determine if weasel gets it?
An easier method might be to use fighter groups composed entirely of
electronic warfare craft. Any friendly ship or fighter group within a six
inch radius gets the benefits as you described above (-1 to hit). This
way it would be easier to determine damage and somewhat resembles a modern
carrier strike group, where a flight of EW aircraft are used to provide cover
for several wings of attack aircraft and escorts. The EW group provides the
same level of protection for friendly craft within their 6" radius unless the
entire group is destroyed. This works as a redundant system of ECM to counter
the effect of having no offensive capability.
*Electronic Warfare group option
-Mass: N/A - No additional mass is required as offensive systems are
replaced by ECM equipment. Cannot attack or dogfight.
-Cost: 10 additional points per EW craft in group.
-Endurance: Unlimited. If your trying to simulate fuel consumption,
etc. try using 10 turns of endurance. I give them a higher endurance over
other fighters since they do not require the same exhaustive combat maneuvers
or carry limited weaponry resources.
> Long Range Missiles:
Reminds me of my HE missiles mentioned a while back, only with greater range.
Would the missiles cost the same, and how would this affect EMP and needle
missiles if their effectiveness is reduced? How about needle missiles hitting
a specifc system, but only does normal damages to it, not destroying it? Also,
how about EMP missiles only generating a max of one threshold roll if hit?
> Scott Field wrote:
Here's another variation:
*Revised EM: If a ship plans to use EM, it must be noted as a written
order("EM") for the turn it is used. The ship must allocate half of its
available thrust points to EM. The remainder may be used to accelerate or
decelerate, but the ship's course remains the same as last turn (just slight,
but violent
variations in attitude). For every two thrust points allocated, a -1 to
hit is added to attacking die rolls. Therefore, the max allowable EM factor
would be -2. I thought this might keep such a maneuver from being
ridiculously effective with high thrust ships, but allow some degree of
usefulness.
> On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 AEsir@aol.com wrote:
> All rules additions should come from the standpoint of how to add
No. IMO changing the rules for fighter movement is asking for giving the
fighters a fighting chance.
It all comes down to table size, really - my gaming table is big enough
that even capitals can run at speeds of 15 or higher. Fighters just can't keep
up then...
In a message dated 97-02-19 12:14:29 EST, you write:
> On the other hand, changing the fighter movement rules to make them
This is what I was thinking. Having the fighters limited to speed twelve when
larger ships (escorts, etc) often zing about at speeds of 24 or more just
doesn't sit well with me. Hell, even a mass 100
super-duper-dreadnought
can eventually reach speed 24 provided she doesn't need to stop in the next
week....
Of course, all my "additions" are entirely optional. Some of us can't resist
the urge to tinker:). I do try to use existing game mechanisms whenever
possible and to keep new ones as simple as possible. The fault of SFB is not
really in having to many ships/systems/etc, but rather in having a
separate volume of special rules unique to each one.
Further playtesting of some of these ideas is ongoing. As I endure the last
two weeks of my unemployment, I've been setting up games every other day or so
to test a few ideas. I like having fighters keep track of their speed, but not
worry with move plots, etc. The feel is about what I want. They are very
nimble and zip around the board, but if you build up speed to go attack
something, it can take you a couple of turns to get back into the fray. They
still turn around faster than any ship, but there is a price to pay for
zooming off at speed 30.
The rules for evasive maneuvers seem to work pretty well and are certainly
easy enough to use. I suspect that everyone who can understand the basic
rules can instantly tack +50% onto the measured range... In todays
game, two squadrons of little ships attacked a squaron of capitals. The little
ships came in fast and evasive, which enable some of them to get within range
to fire off their submunitions. They were still hammered hard on the way in.
One captial killed three Mass 6 corvettes in two turns firing just 2 long
range a batt shots at each. Yes that's a 4/5 and a 6 on 3 out of four
shots. The evasive maneuvers helped by turning medium range A batt shots into
long range shots. The corvette squadron also got plowed by three squadrons of
fighters who zoomed off of the decks of the capitals. They were able to
accelerate into range of the evasive corvettes (had to get within 4") but the
CT's were not able to fire their PDAF's and two more went boom. Of nine CT's,
only two survived to fire their submunitions (they did cause a threshold check
however). The other squadron of lights is equipped mostly with 1 arc A and B
batts so were coming in slower hoping the submunitions would drop a screen.
The game is still ongoing, but the capitals definitely have the edge at this
point since none of the submunitions attacks dropped a screen.
Later
Brian
In a message dated 97-02-19 12:22:24 EST, you write:
> Using 2 Thrust for evasive maneuvering acts like 1 level of screens --
> my
In a message dated 97-02-19 13:13:21 EST, you write:
> *Revised EM:
for the
> turn it is used. The ship must allocate half of its available thrust
Mike's idea for evasive maneuvering is probably more effective than my own
range based method, but is more restrictive in that I allow normal movement
with the remaining thrust. I thought about a two step penalty to give high
thrust ships an even greater advantage (originally +25% for each two
thrust used in EM's) but it seemed to be getting a bit fiddly and cumbersome.
The other thing I like about my system is that it becomes less effective as
range closes. Evasive maneuvers would be more effective as the time lag from
firer to target increased..... Just my way of looking at it. Both systems work
against all weapon types and are quick and easy.
Later
Brian
> Fighters that go ZING....
<snip>
> The fighter may turn UP TO half of this
As has been suggested before, just allow fighters to
accelerate/decelerate by upto 12 and keep movement for them the same
(using the MT fighter movement sequence).
> Evasive Maneuver:
Great system! Quick and easy.
I would make it cost 4 thrust, but allow the dodging ship to fire at -1.
> jheck @ East.Sun.COM (Joachim Heck - SunSoft) wrote:
> On the other hand, changing the fighter movement rules to make them
Why not make them act exactly like ships, but with higher thrust?
The fighter movement rules them become:
"Fighters move in the same way as ships, except that their thrust rating is
12. Note that this means that fighters can use 6 points of thrust for
turning."
> At 09:00 AM 2/20/97, you wrote:
Yes! How about simplifing the turn secquence, by eliminating all of the
special fighter steps....If they move like ships, make them use the ship
steps....
This would mean there would be only one turn secquence for every one to
follow.
If you think about it, a fighter is just a very small ship.
In a message dated 97-02-20 04:22:56 EST, you write:
> Why not make them act exactly like ships, but with higher thrust ?
Well, I want fighters to behave in a way very similar to ships but also want
them to be more nimble and responsive. I achieve these two goals by having the
fighters retain speed from turn to turn and by splitting their turning ability
into two steps while allowing them to move freely without
ploting....
Brian
> Alun sez:
And Kra'vak fighters can use 12 thrust!!!
Gene
> At 07:02 PM 2/18/97 +0000, you wrote:
When the
> squadron takes damage roll to see if the wild weasel is destroyed.
Considering that the wild weasel equipped squadron is losing a combatant,
would you just leave the costs the same or would you apply a specific cost to
obtaining a wild weasel? Given the potential for mixed fighters already and
the fact that the wild weasel's protection covers all the other five fighters
regardless of their being plain fighters or heavy interceptors or what have
you, I for one would support just making it a free swapping out. What do you
think?
Gene sez:
> >Why not make them act exactly like ships, but with higher thrust ?
I'm dizzy! :-)
Scott