[OT] Unpredictable AI

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 devans@uneb.edu wrote:

Not to be a stick in the mud but the Unpredictable AI discussion would be much
more interesting if it did include FTII specific mechanics (or campaign
mechanics for FT/SG... always looking for new ideas from other player's
FT campaigns;). If it's possible to include such things in future mailings,
that would be way cool.:)

Thanks,

Pete

> On 21-Jun-01 at 12:43, Peter C (petrov_101@hotmail.com) wrote:

> Not to be a stick in the mud but the Unpredictable AI discussion would

You are walking the knifes edge here. Many people claim fighters are already
to strong, some claim just right.

The first suggestion I expect to hear is "no morale rolls", in this case
fighters are truly overwhelming from any viewpoint.

> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
...
> You are walking the knifes edge here. Many people
Doesn't that describe Savasku fighters in pretty much all ways? Organic, but
really organic AIs (volitional brains) and no morale rolls. Or am I
misremembering?

> -----Original Message-----
-----End Original Message----

Yes you are correct (although, I missed it in the rules).

However, SV pay for the priviledge in 4 ways: 1) They have to pay biomass
(hull) to make them. 2) They have to spend energy to grow them 3) They have a
slower turn arround time for rearming (land, absorb, grow, launch takes 4
turns) 4) They have no specialized fighters (interceptor, hvy, etc.) or Ace
fighters.

---

--- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
...
> Yes you are correct (although, I missed it in the

The biomass is a real disadvantage, but you tend to launch fighters well
before coming into range so I don't think the energy represents much of a real
disadvantage. Also, the number of times in a game a fighter has had the chance
to rearm has been low (though I've seen it happen several times) so that's not
a *major* downside either. To balance that, they can reabsorb the biomass and
guaranteed grow a new fighter, whereas a regular fighter has to roll to see if
he can be relaunched at all. Roll the wrong thing and the whole squadron is
grounded for the duration of the scenario. And even if you do relaunch, an
understrength squadron will be more subject to morale rolls once they get hit
again. The Sv's can spend a little more biomass and fill the squadron out
again (if they HAVE the biomass).

Not having special fighters IS a disadvantage, but Savasku can usually field
more fighters for a single point level, so it's not such an issue in my mind.
My group has never to my knowledge played
the ace/turkey rule, though we've talked about it.

So, I kind of think in practice that the Sv have the sweeter end of the stick.

> On 21-Jun-01 at 13:39, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:

Sounds like a house rule to me.

> -----Original Message-----
-----End Original Message-----

Your points are well taken, however they are still at a disadvantage in many
fighter on fighter engagements. Both Interceptors and Heavy Fighters would be
devistating.

True, the Mothership could grow replacement drones, but unless each group of
drones grown (beyond the first set), does more than 6 damage to the opposing
fleet (not counting damage to opposing fighters), the SV is on the loosing

> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
No it's in the book. I'm doing this from memory,
but it's something like 1 - relaunch next turn,
2-5 relaunch turn after next, 6 - can't relaunch
during this game. I may have the 1's and 6's reversed.

--- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
...
> Your points are well taken, however they are still

Given equal numbers of them. Given 2:1 odds though (2 Sv squadrons to 1
human), it's the humans who are in trouble. Now how many fighters the Sv can
field depends on their biomass and probably other things, but they seem to be
able to generate a LOT of fighters if they're willing to lose a lot of
biomass. Now this might leave them vulnerable, but you might not be in a
position to capitalize on it if you're being mobbed by a bunch of fighters all
the way across the board.

> True, the Mothership could grow replacement drones,

I think their fighters do standard damage, so it's just standard beam damage,
averaging out to 0.79 destroyed fighters per fighter in each squadron.
Interceptors are better, but often the interceptor squadrons get mauled before
they can fire in our games (some of them anyway) because not all of the
interceptors go first (play alternates between
squadrons on each side -- I *think* that's a standard
rule not a house rule).

> Roger Books wrote:

> > To balance that, they

Nope. FB2 p.4, "Fighter re-arming".

Regards,

> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] That's true regardless of what species the fighters
are.

> Now how many fighters the Sv can field
[Bri] It depends when you can launch fighters. We usually
start the game with fighters on the ships. SV cannot grow fighters in the turn
that they launch fighters. Stock SV ships have less Fighter Wombs than the
equivilent ships of other species have Fighter Bays (4:6 for CVH, and 2:4 for
CVL). So the other species get between 1.5 and 2x the number of fighters on
the board in the first turn. It then takes 2 more turns for the SV to catch up
(1 to grow them and 1 to launch them). If you use custom ships, you can build
soapbubble carriers,
so non-SV get an advantage due to special fighters.
If you launch before entering the board, then non-SV are at
a disadvantage (as the SV get soapbubble carriers in effect).

> I think their fighters do standard damage, so it's
[Bri] Interceptors do much better (average over 1.15, I think). And
Heavy Fighters are killed by Standard Fighters at a much lower rate (average
less than 0.62?). If you can keep the fighter groups seperate, 1 on 1
dogfights, the damage is simultaneous. If you get to 3 or more groups in a
dogfight the advantage
goes to the player with inititive (as he/she gets to fire first).

My comments above marked by [Bri]
---

> Roger Books wrote:

> On 21-Jun-01 at 12:43, Peter C (petrov_101@hotmail.com) wrote:

But AI's that do not suffer from morale rules should be easier to destroy, as
they are not trying as hard to survive. The pilot breaks off the attack, not
because he is afraid of the defensive fire, but that the defensive fire has
forced him to move away from the ship (given the large number of
possibilities, my point defence AI will prune out target maneuvers that do not
lead to a firing position). This means that overly cautious pilots that will
turn away from defensive fire are automatically safe, but I prefer to let them
live than

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:47:17 -0400 (EDT), Roger Books
<books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:

> The first suggestion I expect to hear is "no morale rolls", in this

I was going to suggest that... :-) Of course, fighters aren't "truly
overwhelming" in high speed vector games. Well high speed games of any type.
Get the speeds up and you can kiss fighters goodbye as a problem.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Allan Goodall wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:47:17 -0400 (EDT), Roger Books

This is what stumped me about fighters. Am I correct in that they move
'cinematic' in vector games? In that they retain no speed vector? It strikes
me as really silly if I boost my carrier up to speed 35, I launch my fighters,
and immediately leave them in the dust behind me? Isn't there a reasonable fix
to this, or did I entirely misunderstand the subject at hand?

Cheers,

> At 09:55 22/06/01 +0200, Derk wrote:

No, there is no quick and easy fix to this aside from making fighters move the
same way as ships. There is a house rule where screening fighters are allowed
to move along with the ship they're screening if the ship's velocity is
greater than the fighter's movement allowance, this leads to

some pretty funny images. A great wave of fighters screening a speeding lone
scout, which drags the fighters along at it's velocity in a 'attack

run' on the enemy fleet and the enemy fleet doing it's best to destroy the
scout in order to 'stop' the fighters:)

I suppose this is one of those things to be fixed in the future.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Derek Fulton wrote:

> At 09:55 22/06/01 +0200, Derk wrote:

Ah, yes. This makes perfect sense, of course; they're dragged along in the
screening ships draft. Less resistance and all.

> I suppose this is one of those things to be fixed in the future.

I do hope so; it sounds seriously broken to me, but then again I never played
the game.

Is there a reason for NOT giving fighters a thrust number, and using them as
regular ships? (Or actually using the squadron as if it were a regular
ship) Combat endurance could make more sense then, as well - expend
combat endurance for thrust, so you're okay when coasting in, but not when
maneuvering rapidly.

Cheers,

Derek wrote in reply to Derk:

> >This is what stumped me about fighters. Am I correct in that they

Exactly the same thing happens in Cinematic as well. As Brian noted, the

reason is simplicity.

> No, there is no quick and easy fix to this aside from making fighters

That house rule can be found in print in FB1, p.6...

Regards,

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:09:24 +1000 Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> writes:
> At 09:55 22/06/01 +0200, Derk wrote:

LOL!! I never thought of that.

Better fix: take the offender aside, politely whisper something like "Play the
game, not the rules, we'll all have more fun." and go back to
the table.  He/She will figure  it out.  Then before the next game
suggest it might worthwhile to review/add/delete a few house rules...

Gracias,