textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Was noodling around an idea about PDS. Still not happy with my noodling yet
but....
Concept:
PDS serves two roles: To kill incoming attackers (secondary) and to disrupt
incoming attacks (primary). In the real world, this might consist of
destroying incoming missiles and putting lead in the area of an incoming
fighter/bomber to convince the pilot he'd best break off the attack
(leading to an ineffective attack).
So, why not treat PDS as a ship-wide system similar to shields that
serves to disrupt all incoming attacks? (versus as a bunch of seperate systems
that have to be allocated to targets like DF weapons)
Advantages: You buy PDS levels for ships much like you buy shield levels. The
PDS applies against all attacks, thus removing the 'tipping point' of
fighters. If the numbers are right, this system should do two things: 1)
reduce fighter attacks as its primary function 2) kill a small number of
fighters on each attack as its secondary function The concept here is to allow
fighters more survivability (so all fighter sorties do not start with 'don
ceremonial rising solar object headband'....) and so that fighters can
continue to play a role throughout a scenario without being horribly nasty.
Also, to try to kill the 'tipping
point' effect of not-enough/too-many fighters.
Now, my problems so far are: 1) Haven't quite got the right numbers for
fighter kills or deflected attack dice 2) My mechanic at the moment (a PDS
role against each incoming group) means that fighter attacks can't be easily
resolved in a big single roll (unless you have a lot of bricks of different
dice available to make this feasible)
The concept at present is:
- Before each fighter group attacks, PDS fires at that group with one
die (with reroll)
- Some values on die disrupt/defelct one or more fighter attack dice,
some values will kill a fighter
- After killed fighters are removed and deflected dice are removed from
the attacking dice pile, then the attack is resolved normally
This isn't too onerous for battles with small numbers of fighters, but ship
engagements by 6+ fighter groups gets a bit slower.
I can't quite do this 'shield style' for fighter attacks because that mechanic
a) only has 2 levels, b) would have to probably reduce fighter damage and that
helps to limit to 2 levels much like shields are for pragmatic reasons and c)
won't kill fighters (unless you want to make really bad fighter attack rolls
kill them....). So, this sort of mechanism does involve a defensive die.
On the plus side, the player defending gets a bit of a hand in his fate. On
the downside, fighter attacks may be slightly more boggy to resolve.
With varicoloured die bricks available, might be feasible to still resolve in
single roll for defense and then one for offense. If not, it boils down to per
group.
Now, how to cost and mass such systems? That's an interesting one. We admit
that fighter cost/mass is approximately as broken as the tipping point
makes them. Small fighter clusters are worth less than you pay, big ones
waaaay more. But this change might mean changing CPV and NPV of published
designs.
It could still use the PDS icon to represent the PDS level present on a
vessel.
Complications:
- How does it play with non fighter ordinance? Unclear, not thought out
yet
- How does it play with ADFC? How can ADFC work here?
- How do you put endurance (CEF) into this if at all?
- What's the impact on Torpedo Fighters?
- If you do this, what do you do to alien PDS?
I like the way it feels. It reminds me of the 'all PDS fire at all fighter
groups' but the problem with that system is if you install 5 or 6 PDS, you
become fairly invulnerable. This system, having limited levels like shields,
would prevent that. Small fighter clusters could still be (somewhat)
effective, hopefully proportionately to their cost and big fighter swarms
would be less (again, hopefully fixing some of the cost issues of large
swarms).
Anyway, just a thought.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I like it.
James!
________________________________
From: Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com>
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:29 PM
Subject: PDS and fighters
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Was noodling around an idea about PDS. Still not happy with my noodling yet
but....
Concept:
PDS serves two roles: To kill incoming attackers (secondary) and to disrupt
incoming attacks (primary). In the real world, this might consist of
destroying incoming missiles and putting lead in the area of an incoming
fighter/bomber to convince the pilot he'd best break off the attack
(leading to an ineffective attack).
So, why not treat PDS as a ship-wide system similar to shields that
serves to disrupt all incoming attacks? (versus as a bunch of seperate systems
that have to be allocated to targets like DF weapons)
Advantages: You buy PDS levels for ships much like you buy shield levels. The
PDS applies against all attacks, thus removing the 'tipping point' of
fighters. If the numbers are right, this system should do two things: 1)
reduce fighter attacks as its primary function 2) kill a small number of
fighters on each attack as its secondary function The concept here is to allow
fighters more survivability (so all fighter sorties do not start with 'don
ceremonial rising solar object headband'....) and so that fighters can
continue to play a role throughout a scenario without being horribly nasty.
Also, to try to kill the 'tipping
point' effect of not-enough/too-many fighters.
Now, my problems so far are: 1) Haven't quite got the right numbers for
fighter kills or deflected attack dice 2) My mechanic at the moment (a PDS
role against each incoming group) means that fighter attacks can't be easily
resolved in a big single roll (unless you have a lot of bricks of different
dice available to make this feasible)
The concept at present is:
- Before each fighter group attacks, PDS fires at that group with one
die (with reroll)
- Some values on die disrupt/defelct one or more fighter attack dice,
some values will kill a fighter
- After killed fighters are removed and deflected dice are removed from
the attacking dice pile, then the attack is resolved normally
This isn't too onerous for battles with small numbers of fighters, but ship
engagements by 6+ fighter groups gets a bit slower.
I can't quite do this 'shield style' for fighter attacks because that mechanic
a) only has 2 levels, b) would have to probably reduce fighter damage and that
helps to limit to 2 levels much like shields are for pragmatic reasons and c)
won't kill fighters (unless you want to make really bad fighter attack rolls
kill them....). So, this sort of mechanism does involve a defensive die.
On the plus side, the player defending gets a bit of a hand in his fate. On
the downside, fighter attacks may be slightly more boggy to resolve.
With varicoloured die bricks available, might be feasible to still resolve in
single roll for defense and then one for offense. If not, it boils down to per
group.
Now, how to cost and mass such systems? That's an interesting one. We admit
that fighter cost/mass is approximately as broken as the tipping point
makes them. Small fighter clusters are worth less than you pay, big ones
waaaay more. But this change might mean changing CPV and NPV of published
designs.
It could still use the PDS icon to represent the PDS level present on a
vessel.
Complications:
- How does it play with non fighter ordinance? Unclear, not thought out
yet
- How does it play with ADFC? How can ADFC work here?
- How do you put endurance (CEF) into this if at all?
- What's the impact on Torpedo Fighters?
- If you do this, what do you do to alien PDS?
I like the way it feels. It reminds me of the 'all PDS fire at all fighter
groups' but the problem with that system is if you install 5 or 6 PDS, you
become fairly invulnerable. This system, having limited levels like shields,
would prevent that. Small fighter clusters could still be (somewhat)
effective, hopefully proportionately to their cost and big fighter swarms
would be less (again, hopefully fixing some of the cost issues of large
swarms).
Anyway, just a thought.
Tom B
> PDS serves two roles: To kill incoming attackers (secondary) and to
Yes, that's how I chose to redesign point defence:
> On Tuesday 14 February 2012 23:29:58 Tom B wrote:
Isn't this how Interceptors worked in the Earthforce Sourcebook?
Re-reading it, it's not quite clear on the exact mechanics, but they
can be used either as shields against pulse fire, shields against
fighters, or in anti-fighter mode.
> On Tuesday 14 February 2012 23:29:58 Tom B wrote:
I'll have to dig out my old copy and see what I wrote <grin>, it was a long
while ago! I do recall that the whole "interceptor" issue was a bit of a
kludge in some ways, because they wanted them to work the way they did on TV,
which was basically however they needed to for that episode's
storyline...... ;-)
I'm following this thread with interest to see what distills out of it,
because I actually wrote up some rather similar ideas in draft form a couple
of years back, bounced them off a few selected contacts from the list, then of
course got distracted again by the needs of casting minis to make money. Maybe
I ought to dust them off and post them for general consumption....?
> On Wednesday 15 February 2012 19:24:34 Ground Zero Games wrote:
The scale is slightly different between EFSB and FT2.5 - only 2
interceptors are needed to give the equivalent of 3 shield levels, but they
are limited to a (90 degree) fire arc. Given how easy it
is to have a dozen+ PDS on a ship, something would need to be
tweaked.
It uses slightly different terminology for Interceptors in anti
fighter mode, and specialist Anti-Fighter Batteries. It only
describes rules for the latter (1d6 - 2 fighters destroyed), but
I assume the former work in the same way.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
The thing I like about the revised PDF idea is that it helps distance FT from
the "Task Force 16 in SPAAAAACE!" syndrome that tends to plague space games. I
have always liked that, actually, but I think it would be a good thing for FT
to try something else.
What do I mean by this: In FT as currently stands, PDS are
40mm/20mm/etc. (if you're thinking WWII) or
Phalanx/Goalkeeper/Aspide/Sea Sparrow/etc. (if you're thinking
modern).Beam I in this system are twin 5"/38 DP mounts or more currently
5"/54 Mark 45, or OTO Melara 76mm, or other small-caliber DP guns, and
we're all fighting Coral Sea or Midway when the fighters are in the ether, and
Jutland when they're not.
The proposal makes PDS "something else;" they could be a combination of point
kinetic weapons, sandcasters a la Traveller, and maybe even "burst" ECM that
degrades enemy fire control solutions as well as having some effectiveness
against fighters.
If the proposed revision turns out to solve the "fighter quantity
tipping point," you'll _really_ know you've hit on something, because
the quantity tipping point mirrors real-world experience pretty closely.
You either don't have enough air do do anything, or enough to win decisively,
with little room between the two.
Best, Ken
________________________________
From: Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk>
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: PDS and fighters
> On Wednesday 15 February 2012 19:24:34 Ground Zero Games wrote:
The scale is slightly different between EFSB and FT2.5 - only 2
interceptors are needed to give the equivalent of 3 shield levels, but they
are limited to a (90 degree) fire arc. Given how easy it
is to have a dozen+ PDS on a ship, something would need to be
tweaked.
It uses slightly different terminology for Interceptors in anti
fighter mode, and specialist Anti-Fighter Batteries. It only
describes rules for the latter (1d6 - 2 fighters destroyed), but
I assume the former work in the same way.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
One thing that always amazed me is how effective fighters are against ships..
If you are looking at a ww2 model the carrier planes are hellcats, dauntless
and devastator. The Hellcat is great against enemy planes but rubbish against
a warship and the others are the reverse.
FT fighters are too good against both ordnance and ships.
Droping the fighter and making people chose interceptors, attack fighters and
torpedo bombers means people have to make a choice about with they are going
to do with their fighter capability.
In the Modern world the pattern is the same, even a F4 Phantom or F18
Hornet has to make the decision about whether it is carrying air-air
capability or anti ship capability and a Sparrow missile isn't any good
against a ship and an Exocet can't hit a plane (except by luck).
Also it is a break in the game that a 6 mass fighter squadron can't be
targetted by beam weapons, yet a 6 mass ship gets ripped apart. Are FT
targetting systems so variable that a mass 1 missile and a mass 2 ship have
completely different target profiles?
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
That's why I've been playing around with the idea of giving both fighters AND
ships the possibility for evasion. It scales so that the large ships aren't so
nimble, but little ships (and fighters) can divert thrust into
dodging incoming fire - but they have to make a tactical decision and
decrease the maneuverability of their ships to do so.
Randy
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:59 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
And ship weapon ranges are reduced, however, when firing at these smaller
targets.
Mk
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
So how does the range band reduction work for smaller ships? Do you get to hit
larger ships at long range and smaller ships get the equivalent of stealth to
reduce the effective range of weapons as their smaller energy signature makes
them harder to lock onto?
________________________________
From: Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com>
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: PDS and fighters
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
And ship weapon ranges are reduced, however, when firing at these smaller
targets.
Mk
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Nah, doesn't quite work that way. Firing against "capitol ships" -
functionally defined as "has an SSD" is as in the normal FT rules. When using
a capitol weapon to fire as "small targets" (Fighters, Missiles, Plasma Bolts)
you double the actual range and only get 1 Die. (rational is that a B1 hitting
a fighter is really not much different than a B3 hitting a fighter and the
Beam Die works to determine if a hit was made at all).
So firing a B2 at a fighter 9mu away results in a single Beam Die fired. The
9mu becomes 18mu for measuring purposes. If the fighter was further than 12mu
away, it would be out of the range of the B2 (max 24mu).
J
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:54 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
My quick-and-dirty solution for the proposed draft is very simple:
for all vehicles defined as "Small Craft", such as fighters, shuttlecraft etc
of less than 1 mass each, DOUBLE the actual range to
the target for range band purposes - so a small craft/fighter group
that is at 8mu range would be treated as if at 16mu, thus in the second band
for beam weapons.
Jon (GZG)
> ________________________________
wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I think the whole firing at captial ships and firing at ordnance targets needs
to be cleaned up and made more consistent.
Currently very small ships mass 10-14 are completely different from
fighters and missiles which are not much smaller in mass.
Building a mass 2 or 3 ship as a recon drone or similar gets hit at 48" away
by a beam 4 but the same weapon and targetting system can't hit a missile next
to the ship.
________________________________
From: John Lerchey <lerchey@gmail.com>
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: PDS and fighters
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Nah, doesn't quite work that way. Firing against "capitol ships" -
functionally defined as "has an SSD" is as in the normal FT rules. When using
a capitol weapon to fire as "small targets" (Fighters, Missiles, Plasma Bolts)
you double the actual range and only get 1 Die. (rational is that a B1 hitting
a fighter is really not much different than a B3 hitting a fighter and the
Beam Die works to determine if a hit was made at all).
So firing a B2 at a fighter 9mu away results in a single Beam Die fired. The
9mu becomes 18mu for measuring purposes. If the fighter was further than 12mu
away, it would be out of the range of the B2 (max 24mu).
J
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:54 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:20 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
A lot of this is purposefully lost in the abstracted granularity of the
system. If you can accept that, it works fine, but if not, then you have to
redesign over and over, and the next thing you know, you have an
Oerjan-inspired simulation. :-)
Mk
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I agree, the FT game works well for cruisers of mass 80 or so fighting ships a
bit larger or smaller than themselves.
The game breaks if people want to turn the game into hide in the corners of
the table and fire missiles or fighter squadrons at each other, although that
works OK if both sides are know that that is the game.
What doesn't work is if one side brings a Jultand fleet and one side brings a
Midway fleet, (just as it wouldn't be an even contest in real life).
________________________________
From: Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com>
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: PDS and fighters
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:20 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
A lot of this is purposefully lost in the abstracted granularity of the
system. If you can accept that, it works fine, but if not, then you have to
redesign over and over, and the next thing you know, you have an
Oerjan-inspired simulation. :-)
Mk