> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:00 AM, <gzg-d-request@firedrake.org> wrote:
> But I also beleive like the player in question, the launch/recovery
Whereas I DO want to shut him down. For game balance reasons.
So a six-bay carrier normally takes 54 mass, right? However, if you
let him treat fighters are missiles then you could save 6 tons for every two
you reduce the launch rate by. So those same 54 mass with a launch rate of two
squadrons per turn can now support 8 squadrons. Allowing him to increase
fighters on the board by 33% without any penalty is Not Cool.
But, cries he, there's a lower launch rate. Well, bullshit. All that means is
he spends a couple turns forming up his fighter groups early in the game. Very
rarely have I ever seen fighters actually survive their combat, exhaust their
endurance, land, rearm, and relaunch in the same battle. As a general rule
Full Thrust moves too fast for this to be a concern. and fighter casualties
are too heavy.
In order to compete (33% extra fighters would be significant,
especially in fighter-heavy fleets) everyone would have to adopt the
same scheme. The game already rewards soap bubble carriers enough, let's not
make it any cheaper in terms of mass and thus points to field them.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:02 AM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> As a general rule Full Thrust moves too fast for
And that's the crux of the issue. All the talk over the years about "fixing"
an attrition unit that, for rational games, really don't do all that much.
And yes...when used in abundance they cause issues but who really cares
anymore?
D.
I get where you are coming from John, but I have to disagree that the lower
launch rate isn't a sufficient penalty.
Let's say we've got a couple of soap bubbles with 90 Mass dedicated to
fighters. The first one is using standard figher bays. So he can carry and
launch 10 fighters in his first turn. The second carrier has 4 launch bays,
leaving him with 13 groups carried
in hangars. However, if those fighters require a turn of prep between launches
in his first turn he can launch 4 groups, by turn three he can have 8, by turn
five he can have 12 groups, and not until turn 7 can he have the last group
launch.
So in the first two turns the seperate launch bay carrier is outnumbered
in fighters by 5:1, turn three and four by 5:4, and by turn 5 will out number
the traditional carrier. More than likely many of those fighters
would be lost to attrition by turn 5. Also remember that the carrier cannot
manuever on those turns when it is launching fighters.
Meanwhile the traditional carrier could have rearmed/regrouped and
relaunched his fighter squadrons.
As you said Full thrust generally moves fast. You give up your own reaction
time and speed of attack to carry more fighters. This would seem to me to be
mainly an advantage in longer games, if you can keep your carrier and most of
your fighters intact...
... or if your opponent was lacking in fighters of his own, but then that is
still an issue regardless of what type of carriers your opt
for..
but as The TUFF (if David Hasselhoff can be the Hoff I think Tuffley can
be the TUFF) said it will have to be proved by playing... personally I think I
will try it out, I like the extra layer of complication..;)
Kevin
> On 22/02/2013 1:02 a.m., John Atkinson wrote:
wrote:
> But I also beleive like the player in question, the launch/recovery
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Kevin Hinton <thewonderclown@vodafone.co.nz
> wrote:
> I get where you are coming from John, but I have to disagree that the
> [carriers and fighters and tactical situations, oh my]
> but as The TUFF (if David Hasselhoff can be the Hoff I think Tuffley
As my playtest plate is totally full of a lot of other things right now, I
don't have time to try this out. But I look forward to your findings, Kevin.
Mk
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
If you know that you are going to have a lower launch rate then that
encourages people to make more use of specialist fighter types.
If the first 4 fighters are interceptors then they would do considerable
damage to the enemy fighter force thus reducing the outnumbering advantage.
personally I think the fighter type is way too good and players should be
chosing from interceptors or bombers (even if you PSB is that the change is
just a weapons fit change).
A very valid point.
> On 22/02/2013 1:53 p.m., John Tailby wrote:
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> personally I think the fighter type is way too good and players should
I've been advocating this for years - no standard fighter, just
interceptor
and bomber/torpedo fighter. Mind you, I'm afraid it's also been years
since my last FT game, and I don't even know where my FT books *are* at this
point, I'm ashamed to say.
If one posits that the carriers may jump into harms way, being able to flush
all fighters at once would go a long way to both enhancing carrier
survival as well as enhancing the combat effectiveness of your carriers in
rapidly evolving tactical situations.
I always figured the system was each bay for fighters was a aggregate launch
and recovery system that was larger the more bays you added.
Fundamentally separate systems that also allowed more flexibility for recovery
of gun boats and light orbit to surface shuttles and pinnances.
If one posits that the carriers may jump into harms way, being able to flush
all fighters at once would go a long way to both enhancing carrier
survival as well as enhancing the combat effectiveness of your carriers in
rapidly evolving tactical situations.
I always figured the system was each bay for fighters was a aggregate launch
and recovery system that was larger the more bays you added.
Fundamentally separate systems that also allowed more flexibility for recovery
of gun boats and light orbit to surface shuttles and pinnances.
Easily fixed, they're available for free from GZG here:
http://shop.groundzerogames.net/index.php?_a=viewCat&catId=130