Ban fighters. This would solve a lot of problems but make a lot of people very
unhappy. It depends in part on what your inspiration is. Mine is largely WW I
and earlier to I have no problems with it but if your model is Star Wars then
you are not going to be a happy camper.
Making shields more effective against fighter weapons. I love this idea. The
fighters have to wait until something (strike fighters?) can knock the shields
down. We should see a division between space superiority fighters and strike
fighters, the former are all but useless against ships while the latter are
dogmeat in a dogfight.
Developing from this what about increasing the specialisation of fighters? You
can have a dogfighter or a strike fighter but not one that can do both. The
Strike fighters can be limited in the number of attacks they can make  one
or two at most then they have to return to the CV and rearm.
The idea mutates again. Limit fighters to one attack against ships but
otherwise keep the rules as they are.
The latter two ideas are moving towards the WW II model which is probably the
best one to use.
> Michael Robert Blair wrote:
[...]
> Making shields more effective against fighter weapons.
Don't we have this already wrt interceptor and attack fighters?
> Developing from this what about increasing the
While it is not explicitly stated in the rules, I believe most people keep
"attack" and "intercept" fighter options seperate, not combining them into one
fighter (which would
be a bit cheesy and GW-y)
> The idea mutates again. Limit fighters to one attack
Torpedo fighters already have this limit placed on them. After they expend
their ordnance they act (iirc) with rather limited combat capability.
Mk
Oh, I think that fighters are fine the way that they are. The basic problem
is the same that many have stated before, in unbalanced one-off games,
or
games where home-designs are used it is almost impossible to control the
number of fighters unless there is a limit, either arbitrary (i.e. you get X
squadrons if you choose) to the less arbitrary (i.e. a campaign system where
the number of pilots in the 'pool' is limited in some way)
I favor a campaign system whenever possible, combined with a XP system for
pilots (hell, for all crews but that's a different matter)
There's nothing funnier than a guy who's built a carrier fleet and only has
'turkeys' for 3/4 of his squadrons, and the other 1/4 is still waiting
for the new recruits to get assigned...
Or the carrier fleet in a mini-campaign (multi-scenario) that only has
pilots for some of it's squadrons because it's lost too many in the previous
engagements.
All things in balance, that's what I say.
Randall mentioned fighters being relegated to "vulture" patrol but I sort of
like the idea. Of course I also base my concepts on Star Wars, I like to see
big capitol ships and small fighters all in one big mix, but it makes it
interesting to think that the fighters are sort of hanging around picking on
each other until someone gets separated from the herd!
Jason
[quoted original message omitted]
> Don't we have this already wrt interceptor and attack fighters?
...
> While it is not explicitly stated in the rules, I believe
...
> Torpedo fighters already have this limit placed on them.
...
Of course, but Michael appears to be making the case that these be used as the
basic fighter, with torpedo fighter limitations for the basic fighter attacks
on ships, as well as interceptors having no attack on ships. To some extent,
fighter endurance imposes the same limitations.
This would increase defense; interceptors more effective against fighters
while fighters lose some anti-ship teeth. I don't think this addresses
the
non-linearity that keeps being mentioned, though. And there in the idea
falls.
Does anyone else think either you make fighters more closely follow ship
mechanics, or you have to apply some defense-against-fighters that also
is
non-linear?
Thanks for the attempt, Michael. Keep swinging!
The_Beast
"Of course, but Michael appears to be making the case that these be used as
the basic fighter, with torpedo fighter limitations for the basic fighter
attacks on ships, as well as interceptors having no attack on ships."
I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea. Especially if there is any sort
of sequence in the game where you can establish interceptors go before
fighter/bombers. Then when you decide to build your soap bubble you
still have to decide whether or not you are packed with bombers or
interceptors or a mix, and if you have all bombers and you opponent brings a
few interceptor squadrons along then so help you!
> I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea. Especially if there is
Neither do I, IF you're trying to expand the presence of fighters in the game.
I seem to recall similar attempts in the past running up against the basic
simplicity of the whole game, and the group in the main having a distaste with
increasing the complexity of the basic fighter mechanics beyond a certain
point.
Of course, I'm not certain my ideas don't increase complexity, either, but the
'limit the number of attacking squadrons' only kicks in in fairly large,dense
fighter battles.
The_Beast
Well, I don't have a good understanding of the mechanics of the game so
couldn't say whether the interceptor bomber idea would be more complicated but
just from a general gaming standpoint I don't see it being very complicated at
all.
Jason
[quoted original message omitted]