Prev: Re: DSII Question- Obstacles Next: Re: Ceasefire and Summary (was FT Background)

Re: Fighter Balance Issues (LONG)

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:32:19 +0000
Subject: Re: Fighter Balance Issues (LONG)

>On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:32:35 +0000, Ground Zero Games
><> wrote:
>>Another SUGGESTION (rather than a tested rule) is that we increase
>>endurance to 6 turns rather than 3, but add an extra twist: if using
>>fighter movement (ie: before ships), a fighter group that finds itself
>>far from its target to attack may take an extra move (maybe 12") after
>>movement, and then attack - but doing so costs it one turn's worth of
>>combat endurance (hence the increase to 6 CE, to give a few to spare).
>>may get round some of the criticisms of the MT move sequence, while
>>preserving the reasons we like it. Opinions?
>I like it! I haven't thought through all the implications, but it does
>make an interesting compromise. I had no problem with the movement
>system in MT but some did. This might make a good mix that everyone
>could live with.
>Allan Goodall
>"Once again, the half time score,
> Alien Overlords: 142,000. Scotland: zip."
>  - This Hour Has 22 Minutes

Glad you like the idea - if anyone feels like trying it in play, please
us know the results!
The PSB feels right to me - to conserve power for combat manoeuvring,
fighters will commit themselves to an approach vector based on where
think the target will be when they arrive, but if the target changes
radically and they see they will not make the intercept they are agile
enough to make the necessary sudden course change, but at the penalty of
using a lot of precious fuel/power. Combined with upping fighter basic
movement to 24" or even 36", this should make fighters able to chase
any but the fastest-moving and most agile ships, but at a price.

Jon (GZG)

Prev: Re: DSII Question- Obstacles Next: Re: Ceasefire and Summary (was FT Background)