RE: Re: Fighters

In message <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1020504001023.4807B-100000@vtn1>
	  Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

> I'm afraid I'm pretty much in the "Fighters as written Are Too
Powerful"
> camp.
> 
> For starters, they cost (SWAG here) about half what they're worth, for
the
> stock rules. Maybe not half, but they're way underpriced right now.
> 
> Either double the price, or redo the fighter weapon systems as PDS -
kill
> 1 fighter on a 4,5; 2 on 6; do one point of damage to a ship on a 6.
Let
> interceptors kill 1 fighter w/ 4; 2 on 5,6; no damage possible to
ships.
> Leave the torp fighters as is - they're balanced. This has the
advantage
> of making the fighter & anti-fighter weapons use the same mechanic.
(KISS
> principle)
> 
> Having a half-range B1 that can't be killed beyond 6" away, and can't
be
> killed unless it's actually attacking you, sucks royally.
> 
> I'm talking FB-stock ships/fleets here, not custom oddness. I'll grant
> that you can balance fighters with custom ship designs with all the
costs
> as they are, but with the FB ships as they are fighters are too cheap.
> 
> Lots of personal preference here, of course. Using historical naval
> examples, I'm much more likely to play 1915 High Seas Fleet vs
Germans, or
> Hunt the Bismark than Midway. Having your real ships just lie there
and be
> swarmed by fighters has always struck me - historically and in FT - as
an
> incredibly boring game. There are, basically, no tactics beyond the
> ship-design stage if you play FT this way. Real ships can't outrun
> fighters and get creamed by massive swarms when caught. Why bother
putting
> the figures on the table in the first place?
> 
> My $0.02,
> 
> Brian - yh728@victoria.tc.ca -
> - http://wind.prohosting.com/~warbard/games.html -
> 
I've had similar thoughts, but motivated more by feelings of style and
PSB than game balance - at first glance, a standard fighter does the
same damage as a class-1 beam battery
_that_is_at_least_as_big_as_the_fighter_, abet with half the range -
although the disparity becomes less when the fact that the fighter can
only attack a limited number of times without re-arming is taken into
consideration.

Although I'd still like something similar to what you proposed...my
version wasn't quite as drastic:

multirole fighter - as written vs. fighters, does 1 DP on a 5+ vs. ships
(6s re-rolled), level-1 screen reduces this to 1 DP on a 6, and level-2
screens negate the re-roll.

Interceptors & torpedo fighters are unchanged

Attack fighters are as written vs. fighters, but do 1 standard beam die
vs. ships.

Some time ago I did suggest a fairly radical simplification to Full
Thrust fighters, one that, to a certain extent, harked back to the
original FT 2 rules

#################################################
Simplified Fighter Rules

Fighters move _after_ ships (remove phase 3 from the FB 2 turn sequence,
fighters move during Phase 6)

Fighters do not need to check morale

Fighters can make _one_ and only _one_ effective attack (they
effectively have one CEF)

Long-Range and Fast fighters become synonymous.

Fighters do not make secondary moves.

Fighters that are attacked after making their attack are treated as if
they had exhausted their CEF
#################################################

Another idea is again to have fighters move _after_ ships, but moving
like ships, but without written orders - I'm sure someone out there has
tried this - how did it work?

Charles