Re: For Beth

In message <3CD9E07E.12504.83F69C@localhost>
	  "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:

> 1. let PDS attack every squadron that 
> attacks.
> 
> 1a. if so, adjust PDS to-hit *down* so ships 
> don't become
> invincible

Hmm... I don't really like this one, for a variety of reasons
> 
> 2. increase the points and mass up the 
> wazoo.

Not the MASS I think.

> 2a. Or tamper with requirements for 
> carriers, not fighters,
> to avoid soap bubbles.
A possibility
> 2b. Make a non-linear scaling for fighter 
> costs

Tricky to implement.
> 
> > 3. let class-2 and above take pot shots at 
> any range
> 3a. Randy's Proposal: let bigger weapons shoot 
> at "coasting" (nonCEF expending) fighters
> 3b. Like 3a, only I think big weapons should be 
> limited to killing one fighter each, or if you want 
> to roll all the dice together, maybe they should 
> fire as PDS. (Less effect than dedicated PDS/B-
> 1, though at range)

Well, IIRC, there was a proposal (cant remember when) to let any class
of Beam Battery shoot at fighters, but only in their extreme (1 dice)
range band, say needing a 6 or a 5-6 to kill 1 fighter (maybe with
re-rolls), with something similar for other weapons?
> 
> 4. adjust the effectiveness of PDS to close 
> to scatterpack

Umm.. do scatterguns get upgraded as well?
		^^^^
> 
> 5. shoot whoever started the thread.
> 5a. Shoot those complaining about the thread, 
> since they were probably complaining about the 
> flamewars which were our previous situation.... 
> <g>

You have three possible solitions;

1) Shoot the person that started the thread
2) Shoot the people who complain about the thread
3) Shot _everybody_

(inspired by Blackadder II)
> 
> 6. reduce the endurance of fighters
> 6a. charge endurance for every turn 
> fighters are in flight,
> not just combat and secondary moves
> 6b. charge endurance for:
>	- evasive movement
>	- secondary afterburn movement
>	- dogfights
>	NOT for coasting
>	NOT for attacks IF you're already 
> paying for evasive movement that turn
> This kind of goes with 3a or 3b. 
> 
> 7. Allow mixed tech (plasma, scatterpacks) 
> as a way of balancing fighters

Well, there are some human tech equivalents of these in the WDA
> 
> 8. Status Quo
> 
> 9. Reduce Fighter attack damage to 
> perhaps equivalent to a PDS instead of a B1

Maybe, or a 'halfway house' approach?
> 
> 10. Limit fighters attacking per ship to X 
> (6? some function of mass?)
> 10a. Limit fighters attacking per arc
> 
> Of course, there are probably mix and 
> match options, and some are probably 
> dependent on others. So you've probably 
> got at least 30 games to test various 
> feasible permutations... Fill Yer Boots! 
> 
> I think in eyeballing these things, we want 
> to ensure:
> 
> If fighter points don't change: 
> It would be ideal if small fighter groups are 
> made a bit more useful, large fighter 
> swarms are made a bit less useful (or a lot 
> less useful all at once).

Might be worth thinking of alternative uses for fighters - scouting
maybe?

> 
> If the points values change, then there may 
> be no need to change any rules. Of course, 
> both may need to change. 
> 
> It would a nice plus to introduce some 
> more tactical choices for the players (for 
> example coast/don't coast, which Multi-
> Role packet to kit my fighter out with, etc).

Could be a god idea.
> 
> It would be nice to make FB1 designs more 
> well balanced even against other FB1 
> designs. 
> 
> New (well I think) thought:
> Instead of wrangling over the fix/don't 
> fix/oh-my-god-carrier-are-useless 
> thinking.... why don't we think about it this 
> way - what do we want to model?
> 
> A) Carrier Ops like those in the modern day 
> - multi role fighters, carriers far apart 
> (probably off board) and the game is 
> defending against fighter strikes often with 
> massed fighters.
> 
> B) Standard game with carriers on the 
> board, standard ship types, one off play, 
> where we want fighters to be roughly point 
> costed correctly. 
> 
> C) WW2 Carrier games where fighters and 
> bombers and whatnot were more 
> specialized (probably didn't change from 
> one role to another in 15 mins)
> 
> D) Anime where a fighter squadron can 
> take apart a small fleet... 
> 
> By thinking in "model" or "genre" terms, we 
> could define a number of "rules mixes" and 
> costing modifiers. These could appear as 
> short entries in FB3/FT3/somewhere??? 
> and thus let Ryan play his game, Eric play 
> his, me play mine, etc. The "standard 
> rules" would fit definition B above but there 
> isn't a really good reason not to at least 
> give the nod to other types of gaming 
> unless their is a space crunch. (no puns 
> intended)
> 
> Tomb. 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Thomas Barclay
> Co-Creator of http://www.stargrunt.ca 
> Stargrunt II and Dirtside II game site
> 
> No Battle Plan Survives Contact With Dice.
> -- Mark 'Indy' Kochte
> ---------------------------------------------
>
I definately agree with the last bit.

Charles