[FT] Fighters (the bleeding continues)

I find it interesting that people talk about how changing the stats for
a given system will produce an unrealistic result, as if an initial
statistical representation is somehow sacrosanct and "realistic". The
original values were tested under a limited range of situations, the
original point totals derived by fallible human beings. There is no
sacrosanct comparison to some "realistic" set of values... as far as I
know, no one has yet built a space fighter OR a working FT PDS suite. In
fact, since the game is generic, we don't even know WHAT that is
exactly. So how exactly can numbers be more or less realistic given our
near total ignorance? They cannot. 

It is quite possible with laser based PDS suites and the kind of fire
control the FT universe would absolutely require that nothing short of
hundreds of fighters could stand any chance to overwhelm the average PDS
system. PDS that engaged ALL targets is as realistic (depending on the
technologies involved) as PDS that does not. In fact, it may be that no
fighter occupied by a human can handle the kind of manouverability that
would be required to actually avoid PDS at all, so anytime you were
inside the PDS range, you'd pretty much be dead. Modern PDS systems are
fairly dangerous to anything (missile, but especially large air target)
that gets inside the effective range. 20mmm or 30mm has a nasty way of
ruining your day. 

This means little, referring to the original thought that we have no
idea what these PDS systems really are. They could be lasers,
slugthrowers, fragmenting charges, etc. Oerjan has already suggested
that the PDS system rolls may represent a multi-layer defense with
missiles/guns/charges all abstracted into one roll. Who knows? Since we
don't, all we can argue about is what kind of genre we want to simulate
and how. And there isn't any good reason to say one genre is
better/worse. Everyone has unique tastes.

And those who are arguing for "realism".... <my ribs hurt that's so
funny>. You're talking about speeds of 60,000 kph and rather ludicrious
long term accelerations. You're believing in anti-grav. But you can't
believe PDS that attacks everything or a limitation on the number of
fighter groups attacking a ship? (ha ha hahahaha!)

Okay, now that I've recovered from paroxysms of laughter at the
ridiculous... (and a smirk at John A. chiding people for poor manners...
good shot John....)

...what is it about the idea of having a variety of PDS/fighter rules
and letting each player group that wants to simulate a genre pick to
their taste that is so disturbing to some folks? Seemed to me Jon T was
quietly speaking up in favour of such an inclusionary approach. Seems to
me those jumping on his head saying "X is the timescale and Y is the
movement rate when both are explicitly vague ON PURPOSE" is kind of
besides the point. 

Jon has indicated his model for fighters to attack ships was more the
Pearl Harbour/Star Wars fly in close, fire your laser canons, get out
model. That model suggests ranges at max of a few kilometers, maybe even
a few hundred meters. The 6" range (and no, don't bother telling me that
is 6000km because it IS NOT.... it MAY be 6000km, or it may be 6000m....
no one can say since this is intentionally left vague!) represents how
close you have to be to initiate your attack run. During that turn, you
make the run in, fire an attack, and peel back out, taking PDS fire all
the while. That doesn't represent stand off weapons, but if you only
have a 1km or less sphere around the ship that constitutes final attack
distance, you can well justify resolving the fighter attacks in waves. 

People have cited historical examples of fighters attacking in waves of
up to 9. Of course, most of the historical footage I've seen shows 1-2
fighters coming in at a time. You might have 9 attacking from a
squadron, but maybe all 9 aren't diving at the same target at the same
instant. Or maybe they are. But limiting to squadrons of 6 for space
fighters is entirely believable, until we have a workable mechanic for
squadrons of arbitrary size. 

I think those of you so concerned with "realistic" models, or so
concerned with making the game "unplayable" just because suddenly
fighters are a bit more evenly balanced - you might want to check out
Harpoon. It's nice and realistic. And about as much fun for most people
as collecting pocket lint. 

FT is an ostensibly generic game. A truly generic game enables the
simulation of any genre by providing alternatives/options/genre rules
packets/costings. FT isn't quite there yet. The idea of going there
shouldn't be terribly disturbing to anyone, since the end result would
be you could keep things as is, add in one of the generic packets, etc.
- pretty much play the way YOU want to. I don't see anything to be
gained from saying "Darn it, my model is right, all the others blow
goats and should not be allowed!". 

Don't be selfish.... try to think in an inclusionary manner and instead
of saying "Well, X player is playing in an immature style" or "FB1
fleets just suck" or "...if he'd brought this combination of things"....
where does that get us and how does it improve the experience for new
players? How does conforming another player to YOUR particular bias
about how things "should be" improve the quality of their experience
with the game? It doesn't. So what does it buy us as the GZG community
or Jon as a guy trying to make a living selling stuff? Nada.

FB1 designs aren't sacrosanct, but for practical reasons, no one is
likely to try to reissue them. Part of the future of the game is
preserving value for the players who have already spent a pile on
existing books. FB1 rules aren't sacrosanct (God knows some FB2 SV rules
are a bit bent....). FB1 costings aren't sacrosanct. All of these things
are ARBITRARILY SELECTED in the first place, so there is no issue of
HOLY CANON here. Just the practical question of "what can we do to make
the game more fun for more people"? If that means some alternate rules
by genre and alternate costings, so be it. That excludes no-one. If it
means NPV corrections (easily published in one chart) to FB costings, so
be it. FB per-SSD changes or new systems are less likely as invalidating
all the FB1 designs is a greater problem. 

So we move forward in a practical, inclusionary fashion. And at the end
of the day, if you can't play nice and share the universe...... 

Tomb.