RE: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

Toward the end of last May's listfest I concluded that some members
might be developing a quite reasonable aversion to the F-word; my
F***ters folder contains 437 items (I discarded the few items that
didn't contribute anything to the substance of the ongoing discussion
and hoovered up a few other items from outside that period).

Consequently I've taken the unusual step of putting a spoiler space
in this article in order to protect those who now flinch at the
slightest mention of...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

FIGHTERS! (This is your last chance to click Exit)

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> From: ~ On Behalf Of Laserlight
> Sent: 30 January 2003 04:10
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [FT] Operational game

> The test list has come up with what appears to be a solution;
> there are a few quirks but they're being worked out.

Joking aside, I'm not going to let this august group of 
individuals trundle out a solution I held off posting last year
in order to protect the fraught and screenworn.

Fighters assume their numbers-to-effectiveness problem because
the system permits them to flood the target. A few fighters are
completely ineffective (they get shot down without causing much
damage) but a large number of fighters are devasting because no
matter how large the attack, the defences only bring down the
same small number of attackers. The rest get a clear run in.

Make PDS effectiveness relative to % of ship's tonnage spent on it.

A certain degree of PSB is necessary to cover what is basically
a patch to game balance, but better authors than I have not
shied away from this type of solution.

I suppose that after that intro, I'd better post the original
draft...

 [FT] Fighters - a radical solution
 May 10th, 20002 (never posted)

 Not being fond of the task of painting, mounting
 and invariably repairing any significant number of
 fighter models, I find the idea of making the
 trivial number of fighters on FB1 ships effective
 whilst discouraging "soap scum" highly attractive.

 It's been suggested that each PDS could shoot at
 every approaching fighter. A large vessel may then
 festoon itself with PDS and make the approach of
 any fighters (in any number) suicidal.

 PART IV - A NEW (?) IDEA*
 ========================
 Why not go a step beyond this and use the same
 mechanism as shields? Instead of buying individual
 PDS batteries, we would specify X% of the ship
 for PDS. Each percentage would provide one PDS
 symbol capable of engaging all fighters.

 To fulfil the objective of keeping FB1 designs
 viable (and I'm not deaf to the arguments for and
 against this) I was considering either 1% or 2% of
 total MASS per PDS. Working outside of this box,
 it may be desirable to set a much higher figure. I
 had hoped that rounding would make PDS impractical
 for very small vessels such as strikeboats and
 banzai jammers, but this would appear to not be
 the case.

 I'm not certain what the cost of this new system
 should be. The existing FB figure would indicate 3
 points per MASS of PDS. When translating existing
 FB1 ships, I would suggest that the result be
 limited both by mass and points already committed
 to PDS:

 (read this table using a non-proportional font)

	     old PDS  TMF    %	PTS  @1%  @2%
 Ticonderoga	   2   30  6.6	  6    2    2
 Vandenburg	   2   80  2.5	  6    2    1	 
 Victoria	   3  120  2.5	  9    2    1  
 Valley Forge	   4  190  2.1	 12    2    1
 Waldburg	   2   30  6.6	  6    2    2
 MarkGraf	   3   82  3.6	  9    3    2
 Maria Von Burgend 4  120  3.3	 12    3    2
 Von Tegethoff	   4  200  2.0	 12    2    1
 San Miguel	   2   34  5.8	  6    2    2
 Jerez		   2   88  2.7	  6    2    1
 Roma		   4  110  3.6	 12    3    2 
 Foch		   6  250  2.4	 18    2    1
 Warsaw 	   1   28  3.5	  3    1    1
 Gorshov	   2   70  2.8	  6    2    1
 Petrograd	   3  138  2.1	  9    2    1	
 Komarov	   4  220  1.8	 12    2    1

 In combat, an important limitation would be that
 no more than 3 PDS could be used in a turn; any
 others are backup systems along for the ride.
 There is no allocation of PDS against attacking
 squadrons; just roll the dice against every one.

 Here is a table showing the probability of the
 possible outcomes. I've ignored re-rolls since I
 don't use the reroll rule in general.
 
 Losses: 0/6   1/6   2/6   3/6	 4/6   5/6   6/6
   PDS	p(%)  p(%)  p(%)  p(%)	p(%)  p(%)  p(%)
    1	50.0  33.3  16.7    -	  -	-     -
    2	25.0  33.3  27.8  11.1	 2.8	-     -
    3	12.5  25.0  29.3  20.3	 9.8   2.7   0.4

 All PDS (up to the system limit) fire at all
 approaching fighters, so as more dice are thrown
 the likely overall outcome will tighten toward the
 average casualty rates. These are 11% if one PDS,
 22% if two and 33% if three.

 PART V - THE SYSTEM STRIKES BACK
 ================================
 Throw away the PDS roll and the fighter attack.
 Roll one die per fighter. Deduct one from turkey
 dice and add one to ace dice, so you can now have
 mixed squadrons if you really want to.

 Die:  0    1	 2    3    4	5    6	  7
 PDS
  0    M    M	 1    1    1	R    R	  R    
  1    D    D	 M    M    1	1    R	  R    
  2    D    D	 M    M    M	1    R	  R
  3    D    D	 D    M    M	M    1	  R

 M: Missed. If fighters are only allowed one ship
    attack per sortie, it's back to the carrier.
 1: Hit. One point of damage scored.
 R: Hit and Reroll  

 If a fighter is destroyed by a re-roll, the
 original point of damage stands.

 There are some fairly horrendous balance issues
 here. Fighters would ignore shields and would be
 rolling to attack before taking any losses from
 PDS fire. Against this, the potential increase in
 system speed is considerable.

 PART VI - RETURN OF THE NEEDLE
 ==============================

 If a fighter scores a reroll when re-rolling
 the dice, the squadron converts it into a needle
 hit. The needle target is chosen at that point.
 A squadron can only achieve one needle hit per
 turn unless the target is the drive; in all
 other cases each excess needle hit becomes one
 point of damage.

* I'm quite prepared to carry this joke to its
  natural conclusion if anyone can tell me the
  correct Part III title to start from.

=================================================
End of draft. Please accept my utmost apologies if this
suggestion was posted in any form back in May; one reason
this never hit the list was because I was always trying
to keep up with the traffic on the subject. 

Nathan "should I have used the label [long]?" Girdler