Prev: Re: FT Intellectual exersice? (long) Next: Re: [OT] Columbia

(fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@h...>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 08:48:30 -0600
Subject: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

Oerjan is still working at getting his home computer put together, so he
asked
me to forward this on to the list...

Allan

---

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:32:54 +0100 , Ohlson Örjan
<orjan.ohlson@dynamics.saab.se> wrote:

Hi Allan,

no, I *still* haven't managed to hook the computer up :-( So once again
I
have to ask if could you forward this to the main GZG list for me... :-/

CS Renegade wrote:

>>Oerjan asked me to forward this on to the mailing list.
>>He's currently reassembling his computer at home, as he is
>>currently in the middle of a move.
>
>I'm impressed. The last thing I'd want to do in the middle
>of a move is worry about a tricky issue like fighters.

I've been worrying about the FT fighter balance issue for the past
several
years, so I would've been more impressed if I had managed to *stop*
worrying
about it just because I'm moving house... besides, it gives me a reason
to
take a short break from unpacking stuff <g>

>>Not only did it nullify screens against fighters; it also
>>raised a bunch of... interesting questions about Heavy,
>>Attack and Torpedo fighters, and also about how ADFC are
>>intended to work. (Plus of course the ones about SMs
>>and PBs that Allan asked earlier.)
>
>The old FT grade 3 screen certainly cut fighter attacks down to size.

As long as the fighters were beam-armed (ie., not Torpedo-armed) ones,
yes.
Trouble was, the level-3 screens cut all *other* beam weapons (ie., the
ship-mounted variety) down as well, and not just to to size but all the
way
down to outright impotence - which made any weapon which ignored
screens,
eg. P-torps, very valuable indeed.

[Revised fighter CRT snipped]

>Unfortunately this doesn't work, at several levels.

Right on target :-)

[Examples why the revised CRT doesn't work snipped]

>>(Side note: although the re-rolls are described as an
>>"recommended optional rule" rather than a compulsory one
>>in FB1, the various weapon costs are determined assuming
>>that it is in use - so if you don't use it, you'll
>>probably find beams to be a fair bit underpowered /
>>overpriced compared to P-torps and K-guns)
>
>No, but then I wouldn't permit designs armed exlusively with PTs, 

...presumably because the absence of beam rerolls make them overpowered
:-/

>and I've never fought modern KV. Are there any
>figures to suggest what the increase in the price of PTs
>(probably the easier way of looking at it) should be? 

About 1 pt/Mass (so 4xMass for P-torps, 5xMass for K-guns). Not so much
for
a single ship, but it adds up quickly if you use many of them.

>> On PDS vs SMs:
>
>>> .. when rolling for the number of missiles in each salvo
>>> that strike, deduct the ship's PDS rating. If that makes
>>> PDS too weak, try adding 1 to the PDS rating if the
>>> target is under thrust.

>> If it makes PDS too *weak*? I'd say that they make PDSs
>> much too *strong* instead...
>
>It's too late for me to trot out the progression needed to
>calculate the reroll, so leaving that aside each PDS
>currently shoots down 0.66 of a salvo missile.

Er... not exactly; you've not taken the probability of overkilling the
missile salvoes into account here, so you overestimate the PDS kills a
bit
even before the "not all PDSs get to fire" bit. If only one PDS fired at
each SM salvo *and* every SM salvo rolled a '2' or higher for the number
of
missiles on target, *then* each PDS would shoot down on average 0.666...
missiles - but that's not a very realistic scenario :-/

If (which is the normal case) the SM salvo rolls a normal D6 (ie.,
roughly 1
salvo in 6 only gets 1 missile on target, then the average PDS missile
kills
per salvo become:

#PDS:	No PDS re-roll: With PDS re-roll:	PDS gives -1 to SM roll:
1	0.64		0.71		1.00
2	0.60		0.66		0.92
3	0.56		0.61		0.83

As you can see, your "PDS gives -1 to SM roll" variant allows each PDS
to
shoot down some 35-40% more missiles *per shot* than the current rule
with
rerolls, and around 50% more missiles *per shot* than the current rule
without rerolls. That's quite a lot.

>The rating proposal has each PDS bagging 1 missile with no
>chance of failure, and repeating the performance for every
>separate salvo that attacks. However, there are far fewer
>PDS under this system than there currrently are. 

There are fewer *PDSs* with a 2%-of-TMF mass cost, but since each of
these
enlarged PDSs can fire at an infinite number of attacking missile
salvoes
(and fighter groups) each turn instead of at just a single one, the
number
of PDS *shots* is unlikely to be any lower - and when in addition each
PDS
shot has its firepower increased by 35-50%, the end result is a
significant
increase in PDS firepower vs salvo missiles.

>From my very limited experience with salvo missiles, a
>stronger defence against massed attack would be no bad
>thing. I've had too many players reduced to gibbering "what
>'appened to me spaceship?" to allow salvo missiles on
>anything more than a token basis.   

As you say, your experience with salvo missiles is very limited. I
strongly
suspect that if you had had more experience with them, you would have
figured out effective counters to them fairly quickly just like
virtually
all FT gaming groups who play often I know of have done. (At the moment
I
can't think of any, but since I've probably forgotten one I put that
"virtually" before the "all" :-/ ) 

>>> Even when a very large vessel is under attack, how much
>>> do B1s add to the defence?
>
>> It is for the SMALL ships, up to about DD size, that the
>> B1s' PD capabilities have their largest impact.
>
>Statistically that is very true. But also irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Sorry, but that's bull.

This extra PD firepower is very relevant indeed when a small ship comes
under fighter attack (which is the main subject of this thread, right?)
since the fighter casualties add up from turn to turn, and also when it
is
hit by a single salvo missile salvo where the pair of B1s significantly
increase the probability of the ship getting away with no damage at all.
If
the ship is hit by two or more SM salvoes, then it is of course most
likely
toast.

>I can see that this has turned into a "knock the salvo missile"
posting. 

Yep :-/ Very similar to the ones we used to have in the first few months
after FB1 was published and no-one had figured out effective anti-SM
tactics, in fact <g>

As for the low-speed problem, a thrust-4 ship needs to fly at speed 8 or
so
in order to be able to dodge a single SM salvo. Formations need to fly
faster, of course; how much faster depends on the size of the formation
-
but even if a  dodge doesn't take the formation completely out of the
missiles' attack envelopes, it often causes the missiles to attack the
wrong
target. (Cf. Imre's irritation of having two Lenov-class scouts draw a
large
number of missiles away from their intended targets <g>)

>> FB1 was ... corrected a couple years or three ago.
>
>Well at least Jon's got a sale out of this. Having brought up
>the subject of the old errors I now feel morally obliged to go
>and get a new copy. Unless {chortle} FT3 is going to be
>available at Salute this year?

Don't think so :-( (Even if it does, I doubt if it'll have any FB1
errata in
it - it'd be both cheaper and quicker to make a single-page errata sheet
:-/
)

Later,

Oerjan

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"We come into the world and take our chances
 Fate is just the weight of circumstances
 That's the way that Lady Luck dances
 Roll the bones." - N. Peart

Prev: Re: FT Intellectual exersice? (long) Next: Re: [OT] Columbia