RE: Soap bubbles?

*shrug*  Considering all the other suspensions of disbelief, fighters
are 
small potatoes, IMHO.

Things like, energy shields stop beams, not fighters, come to mind.  Or,

fighters have specialized equipment to pierce shields.	etc. etc. etc.

I like em.  That's usually enough for me to come up with whatever 
Justification I need for something to "exist" in a given universe. 
They're 
not magic hand waving technology, and I think, when the rules finally
come 
out of the playtest group, they'll be useful but not 
overly-powerful.  (Cause I gotta have faith, de-faith de-faith...)

Rand.

At 03:46 PM 2/18/03 -0800, you wrote:
>I think fighters pose sort of a conundrum in sci fi gaming at this
scale.
>If you include the idea that shields help to protect a ship, energy
shields
>of some sort, then you probably have to assume that those shields are
strong
>enough to resist a few shots from another capitol ship, otherwise why
>bother?  Then you have to decide whether fighters can carry the sort of
>weaponry that could penetrate a ships shields.  If not then like you
said,
>they get relegated to the role of vulture, attacking ships whose
shields
>have finally dropped.	This doesn't seem like a necessarily bad option
in my
>book.
>However some people want their fighters to be more like bombers as
well,
>together united they pose a threat to those larger ships and so you
have to
>swarm them to make them effective.
>In my own opinion I don't see fighters as necessarily being a decisive
>factor in a space battle.  There are the exceptions (the Death Star
fiasco
>comes to mind) but in general it would seem to me that at the level
most sci
>fi games are, they are generally for harassment and picking off the
limping
>ships that have basically been softened up.
>If you so choose to make fighters a decisive factor in your background
then
>you have to decide how to limit them, because ultimately if they are
>effective, why not go out into space with tons of them and just swarm
your
>opponents to death?  You could put limiting factors like ammunition
fuel and
>all that but really, in a sci fi universe, are those really a serious
matter
>with lasers and fusion generators?
>I think ultimately you have to deal with one side or the other, either
they
>are going to be so decisive in numbers as to seem skewed, or they are
going
>to be so ineffective even in numbers that you may not see them much at
all!
>
>Jason
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Randall Joiner [mailto:rljoiner@mindspring.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 8:31 PM
>To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: RE: Soap bubbles?
>
>
>No harm, no foul.  (Yeah, I've been to thinned skinned at times, not
here)
>
>I apologize if I came off as negative.  Half of that was working it out
in
>my head as I typed.
>
>I hate to be a rules lawyer, or appear to be, but having a good
foundation
>(as FT is most definitely) can be extremely helpful...  Which is why
I'm
>trying to work with them, instead of player wise.
>
>Basically, I want to use fighters, I do, I really really do.  Not to
many,
>but they appeal to my tastes extremely well.  But I _really_ don't like
>them the way they are.  If you bring them in small groups, say a NSL or
NAC
>ship that mounts a single fighter bay, they should be worth
>something.  Certainly worth the points you spend.  But they're not.  If
you
>DO bring enough, it's always going to be TOO many.  Both in effect, AND
in
>that they then become your primary strategy.  I want the middle ground,
>where they're part of a mixed/balanced fleet, and having them helps,
but
>they're not everything.  Right now, the only real use I can get out of
them
>are as vultures and "unfair" scouts.  Neither of which are they really
>suited for as they stand (although the SWAC Ryan has is a beautiful
>construction, and great idea).
>
>I grant that spirit of gaming is a good and necessary thing, but it
doesn't
>solve the fighter problem...
>
>Rand.
>
>
>
>
>At 02:08 PM 2/18/03 -0800, you wrote:
> >In case I came off wrong in that last post Randall, I pretty much
>understand
> >all your points.  I have been war gaming, as I am sure most of you,
for
> >along long time now and I see this sort of thing all the time.  One
of your
> >main points I think is the crux of the issue when it comes down to
it, is
> >creativity, and not limiting.  Human beings, and especially gamers :)
are
> >going to find these odd little loopholes, and they will find them
almost
> >every time.	That's why I always talk about the "spirit" of gaming or
a
> >game.  I loose almost as much as I win when I play war games, but I
enjoy
>it
> >almost every time, and I think for me part of that has to do with not
> >sticking harshly to the letter of the law so much as the idea.
> >In the area I live I end up introducing a lot of younger kids to war
>gaming.
> >Almost every time, some kid shows up a few weeks after learning to
play a
> >game and he has an army in hand, but it's all one type of the baddest
> >miniature you can have in the game, or he has tweaked his army to
>ridiculous
> >lengths.  Eventually though they find that those sorts of games get
old.
> >In this case, I would love to see mobs of starfighters swarming the
table,
> >that sort of Star Wars feel, but at the end of the day, I think
personally
>I
> >would mostly just like to walk away having enjoyed playing the game!
> >
> >
> >Jason
> >This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information
> >intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by
law.
>If
> >you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. 
Any
> >disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking
of any
> >action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
>
>This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information
>intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by
law.  If
>you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. 
Any
>disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of
any
>action based on it, is strictly prohibited.