Re: [FT] Yet Another Fighters Suggestion

Hugh Fisher wrote:

 >The problem: increasing the number of fighters in an attack ("stack of
 >doom") has a non-linear increase in effectivess. It is especially bad
 >in large scale battles using standard Fleet Book designs.

Agreed. Which is why Brian's proposal - increasing the cost of fighter 
groups - only moves the point of (non)balance a bit, but doesn't solve
it.

As for there not being any problems with the FT fighter rules, which 
Stiltman claims... well, personally I feel that having to use one 
overpowered system to balance another overpowered system is pretty clear

evidence that there are problems with a rule set; and at least on this
list 
Stiltman is a small but vocal minority in this particular matter :-/

[...]

 >My suggestion is a variation on numeric limits that doesn't require
any
 >changes to fighter movement or PDS fire. Limits have been suggested
 >before - the oldest I could find is Beth Fulton in the late 90s - and
 >nobody seems to have any objection other than the arbitrary nature of
a
 >fixed number. My idea os to make the limit vary consistently between
 >genres/settings in a predictable way so that players
 >(collective) have a degree of control.
 >
 >Add to the rules on fighters:
 >
 >	 A ship may only be attacked by fighters from a
 >	 single carrier in any given turn. This limit does
 >	 not apply to fighter vs fighter dogfights, or if
 >	 the ship is asteroid sized or larger.

Others have already pointed out the problems with your PSB, so I won't
go 
into that again.

The main game problem with this proposal, as with Alan's suggestion
which 
has already been playtested and rejected even more times than yours, is 
that 6+ fighter groups is enough to take out just about any FB1 ship 
smaller than a dreadnought - so if you use FB or FB-like ships, you get
yet 
another incentive to use dreadnoughts and larger ships only. Nice if you

want to play WW1-in-space rather than WW2-in-space, but it doesn't make
the 
game any more balanced...

(If you use custom designs, your proposal is completely ineffective
since 
the players can design any size of carrier they like anyway.)

 >Anyone else like to test it?

This and and several similar numerical limitations (including Alan's 
proposal and variants thereof) have already been tested. They all run
into 
the above problem with making dreadnoughts and larger even more
desirable 
than they already are; some of them have additional problems as well.

BTW Alan, you still haven't answered my questions about whether or not
you 
have actually playtested this proposed rules yourself...?

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry