Re: Fighters and Hangers

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Bingo. And given the rather massive advantages they can gain from
> doing this while using the rest of the published Full Thrust fighter 
> rules, I don't you'd find it particularly funny if you were on the 
> recieving end of it.

I *have* been on the receiving end of it, but it was in situations
where I expected it to be powerful.  Specifically, Minbari in groups of
3's, SW Rebels in groups of 4's, and SW TIE/Advanced and TIE/Defenders
also in groups of 4's.	The last two compared to TIE/F's, TIE/I's, and
TIE/B's in 6's.  However, in all of these cases it was done to
represent the superiority of the special units in question, so any
additional unbalancing got lost in the noise of the butt-kicking they
were doing anyways.

> 
> The sizes of *small craft* bays OTOH are variable, and have been
> since FB1 was published. That is the game-mechanics reason (as 
> opposed to the PSB reason) why fighters can't use small craft bays.

The game mechanics reason is to prevent the variable size fighter bay
(and hence V-S fighter group) possible by inference if the two types
are multi-use, right?

> 
> Bingo. Which exactly is why I want to replace the entire fucked-up FT
> 
> fighter rules complex with something that works... but I can't get
> any such new rules into [OFFICIAL] print until FT3 gets published.

Why not?  Why can't there be a section (page or two) of Fleet Book 3
containing a full replacement for the fighter rules?

RE: crossover games
> 
> >The designs that he has are (IMO) to give flavor to a game, rather
> >than to try to give a relative representation of the various 
> >designs, which you would want to do if playing within a specific 
> >setting. Even taking just the designs of a single setting, they are
> >not scaled to each other within that setting.  E.g. the SD's and 
> >MCC's are undersized and the corellian freighter is oversized when 
> >compared to the Nebulon (taking an arbitrary reference from the 
> >available choices).
> 
> Their *mass ratings* might be over- and undersized; I don't have good
> enough sources to check. But are their relative *performances* over- 
> or undervalued (relative to the other ships from the same background,

> that is)? The only measuring stick we have for that are the movies
> and the various computer games - and they show pretty conclusively
> that the performance of the various ships does not scale linearly
> with their respective masses :-/

Although I agree with the letter of that statement, I think I am
thinking the exact opposite of what you meant, i.e. I would add "as the
larger ships are significantly more efficient"

>
> >I can think of only two on-screen instances of fighters damaging SW
> >capitals, both appear to be special cases:
> 
> Bingo. Both of which are easily represented in Full Thrust as failed 
> threshold checks. Sure, we never see a fighter attack actually
> destroy an SD - but we never actually see an SD destroy an MCC 
> on-screen either, or even a Nebulon-B. Should we take that to mean 
> that SDs can only inflict insignificant damage on MCCs other than 
> in special cases?

Only if you consider only the films.  If you expand the references to
consider "X-Wing" and "TIE Fighter", then there are many instances of
escorts and capital ships killing each other, and the two instances
that I mentioned are special cases of a needle attack allowed in a
point-blank strafing attack and a kamikazi run best represented as a
role-playing incident rather than an occurrence common to FT.

> 
> >1) I specifically excluded the SSD in my original post as I feel it
> >is beyond the scale of the game.
> 
> And the *only* reason why you feel this is that you have decided 
> on a mass scale which is too low to fit it. Dean's Excecutor design
> is TMF ~1600, ie. about the maximum you'd consider playable; 

No, I said "Anything much larger than a 1600m ISD or 1800m battlestar",
as in 1600m = "1600 meters".  When I mean mass of ship in game terms I
say "mass", "MASS", or "TMF".

> to escort it he used TMF 300-ish ISDs and TMF 160-ish Victory-class 
> SDs.

Using the TMF 300 ISD as a gage, a TMF 160 VSD seems about right, but
then I would expect a SSD to be TMF 6000-8000.

> >Makes it the same size as B5 ("Five miles long..."), as well 
> >as the EF Explorer class.

> Both of which are HUGE compared to the normal warships in the show,
> including even the largest Minbari war cruisers.

In the same way that the SSD is "HUGE" compared to ISDs and MCCs.

If you watch carefully, when Minbari WCs pass *behind* B5 (so
perspective is making them look smaller, not larger), the distance from
top fin to bottom fin is comparable to the top-to-bottom distance of
the photo-electric panels on B5 itself.  And comparing EAS Schwartzkopf
and any number of Omega class, the Cent. Emperor's ship, and the "Narn
Star Cruiser G'Tak" to B5 when they are stationary close by shows them
to be on the order of 1/4 to 1/6 the length of B5.  That puts them in
the 2000 meter range, same as ISDs and battlestars.

> >2b)SW:ISB also attributes to the SSD an additional 60+ shuttles, 
> >assault transports and blastboats, as well as a ground corps of 
> >72,000 troops, 6,600 heavy vehicles, 25 AT-ATs, 50 AT-STs, and 3
> >pre-fabricated ground bases.

> Since we never see the shuttles and transports actually shooting at 
> anything in space on-screen 

We do in the games.  They are lousey with Lambda shuttles, assault
shuttles, transports, and assault transports.  For FT it is a good way
for adding the boarding rules to have 3-6 assault shuttles go for the
Nebulon when it's shields are down.  They are also very good for having
games where the *objective* is to capture a specific enemy ship or
personage, rather than just an option with all your other weapons.

Another option is for transports to serve as tenders to reload your
TIE/B's without having to return to the hanger.

> and the ground troops for obvious reasons are unable to do so, 
> none of these are relevant for Full Thrust purposes.

a) see above for boarding parties.
b) More Thrust has an applicable quip in the boarding rules section
about boarding assault ships :)

> >At 4 CS per trooper and 50 CS per MASS, ...

> you're applying an inappropriate Mass scale from a completely 
> different background universe for the specific purpose of making the 
> example look ridiculous so you can ignore them.

No, I am applying the scale from the "Full Thrust/Dirstside II
Interface".

> If the mass scale changes, the number of CS per mass changes with it
- 

Quite obviously.  Simply apply the same factor used for fighters to CS,
i.e. if 12 TIEs = 1 FT fighter group, then apply a factor of 2.  If the
72 TIE wing = 1 FT group, then apply a factor of 12.  If the entire
small craft complement of an ISD = 1 FT fighter, then apply a factor of
100.  Not a hard concept.  I thought everyone could do that one on
their own.

> unless of course you believe that each individual trooper becomes a 
> hundred times larger when you change the mass scale from 1 Mass = 100
> tons to 1 Mass = 10,000 tons :-/

Maybe if they are Zentraedi :)

My point was that adding an 90,000 CS worth of ground forces makes a
significant contribution to the TMF of an ISD, whether you use the 50:1
ratio of MT or count a further scaling factor to make it 100:1, 600:1,
or 5000:1.

> >3) WEG's SW:Rebel Alliance SB attributes 36 fighters (3x SW
squadrons)
> >to the Mon Cal cruisers, 12 A-Wing, 12-B-Wing, and 12 X-Wing.  This
is
> >the same as Dean has in the designs on his website.

> Yes, my goof. Even the hazy web sources I found agree with your
numbers 
> :-)

>
> >The range and power of the Shrike's shipkiller missiles puts them
out 
> >of the range of FT fighters, IMO.

>The range, agreed - but see below. The power, no - FT's torpedo
fighter 
>rules seems to fit quite well both with the hitting power and the 
>limited ammo available, though of course the Shrikes should still have
>their spinal graser.

For that to work, I would have to insist on the Shrikes having multiple
anti-ship shots, perhaps one for each EF, rather than only one.  Also
would need rules for ship missiles used against fighter groups.

> >OTOH, the ship-launched impeller missiles are also beyond the scope 
> >of FT SMLs.

> Yep. Outside the scope of any normal-sized gaming table too, unless
you 
> want energy weapons to have ranges of about 1mu :-/

Well . . . some people like going really fast and using small MUs, so
you could use 1 MU = 1 mm ;D

> >However, if you want the fighters to have *some* effect without 
> >totally skewing the game, there needs to be a system for settings 
> >where fighters are small and ships are big, or rea lly big, other
> >than "Play with big ship designs or scale 48 fighters into a FT
> >fighter group".

>Completely wrong. There is no need whatsoever for a special system 
>for settings where fighters are small and ships are big separate from
>the "normal" system for settings where the mass ratio is smaller.

Taking the word of members of the playtest group that the FB system
breaks down for ships over about TMF 350-400, I think there is a need
for an alternate fighter system for settings where the capitals (like
ISDs or battlestars) are larger than this when compared to the smallest
viable ships that are themselves larger than fighters.	Example being
in SW, with TIEs et al. at any conversion rate so that An ISD gets at
least 1 FT fighter group and that for a Corellian
Corvette/Gunship/Blockade Runner to be a minimum usable FTL ship of
MASS 5-6, the ISD is going to be on the order of TMF 1000.  If you
reduce it below this, then the CC becomes a "fighter" or the ISD is
underrated.

>There is however a desperate need for a system where the fighter rules

>are balanced - and such a system can handle any fighter:capital mass
>ratios you can think of; all you need to do in such a system is to 
>change the number of fighters represented by each fighter group. 

Only if the *ship* rules are also such that ships which are very high
on the FT TMF scale are both playable and balanced, which I have come
to understand from you that they are not.

J