Re: Fighters and Hangers

Jared Hilal 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.

IOW you didn't notice that the smaller fighter groups were more powerful

than their points cost warranted. Fair enough.

> >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?

Yep. It is an underhanded way to do it, but it works against most 
powergamers and munchkins - and they're the ones it needs to work
against; 
friendly gamers aren't nearly as likely to abuse the rules anyway (or as
in 
your case, even notice that there is a problem). The problem comes when 
friendly gamers make the munchkins aware of the potential for rules
abuse :-/

> >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?

Because even with the tiny font used in the Fleet Books I rather doubt
that 
a page or two would suffice for a full replacement of the current five+ 
pages of fighter rules (not counting the various redundant and
superceded 
sections), and FB3 is already cramped for space.

>RE: crossover games
>
> >>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.

OK, fair enough.

> >>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".

Sorry, my bad. Since the metric length of a ship only has a very vague 
connection to the ship's TMF when you can choose any mass scale you
want, I 
still don't quite see why the absolute size of the ship would put any 
particular limits to whether or not it is playable though <shrug>

> >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.

...most of which would be taken up by the large ground combat force it 
carries, and which therefore can be ignored in space combat situations
:-/ 
(Unless of course you want to use AT-ATs or other heavy vehicles in 
boarding battles, but I must say that that sounds a bit far-fetched to
me.)

> >>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.

Sure. But just like most of B5's internal volume is empty space and most
of 
the EF Explorer is a gridwork open to deep space, a huge part of the
SSD's 
volume is taken up by stuff not relevant for space combat which can
safely 
be ignored.

> >>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.

Fair enough.

> >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 :)

According to the FT boarding rules, the basic complement of boarding
troops 
and their craft are already in the ship's Mass so you don't have to pay 
extra for them. As for the rest - exactly how many of the Executor's
72,000 
ground combat soldiers, or the ISD's 9,600 for that matter, do you think

those 3-6 Full Thrust boarding shuttles you mentioned can carry? The
rest 
of the gropos have no effect on the space combat game unless someone is 
dumb enough to board the Star Destroyer openly (as opposed to doing so 
covertly, like Luke & co. did in the movies).

> >>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".

Which is obviously an inappropriate scale for Star Wars, since it uses
the 
same man:mass ratio as the More Thrust boarding rules you've already 
referred to. According to those rules a Victory-class ship (crew
strenght 
about 4800 men IIRC) "should" be TMF ~1200 (ie. 1 Mass per 4 crew
members), 
yet you didn't seem to have any major problems with representing it as a

TMF 160 ship.

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

So why didn't you allow for it in the example?

>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.

And my point is that those 90,000 CS worth of ground forces make such a 
small contribution to the *space combat power* of the ISD that they can
be 
ignored for Full Thrust purposes.

> >>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

Doesn't really help. HH missiles - the old-style ones described in TSVW 
that is, not the new-fangled Ghost Rider stuff - have max ranges on the 
order of 50-100 times longer than energy weapon ranges against
sidewalls, 
and at least 15-20 times longer than energy ranges against targets
without 
sidewalls... and that's assuming that the launching ship can't use its
own 
relative velocity (ie. relative to the target) to boost the missile 
engagement range... so unless you have a HUGE table or you're prepared
to 
say "missiles can reach any point on the table" you still tend to end up

with energy weapon ranges of an on-table inch or less.

> >>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,

If you're going to quote us, please at least quote us correctly...

The *CPV* system currently breaks down above TMF 350-400, but as already

described it is still under development. We may be able to extend it to 
handle larger ship sizes; Laserlight mentioned one of the options we're 
looking at.

The *FB* (ie., *N*PV) system breaks down a lot earlier than TFM 350-400,

which is why we're working on the CPV system in the first place. You 
already use the FB system to design large ships, but I suspect that your

gaming environment has shielded you from the worst effects of the
current 
big-vs-small ship balance problems.

>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.

In Star Wars the smallest FTL-capable ships are single-person fighters
(eg. 
X-wings), not Corellian Corvettes. (OK, 2-person fighters if you count
the 
astromech droids :-/ ) By your above logic this means that an *X-wing* 
should be represented by a TMF 5-6 FTL-capable ship instead of by the 
fighter rules. Since you accept that X-wings are represented by the
fighter 
rules in spite of being FTL-capable, there is nothing which prevents you

from representing Corellian Corvettes in the same fashion as well. OK,
you 
need a house rule allowing fighters to make independent FTL jumps, but
you 
need that anyway to represent SW battles properly <shrug>

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