Re: Beta Fighter game report

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote: 
> Yes, it is. The problem is not that the hypervelocity makes the
> *missiles* difficult to intercept, but that it makes the *launching
> ships* invulnerable to the fixed target's return fire by allowing
> them to launch 1030 mu away from the target instead of 30 mu away.
> 

OK.

> >Second, those long range HV strikes are only an issue if you set up
> >your games so that they can be an issue.  If you don't want them,
> >you don't have to include them in your games.
> 
> Tell that to the munchkins. Better still, tell them that they can't
> spend several turns on-table but outside the fixed target's weapons
> range accellerating up to speed 70 or so before they launch against
> the fixed defenders - with FT's current weapon ranges 70+24 mu is
> just as much outside the defenders' effective weapon range as
> 1000+24 mu is.
>

For a game of strikes against planets or orbital facilities, we set it
up as a running battle with the attacker's victory condition to get a
number of ships/PTL/SMLs free of the defender off of a certain table
edge with a scrolling table.  Successfully evading the defenders is
taken to result in a successful strike.

 
> >Third, HV missiles only build up velocity turn-to-turn independent
> >of the launching ship if they have the feature of multiple turn
> >persistance. Is there such a system in the works for FB3?
> 
> Such a system has been in the game since 1993. It is still in the
> game.
> 

none of the multi-turn weapons from either FT2 or MT build up velocity,
just fixed-move.  Nor are any with a relation to the parent vessel's V.
 Therefore none "build up velocity" to make HV strikes.

> >Fourth, there is a segment of FT players, including yourself, that
> >are proponents of transforming the original FT system to be tailored
> >to the use of small MUs and high speeds.
> 
> Since I haven't changed any single rule in the game to tailor it for 
> high-velocity games, I must say that I find your calling it
> "transform to be tailored..." to be a rather impressive exaggeration 
> :-/

You have said that the longer-range weapons (such as beams 4+) are
"priced" in terms of MASS and PV for large playing areas in the FB1 & 2
"FT2.5" system, which is a departure from the published standards in
favor of large playing areas (in trms of MU).  You have also said that
such systems are "overpriced" for 4'x6', 1"=1MU play.  I understand
that you were one of the primary proponents of these changes.

> 
> > >resulting either in extinction or in a cold war, but either way
> > >removing the need for fighting ship-to-ship battles. Game rules
> > >whose logical extensions remove the reason for playing the game at
> > >all are seriously bad for the game.
> >
> >So, if the IJN or IFN can find self-sacrificing pilots to fly
> >cutters in hypervelocity strikes against planetary targets, then
> >the "build V from turn to turn" rule is "seriously bad for the
game"?
> 
> It is, yes. I know several FT campaigns which has ended in almost
> exactly that way, the only difference being the size of the ships
> used.
>

So then why aren't you arguing for a change to the movement system to
put a stop to this game-wrecking disaster of a rule?
:)

 
> > >However, since the fighter movement rules are effectively
> > >independent of the fighter *combat* rules, you shouldn't have any
> > >problems importing whatever fighter-movement house rules you're
> > >currently using into the beta-test rules.
> >
> >That is true for the FB rules, but not for the Beta rules.  Since
> >the CEF rules are central to the Beta "capital weapons vs fighters"
> >rules.
> 
> The "capital weapons vs fighters" rule is part of the fighter
> *combat* rules, not of the movement rules.

So if I use our movement rules, which don't involve CEF, then the
combat abilities of the fighters will be exactly the same, even though
they are not expending CEF on movement?  I doubt that.

>  
> IOW, all of your players are too reasonable to use this potentially 
> war-winning tactic. You're very fortunate compared to many other
> players.
> 

If lording over a glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot is
"winning".



> >For example:
> >   TIE/F is classified as a light fighter, and attacks normally vs
> >both fighters and ships.  It may carry concussion missiles equal to
> >1 ordnance factor for X points.
> 
> And it tracks its concussion missiles in exactly the same way as
> Torpedo fighters have tracked their torpedoes ever since More Thrust
> was published, ie. separately from its CEF.
> 
> If you want more variety in fighter weapon types, it really would be
> better if you asked for that instead of starting to talk about a
> book-keeping mechanic (tracking fighter-carried ordnance separate 
> from CEF) which has already been in the game for twelve years. FWIW
> there is an alpha-test set of custom fighter design rules, but it
> isn't cleared for public beta-test yet.

The PT fighter mechanic is limited as it is simply a one-use weapon. 
"Ordnance Factors" implies, at least to me, the possibility of
multiple, but limited uses.  What I talked about also included having
both regular (unlimited) attacks as well as Ordnance.

J