RE: Full Thrust vs Starmada

There have been suggestions that limit the number of fighters that can
attack a ship in a turn.  Number crunching suggest they ameliorate the
problem (even greatly), but some people don't feel they solve it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU [mailto:owner-gzg-
> l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU] On Behalf Of Grant A. Ladue
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 2:06 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada
> 
> >
> > > Hmm, sounds like this one of those cases where a "setting
specific" =
> > rule is going to be needed. Of the settings that I can think of
where =
> > fighters are anti-ship immune, the fighters themselves are the main
=
> > anti-fighter weapons. As such, you'd be crazy to *not* take PDS and
=
> > fighters to counter the other guy's fighters in those settings. Why
not
> =
> > make the "fighters are targetable" rule be the default in the GZG =
> > setting, but explain how the system would work in other
"non-targetable"
> =
> > settings? I know it's not ideal to have a system that doesn't work
for =
> > all settings, but this may just be a case where there isn't a system
=
> > that will work for all settings. <
> >
> > My initial reaction to this is to think that this is putting the
cart =
> > before the horse. Surely it's simpler to have the targetable
fighters =
> > rules as optional add-ons in the way that they are now -- keep
things =
> > simple and add complexity as desired for the appropriate setting(s).
If
> =
> > that requires a note to the effect that FB designs assume the use of
=
> > these optional rules, then so be it; it's still a lot simpler and
neater
> =
> > than to have to take something _out_ when playing in a fighter-heavy
=
> > sub-genre.
> >
> > Phil
> 
> 
>     I would be a little hesistant to do it this way, but I suspect
it's
> just
>   the semantics of "optional" that I worry about.  Perhaps it should
be
> phrased
>   as: Fighter combat can be handled one of two ways:
>		Option 1 is targetable fighters, with these reasons for
why
>		  you might want to use them and what it leads to.
> 
>		Option 2 is non-targetable fighters, with these reasons
for
>		  why you might want to use them and what it leads to.
> 
> 
>      Then people could choose appropriately based on what they want
and
> what
>    genre they're working from.  Heck if you point based them a bit
> differently,
>    you could even have different forces using the different options on
the
>    table at the same time.  That might even be a good way to simulate
one
> race
>    having very nimble fighters (only targetable by pds), while another
has
>    "older" tech fighters (targetable by all).  Make the "nimble"
fighters
> be
>    1/2 again more expensive, and there you go.
> 
>      The only thing that could really easily balance the problem of
many
> many
>    fighter groups overwhelming a ship would be to just limit the
number of
>    groups that can attack a certain size of target at once.  I mean is
it
>    really appropriate for 20 fighter groups to be able to all target
one
>    destroyer at the same time?  Wouldn't a lot of them just interfere
with
> the
>    others?  If the objection to that is that the turn length lets them
all
> make
>    attack runs, then the pds of the ship should get to fire at all of
them
> as
>    they come in, not just a few.
> 
> 
>    grant