Prev: Re: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada Next: Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

From: John K Lerchey <lerchey@a...>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:00:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada


> John Lerchey wrote:
>
>> So, one thing that I would do, had I both time and energy ( ;) )
would be
>> to compare that statement with popular sci fi.  No one attacked the
Star
>> Destroyers in Star Wars with *fighters*.
>
> Hm? Check out Lando Calrissian's order in RotJ that the fighters break
off 
> their attack on Death Star 2 (since the energy shield was still up)
and 
> instead attack the Star Destroyers "to draw their fire off the [rebel]

> cruisers"...
>
> Simply put, if the fighters were not a threat to the SDs there would
be no 
> way in which they *could* draw the SDs' fire off the rebel cruisers -
which 
> in turn would mean that Lando's order was completely pointless, and
all he 
> achieved by the order was to expose the fighters under his command to
more 
> enemy fire than necessary.
>

Fair enough.
Fighters can do damage to the SDs.

>> I'll grant that having 6 PDS could easily make a ship invulerable to
>> fighters.  I'll only stipulate that if that is *appropriate to the FT
>> unvierse*, then it a) does solve the problem of fighters being worth
too
>> much, and b) works within the confines of the system.
>
> It does solve the problem with large numbers of fighters being worth
*too 
> much*, all right - it makes the fighters worth roughly zero points,
thus 
> eliminating the reason for using them at all. It does *not*, however,
solve 
> the problem with *small* numbers of fighters being worth *too little*;

> instead it makes that part of the problem even worse than it is now.
>

Not if you put limits on the number of PDS available to limit them as 
well.  If the PDS is a "system" and not a "gun" or "gun turret", then it

can be defined as a series of light weapons turrets designed to
intercept 
fighters,  missiles, and other fast moving, easy to kill targets.  The
PDS 
would be also then be defined as the ships ability to protect itself
from 
such threats.  The PSB can be worked out (if anyone cared) with some 
better writing than I'm willing to do before my next meeting. ;)

So one way to help to restore balance would be to make the PDS BIG in 
terms of mass.	If it can protect the ship, then it needs to be able to 
provide coverage from all angles.  The bigger the ship, the bigger the 
*system* needed to protect it.	If each PDS costs you something like 25%

of the ships overall mass, ships will carry a maximum of 3, 'cause you 
have to have mass for things like engines and FCS and other stuff.
For smaller ships, you need to seriously consider using 25% of your 
avaiable able space to carry fighter protection.  For larger ships, you 
will still have mass available for real guns and other systems.  Also,
if 
capitol batterys (beam weapons, scatter guns, etc.) can still fire at 
fighters with reduced effect, then they can be used to augment the PDS.

My take, granted, without having playtested it, is that it has a better 
shot of working than adding things like shield overloads, limiting the 
number of fighter squadrons that can attack, or much of anything else
that 
I've seen posted.

I'm sure folks will disagree.  I accept that.  Being that I haven't
played 
FT in a while, and am NOT a playtester, feel free to ignore the post.

I'm not tyring to offend anyone, but my take so far is that what I've
seen 
suggested is either completely artificial, or attempts to throw in
special 
anti fighter tech, none of which look like they'll actually solve the 
problem.  Maybe I'm just doing the same thing. ;)

I'm going to drop this thread now.

Thanks,

John

Prev: Re: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada Next: Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada