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

Why not link the number of fighter groups that can attack a ship to the
number of Damage Control parties it has?  Maybe not 1:1 ratio.

Grant A. Ladue wrote:

>>>limiting the number of fighters attacking a ship has [been]
>>>	 
>>>
>>shown to _not_ make the game better.
>>
>>I'm going to modify that a bit.  The usual proposal is "no more than
six
>>squadrons attacking in a single wave", and Allan is quite correct --
it
>>sounds like a good idea at first blush, but then you playtest it or do
the
>>math and you see that it doesn't work.  
>>
>>However, there are other possibilies.  "No more than three squadrons",
>>rather than "six", perhaps.  
>>
>>    
>>
>
>   Did anyone actually playtest a "sliding scale" as opposed to a
absolute
> max?
>
>   For instance:
>
>	1 squadron (max) can attack a ship of less than mass 20
>	2 may attack ships of mass 20 to < 50
>	4 may attack ships of mass 50 to < 100
>	8 may attack ships of mass 100 to < 150
>	double for each additional mass of 50
>
>
>   This is the kind of idea that I was arguing for (but I probably
wasn't clear
> in that).  A strict limit is clearly not going to work.  Of course the
numbers
> would probably have to be different, but something along these lines. 
Note,
> the actual psb is immaterial to me if the rule works for the game.
>   On first blush, this would seem to allow small ships to carry enough
pds
> to actually be effective, while still allowing them to not do so and
get 
> killed.  Buying sufficient pds to make you invulnerable will cripple
your
> ability to carry enough anti-ship weapons to matter.	Now, perhaps
there are
> problems in this approach as well.  I'd be happy to hear about them so
we can
> compare and contrast though.
>
>
>
>   grant
>
>
>  
>