Re: [GZG] Multi-level rules sought.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGoo
d idea. One could model it post-engagement as a "% recovered," as in n%
of fighters lost during the battle are recovered afterward (straggle in
with damage, "plane guard destroyer" picks up survival pods, etc.). If
the fleet doesn't have to jump away from the battle space, recovery
could be higher. If all carriers are lost, it could be lower. A named
character's chances could be based on the overall chance.
   
  Ken
  United Systems

Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
      
Another thing in FT would to make fighters slightly less disposable
than they are now. I know that revisiting fighters is a priority for
the playtest crew, so I imagine we'll see stuff there. Whatever
happens, it's hard to put a player-character pilot into a game (even
an Ace) when he dies more often than a character in Paranoia.
  
Just a brain-wrapping note, you can always PSB it that fighter kills are
not necessarily outright destruction of the fighter and death of the
pilot, but more of a 'combat kill', rendering the fighter no longer
capable of combat and returns to its base ship if possible. So the pilot
survives, just isn't able to finish the fight this time around. There
are ways to represent this in actual game play if you want to track
'combat kills' and 'actual destructions', but it makes life a lot more
complicated.

Mk