Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters

I have a single, and very simple objection to the idea of combined
fighters, at the very least allowing it cheaply, probably at all:  heavy
+ interceptor = you win absolutely every dogfight.  We had very few
house rules in our games beyond the basic rules sets throughout our
gaming group's history, and disallowing heavy interceptors was one of
the first.  Allow complete mixed role fighters for any kind of cost
effectiveness and throwing torpedo, attack, or both on top of that
becomes your unstoppable Munchkin.  Thanks, but no thanks... and this is
coming from one of the most manic carrier buffs on the list, for what
that's worth.

E the Stilt Man

-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Mayberry <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>
>Sent: Apr 15, 2009 10:28 AM
>To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters
>
>The question I see raised by all of this is whether we intend to raise
>the effectiveness of fighters relative to other ships' improvements.
>Ideally, we want things set up so that points-balanced fleets can
>engage one another and have the battle decided through good tactics
>rather than good ship design. I feel like FT has been slowly drifting
>towards being decided in the drydock.
>
>Also, the effectiveness of attack craft are partially balanced by the
>fact that you don't really know ex ante which types you will need. Do
>you assume your opponent will bring lots of attack craft of his own
>(and bring interceptors to prepare for it)? Or do expect a foe without
>fighters, leading you to take attack or torp fighters? Swing role or
>multirole fighters let you make that decision on the fly. So you're
>paying points for the bays you save (and the mass of structure and
>drives that support them), and you're ALSO paying for reducing risk
>and uncertainty.
>
>Besides, we already HAVE multirole fighters. They're called "fighters"
>and they're the default that you buy if you don't want to mess around
>with upgrade rules. If what we really want is to have Really Good
>Multirole Fighters, then why not have a design that optimizes some of
>those into Really Good Interceptors, Really Good Attack Fighters and
>Really Good Torpedo Fighters?
>
>
>
>On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I'd make the multi-role QUITE so expensive a formula. In
the
>> case of interceptor+anythingelse, you have to remember it's not just
>> fighter v. fighter, and your expensive dog dies as easily to a PDS as
my
>> single-role. Long range and heavy are less so, but I still think
there's an
>> all eggs in one basket effect somewhere. On the other, other hand,
any
>> saved fighter bays should be impressively expensive.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l