Re: [GZG] Hugh's New Fighter/Point Defence rules

Noam Izenberg wrote:
>I've begun looking into Hugh's new fighter/antifighter rules.
>
>A couple quick thoughts, because I've still missed most of the
conversation.
>My first reaction is I think they (the new roles) weaken Heavy 
>missiles and fighters significantly (It doesn't take a great deal of 
>fleet modification/sacrifice to make a task force effectively HM and 
>fighter proof.) and leave salvo missiles almost intact, unless 
>you're going to convert PDS systems in to %ship mass systems. I 
>think any system that grants virtual invulnerability after a 
>certain, relatively low threshold is too flawed. An average PD of 11 
>is granted with an array of 14 PDS - not too much to ask from a DN, 
>or even a BC going up against a known Fighter heavy fleet.

I thought it was reasonable, the 14 PDS needed for safety
against regular fighters (not attack or torpedo) requires a
capital and two escort cruisers for any of the FB 1 fleets or
their expanded versions at star-ranger.com. And you still
have to make the rolls, it's not automatic. The new rules
also make it practical for the fighters to divide across
multiple targets, splitting the ADFC escorts.

But point taken, even short-term invulnerability is a Bad Thing.
Slightly modified "December" version of the new rules now has
heavy missiles / plasma bolts now hitting on a 6 but doing
one or two die less of damage at the top bands, and the fighter
assistance rules no longer optional. So now it's always possible
to do some damage.

Some more on the rationale for the mechanics:

I'm trying for no new systems, and as far as possible no changes
to the mass of existing systems. Redrawing SSDs is much more
annoying than changing points costs or rules. If it's between
changing human fleets and changing aliens, keep the humans.

The first idea is that point defence should be screen like rather
than individually aimed. The table is designed to give diminishing
returns from more PDS. At the bottom, even a small amount helps,
but it gets increasingly difficult to 'level up' from there.
Because it's random rather than fixed, even a weakly defended
ship can make itself almost invulnerable with a series of good
rolls - but only for that turn.

The other idea is to split casualties from effectiveness. In
these rules fighters are always at risk of some casualties, but
it gets rid of the current feedback effect where more PDS both
reduces the damage you take AND inflicts more on the enemy, as
if screens not only blocked beam fire but actually bounced it
back.

On salvo missiles, my thinking is to leave them alone for now.
To me, the priority is fixing the massed fighter problem that
is a sore spot for many FT players. If I seem cavalier about
dismissing issues with missiles or plasma bolts, it's not that
I don't care, but the fighter issues need to be resolved first.

(If you do have ideas about how to apply the "point defence as
screen" to salvo missiles, please let me / the list know. I
am interested and will respond, but maybe not straight away.)

	cheers,
	Hugh

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l