Re: [FT] Reopening the fighter balance can of worms

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

You want the simple fix?
 
Take out fighters and make people pick torpedo bombers or interceptors.

________________________________
From: Allan Goodall <awgoodall@gmail.com>
To: gzg@firedrake.org 
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2012 6:12 PM
Subject: [FT] Reopening the fighter balance can of worms

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

I have a friend, locally (yeah, I know, who'd a thought, huh?) who is
interested in trying *Full Thrust*.

Oh, sure, I can pull out my books and just play it as written (across
several different books, *grumble, grumble*). But, assuming I want to go
one step further and try to fix the fighter/PDS imbalance, what would
you
recommend?

I have an old version of the FT3 proposal done by some of the guys on
the
list. (Is it *really* almost a decade old!) It looks interesting, as it
always did, but it has stuff that, frankly, I'm not sure I want to dig
into, at least not in a Word doc with multiple font colours. Things like
dogfights, or furballs, or whatever it was called. They look a little
"clunky".

If I remember correctly, the primary "fix" was a two-phased approach
where
ship-to-ship weapons could fire at fighters with a reduced capacity, and
PDS could fire at ships with a reduced capacity.

Could someone summarize those aspects of the rules?

Are they sufficient to add to regular FT 2.5 on their own, or is it not
worth adding them without adding **insert other rules fixes here**.

Are there mass/point adjustments necessary beyond just the rules change?
If
so, does that just result in a point/mass change death spiral so
thorough
that we'd just be better off building FB sized fleets with no more than
6
fighters per fleet until the publication of FT3 or the apocalypse,
whichever comes first?

-- 
Allan Goodall		 http://www.hyperbear.com
awgoodall@gmail.com
agoodall@hyperbear.com