Re: Fighters and Hangers

[Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jared Hilal wrote:

> >>>With other choices for the bay masses and costs - eg. if you reduce
> >>>the mass of the launch/recovery bays enough, ... you can easily
> >>>make the choice trivial in the other direction instead, but it
> >>>is very difficult to create a "multi-way" system where these
> >>>choices *aren't* trivial :-(
> >
> >>These were the numbers that we have used without anyone trying to
> >>"break" it.
> >
> >I suspected as much. The problem is that this kind of design systems
> >give the munchkins too many variables to play with; it is extremely
> >difficult to keep them all balanced - and the munchkins will very
> >quickly find the ones which aren't.
>
>Well, as a customer of GZG, here is the bottom line of my input:
>My group dislikes the basic FT treatment of fighter bays.

So go on using the house rule design system you like! Your group doesn't 
seem to include any munchkins, so the imbalances shouldn't cause you any 
major problems.

However, not all gaming groups are that lucky, and we have to write the 
official rules such that those less lucky groups can use them as well. 
Unless we can work out a flexible yet reasonably munchkin-proof carrier 
design system it won't become official; and having spent several years 
trying to create such a system for StarFire (which treats fighter and small 
craft bays in essentially the same way as Full Thrust does) without 
succeeding - none of the systems I and the others in the Starfire Design 
Studio came up with lasted more than two days of destruct-testing by the 
on-line StarFire community - I'm afraid I don't have any great hopes to 
succeed in Full Thrust either.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry