Re: [FTFB] "Needle" fighters?

>Jared E Noble wrote:
>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> >Jared E Noble wrote:
>

>> The squadron gives up it's normal attack and instead:
>> - Declare the intended trench run (but not it's target)
>> - Resolve PDS
>> - Nominate the target system
>
>good thinking - keeps the defending player guessing about what goes
>where. otoh, it means that you can commit three squadrons, and after
pds
>fire you can assign the strongest to what you want destroyed most, etc.
>this may not be realistic - squadrons would have their runs lined up in
>advance.
>
>in fact, i think a ship's crew would be able to figure out the target
>from the attack trajectory, fighter fire-control emissions, etc.
>"they're targeting our weapons systems!" is a classic space opera
>phrase.

Good point - added to revised sequence below

<snip old damage resolution>

>i see where you're coming from - this is the DS2 penetration rule!
>however, the chance of destroying a system is far too high. how about
>reversing the results, so you have a constant 1/6 chance of destroying
>and a varying chance of damaging. with only one fighter left, it's
>either destroy or fail, a suitably tense and operatic situation!

Another good point - I was looking for something easy, but missed that
implication.  Actually, Sam Reynolds posted a suggestion which I think
sounds nice - so here's the revised resolution:

The squadron gives up it's normal attack and instead:
- Declare trench runs and targets
- Resolve PDS  (I like varying bonuses-see below)
- Roll a die and compare it to squadron strength
  (Turkey groups count as 1 less, Groups with ace as 1 more)
  (other possible mods for ftr type - see below)
  -- If above squadron strength, nothing happens.
  -- If equal or below squadron strength target system damaged.
  -- If equal or below half squadron strength target system destroyed.

*note - this does muck up the destroy/fail drama on the last fighter,
unless you add the ruling that a 1 on the resolution die always destroys
the system

So here's the chart everyone seems fond of.
Size  Destroy	 Damage     Nothing
6     1-3 (50%)  4-6 (50%)  -
5     1-2 (33%)  3-5 (50%)  6	(17%)
4     1-2 (33%)  3-4 (33%)  5-6 (33%)
3     1   (17%)  2-3 (33%)  4-6 (50%)
2     1   (17%)  2   (17%)  3-6 (66%)
1     -*   (0%)  1*  (17%)  2-6 (83%)

* Adopting the 'heightened drama on a 1' rule would shift these two
results

>> >the nice thing about rolling a normal beam attack die is that it
allows
>> >fighter types to differ: needling ordinary fighters roll a straight
beam
>> >die; needling attack fighters do the attack fighter thing and add
one.
>>
>> That is true, but would those factors alter the Trench run abilities
very
>> much? And if they do, could attack fighter groups simply add +1 to
the
>> squadron strength? (just like having an ace, but it is cumulative)
>> Personally I don't think fighter type should significantly alter the
trench
>> run, buy YMMV
>
>i can see your point - the trench run is about precision, not power.

Well, I've already changed my thinking (not a lot though).  I feel that
fighter type could affect the trench run, but not totally
dictate/dominate
it.  It seems maneuverable fighters would be more survivable in a trench
run, while those with the heavier guns would be more successful in
attacking the target system. (and coincidentally, there are 2 steps in
the
sequence for PDS and then damage resolution - luck or conspiracy?)

>> Or do you?  Perhaps at these close ranges, small anti-fighter guns
are
as
>> effective as larger anti-shipping weaponry. Could it be that the
Trench
Run
>> is closely akin to dogfighting a ship?  The maneuvers to approach a
target
>> so closely as to guarantee that your attacks will not only penetrate
the
>> shields, but also be focused only on that system?  That would almost
>> suggest that Torpedo fighters couldn't do it, and that even attack
fighters
>> may not be very good at it.	What do you think?  Might interceptors
be
the
>> best trench fighters?
>
>no. for theoretical reasons - ship systems will have their own armour
>(like Harpoon's Critical Hit Protection), and so you need big guns, not
>rapid-fire light-weight stuff like an interceptor's. for game reasons -
>interceptors are for fighting fighters, atack fighters are for fighting
>ships.

OK - I can accept that (at least partway)

So does that mean that Interceptors can't do trench runs at all? Or
perhaps
their attack resolution should be penalized to represent their weaker
guns
(looking for clarification here)
For example - Normal fighters resolve damage as given above,
interceptors
subtract 1 from squadron strength, attack fighters add 1
What is your current take on Torpedo fighters?	Is the torpedo accurate
enough for the precision strike?  It's pretty powerful, would it do more
damage in addition, or should we just say that giving 1d6 damage per
fighter for a possible 1 system hit per squadron would be silly, thereby
disallowing trench runs by them (that seems kind of arbitrary to me)

>> >> I would still
>> >> allow PDS to take place before the needle attacks
>> >
>> >fair enough. with a bonus, as has been suggested.
>>
>> Agreed - is +1 enough?
>
>yes.

Although when the idea came to me about varying the PDS bonus based on
the
percieved 'agility' of the fighter type, I really liked the feel of it. 
Or
is it too much of a complication?

<snip>

>well, given that you had not posted your new system, and possibly had
>not even thought of it, when i did this analysis, yes, that is what i
>meant! next time i'll engage my clairvoyancy mode :-).

Thanks- that would be of great help to everyone involved ;)

>> >The Needle mode is probably the most powerful in combat situations
(ie
>> >strengths of 4 or 5 are typical); Jared's is a close second. mine is
less
>> >so and falls of linearly, like Jared's; Mark's is the least
powerful.
we
>> >just have to decide how we want this.
>>
>> However, will 4-5 remain typical if PDS gets a bonus vs trench runs?
>
>and if it takes place first. if a full-strength squadron attacks a ship
>and gets fired at by 1 pds, it can expect to take 1 casualty (FT pds
>here); i don't know how it works in FB.

PDS in FB:
As FT *DAF except 6 is a reroll. (2 pts+roll again - continuing rerolls
possible)

>Tom

Jared