Re: Stealth, with feeling. (looong)

Noam wrote:

> I'm home, and I'm sick. Joy to the world. 

Hope you get better soon!

[Mucho snipped]

> RE: HEavy and stealth fighter costs
> Oerjan, I wouldn't bet against your statistical analysis. Raising the
> cost of heavy (and stealth) fighters wouldn't bother me in the least
if
> that would balance them better. Can you figure in the increased
> probablility of stealth or heavy fighters being drawn into furballs by
> interceptors?

No way of figuring out the increased probability of them being *engaged*
in furballs with Interceptors (or the probability of being shot at with
Class-1 batteries), since that depends almost entirely on the enemy
player - both what units and fighters he brings to the battle and how he
uses them :-/ 

The effects once *in* the furballs is easier, but there's some room for
rule interpretations here as well. Against Heavy fighters there's no
problem - rolls of 6+1 inflict 2 casualties and a re-roll, so the
Heavies
take 5/6 the casualties a Standard squadron would (ie, 1.2 their
survivability, or a combat power boost of 9.5%). For Stealth fighters it
depends on how you treat rolls of 6+1 - if they inflict 1 casualty +
re-roll the Stealthed survivability is twice the normal (just as against
PDS and normal fighters, combat power boost of 41.4%), but if the 6+1
roll inflicts 2 casualties + re-roll their survivability is "only" 50%
higher (combat boost 22.5%). I read the Interceptor rules to mean "rolls
of 1+6 inflict as much damage as a roll of 6 would normally", which
leaves the Stealthed fighters unchanged.

If the Class-1s are reduced to killing 1 Stealth-2 fighter on a 6 (+
re-rolls), you're back to the "double survivability" (ie, 41.4% combat
power increase just as against PDS and other fighters).

The only thing the Stealth-2 *doesn't" have double survivability against
are, ironically enough, Attack and Torpedo fighters - and their to-hit
rolls are pretty pathetic anyway; if you reduce their anti-fighter
firepower further they wouldn't be able to fire back at all and
Stealth-2
fighters would be the prime units to take them out :-/

>  If they are known to be that much more effective, they
> will surely be the primary targets of interceptors, which will reduce
> their cobat effectiveness against ships to zero while they are engaged
> in dogfights. Perhaps this would shave a couple points off? Hm? ;)

They certainly will be primary targets (...OTOH, if you have a mix of
Stealthed and Standard fighters, I might take out the *Standard* ones
first - you lose more firepower faster that way), and Heavy groups do
suffer a bit. I'd say the "+1 on the die roll" doesn't change the
relation between Stealthed and Standard fighters, though the Class-1
defences do unless you reduce their power as well to account for the
Stealth.

So, all these things considered, I think the Stealth-2 fighters are
quite
comfortable at +36 points or so. Yes, if your enemy replaces all his PDS
with Class-1s you might suffer - but then at the same time he has left
himself without ADFC coverage, which reduces the number of weapons
shooting at your fighters quite a bit.

> Re: Fighter Costs:
> OER > This gives a total cost for Heavy squadrons including bay of 98
> OER > pts  (using standard re-rolls) or 101 pts (using "screened" re-
> OER > rolls), ie a cost increase of +11 or +14 pts (both of which are 
> OER > pretty close to the current +12), and for the Super-Heavies 114
or 
> OER > 123 pts, ie +27 or +36 pts (both of which are higher than Noam's

> OER >+24, particularly since he (IIRC) used "screened" re-rolls - but 
> OER > very, *very* much lower than my panicked +63 pts of yesterday 
> OER > :-) )
> 
> The number wiz strikes again. I'll buy this striaght up. I'd easily
cost
> stealth 1 fighters at +14 per squadron, assuming that rerolls are vs.
> stealth 1, 

Stealth-1 and Heavy fighters (since they are identical) do suffer
proportionally more from Class-1s and Interceptors, so the current +12
seems OK in their case. You were right earlier - if the re-roll ignores
the Heavy/Stealth-1 status, the heavies would be a couple points too
expensive at +12 :-)

> adn stealth 2 and +36 per squadron. To clarify the class 1
> vs. stealth, I'd say they were unmodified vs. stealth 1 (even a few
> glancing hits from a class 1 would destroy a fighter), and hit on a 6
> vs. stealth 2.
 
That puts the Stealth-2 firmly at +36 points per squadron, yes. 
 
> Again, Oerjan has said it better, but. 

Not sure I did - I just said it earlier <g> 

>  Your
> assumption seems to be that you can't fire and hit without a 100%
lock.
> My assumption is that you can (and must) fire at stealth ships without
> 100% lock. 

Indeed, *all* weapon fire outside 12 mu or so is done without 100%
target
lock with our interpretation of the damage mechanisms. If you had 100%
target lock at all ranges (against unstealthed targets), you'd probably
be able to inflict (FT-level) damage with a Class-1 at range 54 (where
the main sensors give up)  :-/

Oh, yes - forgot this in the general discussion earlier: If you make a
Stealth device which is vulnerable to treshold checks but only takes up
the same Mass as Screens, it is worth a *lot*. I'd start with a cost of
10*Mass or so, and then adjust after playtesting. The reason for this
huge difference vs the Stealth *hull* (which uses twice the Mass
percentage for the same effect) is that you have this much more space
for
weapons... and the treshold check vulnerability isn't nearly enough to
compensate. (Especially not on largish ships with 2-3 DCPs in the last
two hull box rows :-/ )

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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