Re: KV Playtest Designs/Fighters

Going through the large pile of "posts to be answered when I get
time"...

Two weeks or so ago, John Leary wrote:

> > >I [Tim] proposed a cost structure:
> > >
> > >		     MASS Point Cost
> > >Standard (H)    6	  MASS x 5  30
> > >Interceptors    6	  MASS x 5  30
> > >Attack	     6	  MASS x 6  36
> > >Long Range      6	  MASS x 6  36
> > >Torpedo	     6	  MASS x 7  42

> Heavy fighter for free:   I feel that this is a game device to to
allow
>	'K' fighters to have a form of superior maneuverability (the
'K'
>	strong point in the rules) without making a lot of strange
special
>	fighter rules for the 'K' fighters.

But the KV superior maneuverability shouldn't be free, unless you want
to throw the points costs out...

> Tims cost table:   Having just looked at the table, the price seems
to
> be about 100 percent higher than the human cost.

You forgot to include the cost of the fighter bay and the part of the
carrier hull it occupies. Human fighters are balanced at a fighter bay
cost of ~70 points (OK, 69 points), so a standard human fighter
squadron costs on average 87 points to bring to a battle - *not* 18
points.

> Unless the combat effectiveness of the fighters is 100 percent
greater, 
> the cost is totally out of line.

If the combat effectiveness of KV fighters is 100% greater than that of
Human fighters, a "standard" KV squadron should cost some 80-90 points
rather than the 30 Tim puts them at. While the KV carrier is more
expensive it is also more survivable, which partly compensates for the
higher cost; this means that only some of this extra cost can be
counted towards balancing the fighters' increased performance.

'Course, Tim didn't account for the screen-skipping weapons on those KV
fighters, so his costs are probably a bit low all across the range :-/

>	2) The same firepower is contained in the ships as in MT.  
This
> is acceptable. The problem is that the firepower is divided
> across five areas instead of three. This means the firepower will be
> reduced across the primary area by 30 to 40 %.   

I disagree. The primary target area for KV ships is the front arc,
where the firepower isn't reduced - the arc itself is (by a third), but
I haven't had any problems keeping my targets in arc of my high-thrust
or high-maneuverability ships. The *secondary* arcs, ie the broadsides,
are weakened, but that is a rather minor concern to me.

> Questions/comments:
>	Q) Did anyone playtest the new Kra'Vak rules prior to now?
> 
>	C) An additional FCS on all 'K' ships would have been helpful
>	   to offset the firepower reduction.
> 
>	C) The torpedo (H) fighter cost should have been 48, not 42.

Not really. The big difference between heavy fighters and standard ones
is that the heavies are more likely to be around for a second attack -
but torpedo fighters are single-shot anyway, so they only get the extra
protection once - ie, being "heavy" isn't as beneficial for them as it
is for other fighter types. The long-range (H) fighters, OTOH, should
probably cost 48 pts (if you ignore their screen-skipping weapons, that
is).

Regards,

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