Re: balancing Fighters

G'day guys,

I've played quite a few games now where there's been in excess of 20
fighter groups on the board and overall the fighter rules hold up pretty
well. However it does mean you have to keep fighters in mind and take
ships
kitted out with anti-fighter stuff. For instance I did up the Colbert
class
CE for the FSE which drops some of the Milan's weaponary for extra PDS
and
ADFC and it has saved my butt quite a bit. Overall I've found that
fighters
on the board simply means you can't have a fleet dedicated to offensive
fire only, you've really got to have escorts there too or pay the price.
Another thing I've noted in the games I've played is that the fighter
groups are all but exhausted after 2 or 3 turns (most are dead or very
low
on endurance), so the number of attacks that actually go in fall off
dramatically (another occassion were a natural ability to roll 1s has
its
bright side). Unless you get lucky, fighters are another of those
systems
only guaranteed to work for a few turns, thus the same comments I make
in
defense of SMs apply to fighters (admittedly I play FSE so this may be
biased) - they pack a punch, but they don't last long - its all swings
and
round abouts, especially if you take balanced fleets which have
defensive
as well as offensive capabillities. Having a lot of fighters can also be
painful in the "guy with greatest points left on the board wins
scenarios",
for example I lost a game like that a fortnight ago because I play FSE
and
my 360 pts of fighters weren't around no more, like I said swings and
roundabouts.

Having fighters on the board has also seen the tactics used down here
blossom - e.g. using different wings for different purposes, trying to
out
distance the fighters by speeding up and only slowing down/coming back
when
the fighter endurance is gone (OK that would make a boring game if used
everytime, but it has saved me from MT missiles and fighters twice now)
and
then there's the possibility of mine fields etc. Once again I think its
a
matter of learning to adapt and use what you've got - after all if
fighters
were that grossly unbalanced FT would have toppled over ages ago.
Fighters
probably do need a bit of a tweak, but they aren't that bad really (but
like I said I guess I do play FSE).

Having said all that though I do like the idea of being able to fire at
fighters within range even if they aren't attacking that ship
specifically,
though I'd probably give a -1 to the roll because they aren't attacking
you
directly. However, I don't see the need to up the number of weapons with
anti-fighter capability. I also wouldn't be too distraught to see the
cost
of fighters go up if its generally thought that this is needed, though I
think its OK the way it is - especially in a campaign setting were
replacements are costing me a fortune (something those dastardly NSL
don't
have to worry about as between games they only have to polish they're
beam
weapons not sweat about were the next fighter/SM load is coming from).

Anyway that's my 2 razoos worth.

Beth

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
HOBART 
TASMANIA 7001
AUSTRALIA
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax (03) 6232 5199 International +61 3 6232 5199

email: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au