[FT] "Agile" Fighters (yet another re-evaluation of ftrs)

I like and I hate fighters. I like them as an SF battle vehicle, and I
like
their sense of drama. I dislike their execution in almost all
starship-level
SF games for a couple reasons. 1) They're either too weak to be
effective or
too powerful for their relative size/cost. FT strikes a balance, but
I've
disliked certain things about the FT system. One is the mortality of
fighters and pilots (see the comapnion post about that). FT treats
fighters
like other expendible weapons. Players have to (and have) home up with
rules
for fighter and pilot survivability to determine exactly what happens
when a
fighter is "Killed" by PDS or other fighters. Fighters also tend to have
effective lifetimes of only a fraction of their endurance when facing
PDS/ADFC grids, which is logical, since you need a strong PDS net to
catch a
swarm of fighters lest they very quickly cripple your ships. 

A possible answer to these issues is a new fighter type - Call it the
Agile
Fighter or the Survivor's Fighter or the Armoured Fighter, depending on
your
PSB. It can be considered a reworking of the interceptor, in part,
without
the interceptor's anti-fighter abilities. It has weak offense, but
strong
defense and survivability. It costs the same as a normal multi-role
fighter.
On attack, Each fighter does one point of damage on a roll of 6 only,
plus
normal rerolls. Vs. screen 1 and screen 2, the fighter loses rerolls,
but
still scores 1 pt on a 6. Conversely, PDS knocks out 1 fighter on a roll
of
6, no rerolls.
Dogfighting Agile fighters kill 1 opposing fighter on a 6, no rerolls,
but
can force opposing groups to dogfight rather than attack another target.
Vs.
SM's Agile fighters kill 1 on a 6 + rerolls. Dogfighting fighters vs.
Agile
fighters each act as PDS. Interceptors gain rerolls. 
Vs. PB's Agile fighters score 1 hit on a 6.

Here's a statistical damage comparison between Normal and Agile fighters
over 6 attack runs (assuming no additional CEF burns to engage)

No scrn  Normal  Agile	Notes
vs 0PDS  28.8	10.6
vs 1PDS  15.4*	9.6**  *1.2 ftrs surv 6 turns **5 ftrs surv
vs 2PDS   6.7*	8.6**  *Dest after 3 t **4.7 dam after 3 t, 4 surv
vs 3PDS   3.8*	7.6**  *Dest after 2 t **3.1 dam after 2 t, 3 surv
vs 4PDS   2.2*	6.5**  *Dest after 1 t **1.6 dam after 1 t, 2 surv

Vs screen 1 and screen 2 the numbers story is similar. I think this
makes
them reasonably balanced, but would welcome further analysis and
recommendations if people think they should cost more than normal
fighters.
What I haven't mapped in is the Morale effect of Agile fighters vs.
others.
The greater survivability means they will suffer fewer morale failures,
but
undergo more morale checks, since they'll be under fire for more turns.
I'm
not sure if that's a wash, balance-wise.

On a _strategic_ scale, they should cost more per fighter, since they
are
more survivable, but FT NPV costs do not always map well with strategic
costs, IMO. 

Total damage from Agile fighters is greater vs larger numbers of PDS,
but is
spread out over the full 6 turns of endurance. If fighters need to burn
endurance to engage, then Agile fighter damage numbers suffer more than
normal fighters vs 2 or more PDS per group. 

I like this because 1) fighters survive longer, and 2) they do less
maximum
damage, and their toll is more cumulative or attritive rather than a
single
fast punch. When used along with strategic rules, fighter forces become
more
palateable, since pilots are far more likely to survive numerous
sorties.

When I get around to NIFT Carrier Ops, I hope to playtest them. If they
work
out, I might convert them into New Israel's Super Stealth Fighter
(currently
(very expensive) fighters w. Screen 2 equivalent)

Noam