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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Izenberg, Noam [SMTP:Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 11:19 AM
> To:	'FT List'
> Subject:	[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.
> 
[Bri] I agree. Most games (FT included IMHO) do not balance fighters.
FT does a fair job if both morale and endurance rules are used.
I have assumed that a kill of a fighter in FT is like a kill of an
infantry
element in DS2; that is a mission kill. The fighter is damaged enough
that it cannot continue its mission. I liked the follow up post you made
about pilot survivability. In most games it is unnecessary, but would be
good for a campaign or FT/DS2/SG2 combo games.

> 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.
> 
[Bri] The agile fighter would have to cost more for a number of reasons:
1) It will pass morale checks MUCH better than standard fighters. Thus
it will be more effective in the long run. 
2) With the new rearming rules in FB2, the fighters could be back out in
very short order. Agile fighter would put out more fighter waves over
the
course of a game.
3) Even thought the odds change seems to be the same, it actually 
favors the agile fighters unless 6 or more PDS are used. This increases
with the fewer damage boxes that the ship has until a threshold check.
  Also at this point you would have to discribe how they interact with
Scatterguns and Interceptor Pods.

> 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. 
> 
[Bri] However, the ship is likely the target of other weapons and is
likely
to loose hull boxes and systems to threshold checks over the longer 
course of time. The fighter group is only subject to PDS fire from the
ship it is attacking and any ADFC/PDS ships nearby.

> 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
-----End Original Message-----

My comments marked by [Bri]

I think that the game would have to be overhauled to do what you wanted
it to do.
Example of a New System:
1 FCS is required to use PDS regardless of the number of targets (1
target
max per PDS)
Fighter Endurance: 6
PDS Effects: A roll of 4-5 would cause fighter group to break off attack
(similar to DS2 AA defense) and a 6 would kill a fighter and force the 
fighter group to break off the attack. In either case fighter endurance
is
burned.
Morale Check: If a fighter group is still attacking after PDS fire, it
will make a morale check. If the number on a d6 is equal to or lower
than
the number of fighters in a group, it continues the attack. In either
case,
it burns fighter endurance. The Morale check is made for every attack.
Fighters do 1d6 - the number of fighters lost on an attack.
Fighters would do less damage, but would tie up a FCS of the ships they
are
attacking and would survive much longer. However, it is QUITE a large 
divergence from the present system and does not take into account
special 
fighters.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/	  
-----