Re: [FT] "Killing" fighters and pilots

"McCarthy, Tom" wrote:

> While I almost always appreciate adding a layer of abstraction (and
fighter
> strength rather than number of fighters is a great one), I think
Mike's idea
> is missing a few wrinkles I appreciate in the game.
>
> Interceptor and attack fighters are there to represent a case where
one
> group has a significantly different strength in one context than
another
> (dogfight vs. ship attacks), so they might still need to be reflected
> somewhere in Mike's scheme.  The heavy advantage represents the case
where a
> group loses significantly less strength by attacking a ship, and
should be
> kept.

    Don't get me wrong, I still use the specialized fighters.  But even
that
isn't enough to cover the 3-to-1 odds between Raiders and Vipers. 
Besides, I
don't see why a designer should be forced to designate Vipers as
interceptors,
and thus remove their ability to attack a Cylon Basestar.  We saw Vipers
whoop
ass on Raiders routinely and we also saw them go against capital ships. 
There's
no way to represent this in FT with the rules as written (RAW).

> Also, we like to think one MASS equals one MASS, and when designing
> carriers, those with significantly superior fighters may deserve the
rebate
> that comes from building smaller carriers and still projecting
superior or
> equal fighter strength. (6 Vipers may be a match for 18 Cylon raiders,
but
> doesn't the Basestar need to devote considerably more MASS to housing
them
> than the Galactica does to 6 Vipers ?).

    Now we're getting into PSB.  I appreciate the point, though.  The
answer to
your question is, I don't know, but it can be argued that the answer is
no.  A
Basestar might house their inferior pilots more efficiently.  The lower
quality
Raiders might be stored more efficiently, or require less maintenance
space.
Who knows?  I'm just saying we can't assume one way or the other.  For
playability, let's assume that they're equal.
    We're really left with no alternative.  There are no FT rules for
differences in tech levels or efficiency.  We could always invent our
own house
rules for these differences, but that's not what I was trying to do.

> Other than this, I like the idea.  Very large squadrons for inferior
> fighters make sense; 6 isn't a magic number for a fighter group,
groups
> should be a size which concentrates a reasonable amount of strength.

    Right, and the best part is, you don't have to go through the steps
of
determining the number of fighters, for any reason.  So it makes the
system fit
specific backgrounds much better.  For example, in RAW, it would be
nearly
impossible to run a classic BSG battle.  You'd have about 200 fighters
from the
Galactica alone.  Yep, over 30 "squadrons" of Vipers buzzing around the
table.
Put an the Galactica against an equal number of Cylon "squadrons"
without a
fighter screen, as we saw so many time in the series, and Adama would no
longer
be leading rag-tag, fugitive fleet to anywhere but the nether regions. 
But, put
four fighter squadrons on the table from Galactica and call them "Blue,"
"Gold,"
"White," and "Silver Spar."  Now you have a game.  Put four Cylon
squadrons up
against the un protected Galactica, and you actually have a chance to
see damage
done to each that approximates what we saw on the show.

-Mike

--
Michael Sarno

To see a World in a grain of sand,
And a Heaven in a wild flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand,
And Eternity in an hour.
 -William Blake