Re: [ft] Fighter Momentum Conservation (was: [OT] Unpredictable AI)

I haven't had the pleasure of using fighters yet myself, but while
reading
though the rules, it did seem to be an "oddity" in the game for the
fighters to
use a compleatly different system than the ships.  I thought that would
"add"
some complexity -- having to remember the different movement systems.

I always thought it would simplify things if the fighters moved exactly
like
ships do -- however they do it.  Just treat each squadron as another
ship.  That
way it removes the embarrassing situation of a carrier leaving it's
fighters
behind.

Seems like a very simple "house rule fix" to me.

Donald Hosford.

"Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Derk Groeneveld [SMTP:derk@cistron.nl]
> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:55 AM
> > To:   gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> > Subject:	  Re: [OT] Unpredictable AI
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Allan Goodall wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:47:17 -0400 (EDT), Roger Books
> > <books@mail.state.fl.us>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I was going to suggest that... :-) Of course, fighters aren't
"truly
> > > overwhelming" in high speed vector games. Well high speed games of
any
> > type.
> > > Get the speeds up and you can kiss fighters goodbye as a problem.
> >
> > This is what stumped me about fighters. Am I correct in that they
move
> > 'cinematic' in vector games? In that they retain no speed vector? It
> > strikes me as really silly if I boost my carrier up to speed 35, I
launch
> > my fighters, and immediately leave them in the dust behind me? Isn't
> > there a reasonable fix to this, or did I entirely misunderstand the
> > subject at hand?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >    Derk
> -----End Original Message-----
>
> Yes, and No. I would not call it Cinematic (refering to the Cinematic
> movement of ship), because fighters do not follow the same rules as
ships.
>
> But yes, fighters do not conserve momentum from one turn to the next.
I
> imagine that the reason this was doen was simplicity. Fighters are
already
> one of the most complex and time consuming aspects of the game. When
> originally concieved, they were meant to be "paperless" in that you
would
> not have to keep track of any aspect of the fighter group except how
many
> were left (done by switching counters from one with 6 fighters
illustrated
> to one with less illustrated). When MT was introduced, it tried to
address
> the problem of fighters being too powerful. It added Endurance,
Morale, New
> fighter types and Ace/Turkey. Now there was 4 things to keep track of
> (number, endurance, type and ace/turkey status). I think that
simplicity is
> one of the reasons that some people do not play with morale or
ace/turkey
> rules. The Morale rules proved to be a good balancing point for
fighter, and
> thus became "standard" in FB2 (they were also figured in the cost of
> fighters in FB1 design point system according to Oerjan).
>
> I have seen systems for keeping track of fighter momentum. All, to
this
> point, have been somewhat less than desireable. All require additional
> bookkeeping.
>
> Option 1: Plotted move like ships. Fighters become small ships for
movement
> purposes.
>
> Option 2: Ship style movement (not plotted) [Vector]. Velocity of the
> fighters needs to be recorded in some manner. I have seen this done by
> having a marker for the starting point of the fighters. In the fighter
> movement phase, momentum is applied to the fighter. The starting point
> counter is moved to where the fighters started the turn from. And then
> fighter movement is done. This method is a fair option for Vector and
only
> envolves adding a counter to the table for each fighter group.
However, each
> fighter group must be assigned a unique identifier (ex. number) and
the
> matching identifier be used on the counter, or things get confusing
quickly.
> This method DOES slow down the game, but less than plotted movement.
>
> Option 3: Ship style movement (not plotted) [Cinematic]. The velocity
of
> each fighter group must be recorded on a seperate sheet and kept track
of
> each turn. During the fighter movement phase, the player announces the
> inteded movement and then moves the fighter as a ship. I.e. the player
would
> indicate +/- 24 and any turns intended (each point of turn subtracts
from
> the ammount of thrust it may use) and them moves the fighters using
the
> stated orders (afterwhich the new velocity is recorded).
>
> Option 4: Ring Movement. The fighter's velocity, but not direction is
> preserved. Each round the velocity of the fighter is recorded. The
fighter
> may move +/- 24 in any direction desired. Secondary movement adds to
the
> velocity total. This can seem rather silly at greater speeds. The
fighter
> (with a velocity of 36) can move directly to the aft 12-72. The option
is
> named due to the area of validity for the fighter end movement, at
speed
> greater than 24, it becomes a ring.
>
> Option 5: Oblong movement. The course and speed of the fighter need to
be
> marked in some manner. The fighter's movement is based on the arc it
wants
> to move into (using fireing arc. Fore: current velocity +/-24. FP/FS:
> current velocity +/- 15. AP/AS: current velocity +/-0. Aft: current
velocity
> -12 (minimum 0).
>
> As I stated before. All optoions add to the complexity and length of
the
> game.
>
> -----
> Brian Bell
> bbell1@insight.rr.com
> http://www.ftsr.org/