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

Just for the record...I am not arguing just for the sake of
argument...Hopefully I
am trying to expain my view clearly...?

Beth Fulton wrote:

> G'day,
>

<Short snippage>

>
>  >The data sheet for a squadron seems much simpler
>  >than the simplest ship's data sheet anyway.
>
> Why?
>

There are only so many types of fighters in the game.  As opposed to the
near
infinate  number of ship designs possible.

 You could just list each squadron with a single letter code for the
fighter type,
and the number of fighters the squadron start with.  Then just make hit
marks after
for each one lost in that squadron.  Seems very simple to me.  How many
ship
diagrams are that simple?

>
>  >Dogfights -- one turn only...that is if neither side wishes to match
>  >direction/velocity with the other, or stop.  If one wishes to, then
the
>  >dogfight continues.  If both wish to, they both stop right there and
continue
>  >the dogfight.
>
> Must have impressive braking systems then ;)
>

Just means that if you want to dogfight, new tactics are necessary. 
These ships
are in space...not air, or water.  Means everything moves the same way.
Momentum
should be observed for all objects.  Not just because it is a ship.

>Fighters attacking ships -- The fighters get to attack a ship, if, (1)
it

> is in
>  >range of the squadrons weapons, and (2) it is in the squadron's fire
arc (if
>  >important).  Then make your normal attack rolls, ect.
>
> Fighters are gonna lobby for longer weapons ranges then, how often do
your
> normal ships get within 6"? ;)
>

Well, how big a weapon do you think a fighter can carry?  Thats one of
the reasons
they are called fighters.  If they could carry destroyer weapons, they
would be
called destroyers...

>
>  >(I never understood why fighters needed their own move segment,
their own
>  >attack segment, their own move system, ect.  Seems much simpler to
treat them
>  >as very small ships -- Which is what they are anyway.)
>
> Are they though? I know naff all naval stuff (at least past about 1
AD) so

I have a few very good books on navel ships from the first "rafts" to
the mid-20th
century.  Technological History is one of my hobbies.

>
> I may be speaking out of turn, but fighters of today don't act like
little
> ships do they? They have a flexibility to go places and do things you
just
> don't see other things do (at least not yet).

Sure they do.  They just do it faster.	At the speeds they travel, air
does the
same things to them as to ships.  They just have to worry about bumping
into
things, not sinking.

> In a funny kind of way the
> current fighter rules kind of portray that flexibility while remaining
fast
> and simple to execute. If they didn't have their own sequence of doing
> things then writing orders for them could get tedious, not writing
orders
> but putting their movement in the ship phase may lead them to being
too
> reactive (though the guys who dispensed with order writing for all
ships
> may disagree).

I myself have never bothered writing orders for any game that required
it.
Just seems (to me) to be a waste of good time, better spent playing the
game.

> There are flaws in the fighter rules, but fixing them and
> still ending up with a simple and fast system has been problematic.
> However, that shouldn't stop us all trying to come up with suggestions
;)
>
> Cheers
>
> Beth

That is true.  I remember some of the long threads on this list on this
subject in
the past few years.  Sometimes I wonder if we are rehashing the same old
things
without realizing it.  Maybe I am just too lazy to check out the
archives...:-)

Besides, one never knows where a good idea will come from.  Talk is
good!