Re: [FT]Random Musings

Roger Burton-West replied to Alan Brain:

 >>Technology Rating
 >
 >This is probably reasonable. But I continue to dislike mixed-tech on
 >aesthetic grounds, I'm afraid.

This is reasonable IN THE "CANON" GZGVERSE ONLY.

If OTOH you want to fight, say, Renegade Legion battles, you pretty much

*have* to mix tech: long-ranged beam weapons which can fire at both
ships 
and fighters (Phalon pulsers), missiles which damage all ships in the 
target volume (closest match is PBs, though the WotW anti-matter SMRs
would 
be better still), shields which are active all the time and don't
interfere 
with your own shooting (human screens), thick armour (Phalon
multi-layered 
shells) and huge hyper-velocity mass projectors (Kra'Vak K-guns) - all
used 
on the same ship. Oh, and all of it powered by something similar to a 
SV-style "limited energy available" power plant...

In other backgrounds other tech combinations are "canon", eg. the Nova 
Cannon and Waveguns in Anime settings (neither of these two is currently

part of the GZGverse "canon").

 >>1. Fighters and Missiles - missiles that home in on targets and
fighters
 >>that attack target ships or fighter groups ( ie the target lies
within 
6"/3"
 >>after movement) are placed next to the target. Their position during
the
 >>attack is deemed to be the target's position.

This is IMO a bad idea, particularly from a Phalon point of view - both
due 
to their limited-arc point defences and to the reduced value of PBLs for

anti-missile work (see below).

 >>Consequences:
 >>This is a change insamuch as fighters now no longer have facing,
 >
 >As far as I can see from FB1, this is the case anyway.

Correct.

 >>and that fighter vs fighter combat always involves a dogfight.
 >
 >Why is this a good thing?

It simplifies screening. Whether that is good or bad depends on your
point 
of view as well as on what other rule changes you implement together
with 
the above one.

 >>Also, all fighters "escorting" the target ship are coincident, and a 
dogfight will >>ensue if there are any.
 >
 >Why is this necessary when we already have screening fighters?

It is sort-of-necessary because it is so easy to neutralize the
screening 
fighters in the current system. However, since fighters in a dogfight
can't 
attack targets outside the dogfight, no units *outside* the dogfight can

fire at the fighters *in* the dogfight, and starships can't participate
in 
dogfights under the current rules, Alan's proposal as it currently
stands 
also means that:

1) one single screening fighter is sufficient to make the screened ship 
*completely immune* to enemy fighter attacks for one turn (all attacking

fighters are locked up in a dogfight with the screening fighters and 
therefore aren't allowed to attack any target outside the dogfight), and

2) neither the screened ship nor any nearby ADFC units are allowed to
use 
their PDSs to engage the attacking fighters, because the friendly
screening 
fighters get in the way.I'm not sure that either of these effects are 
intentional.

 >>Finally, the Phalon Plasma Ball will be a sovereign protection
against 
fighters
 >>and missiles - take 1D6 (+) damage and become immune - if they don't 
shoot up
 >>the plasma ball.

"Sovereign protection"? Alan - you haven't tried this out on the table
yet, 
have you...?

With the current rules, it is possible - if you are skilled enough to
know 
where your ships are going and the enemy doesn't put his missiles right 
into that position - to place anti-missile plasma bolts in such a way
that 
they nail the missiles without harming your own ships. Not entirely 
trivial, but quite possible. Even if you aren't skilled enough to know 
where your own ships will end up, you're guaranteed to hit those
missiles 
which were launched before you launched your plasma bolt - though in
this 
case you *risk* hitting your own ships in the process.

The above proposal means that you *must* - you don't *risk* it, you
*have 
to* - hit your own ships with the PB in order to protect them from
missile 
attack - and if you don't know where your own ships will end up, you
risk 
*missing* the missiles as well.

Dunno about you, but I don't consider going from [guaranteed missile
kill + 
possible hit on your own ships] to [possible missile kill + possible hit
on 
your own ships] to be an improvement! Quite the contrary, in fact.

(Side note: You need a CL (or Phalon Dinth-class "DDH", which is for all

intents and purposes a CL) or bigger to be able to do this trick even
once 
with any degree of safety - and CLs usually can't do it more than once 
before they start to take internal damage. DDs and smaller ships
generally 
find 1D6 damage to be a quite nasty experience, sometimes even lethal.)

Against fighters PBs give very little protection, because the fighters
make 
their secondary move before they commit to an attack - which means that 
they'll just refrain from attacking any target covered by a plasma bolt.

PBs can keep the fighters away for one turn (if you hit your own ships
with 
the PB) or force them to burn an endurance point to avoid destruction
(if 
the PB hit the fighters' pre-secondary-move position). Unfortunately
each 
D6 of damage inflicted on your own ships is roughly equal to one
successful 
fighter squadron attack opposed by PDS/Pulsers - so unless there are a
LOT 
of fighters and only a few of your ships hit by a weak plasma bolt, or
the 
fighters are in a hurry and *have* to inflict damage NOW, they'll be
quite 
happy to let you attrit your own ships in this way.

 >>2. At the time of PDS firing, any ADAF-equipped ship may fire at any 
fighter
 >>or missile within 6". This means that an ADAF ship effectively
"escorts" 
all
 >>ships within 6".

Instead of escorting just one ship within 6" per ADFC, which is the
current 
rule.

 >>Consequences:
 >>Simplification of ADAF rules. It also means that ADAF ships can fire
at any
 >>non-attacking fighters or missiles within 6", so can effectively be
 >>Anti-Fighter weapons when screening at a distance.
 >
 >I do miss the ability that ADAFs used to have, of firing at fighters
in
 >free space. Under FB1/FB2, as far as I can see, the only way humans
have
 >of stopping fighters when those fighters aren't attacking is to send
 >more fighters after them.

Keep in mind that the FT2 ADAF was pretty big - 3 Mass for a single 
anti-fighter shot per turn. In FB terms this is equivalent to giving
each 
ADFC the ability to direct ONE PDS in long-range mode - which is
something 
quite different from Alan's giving a single ADFC the ability to direct
ANY 
number of PDSs against ALL unengaged fighter/missile targets within 6".
I 
agree that something like this makes sense, but IMO this proposal makes 
ADFC *way* too powerful for its cost.

 >>3. Up to 6 fighter groups may attack any one target per turn. [PSB 
Section -
 >>they get in each other's way, and it doesn't matter much how large
the
 >>target is - maybe change this to "up to 1000 mass or part thereof"]
 >
 >Umph. I can see your reasoning, but I really hate this sort of
arbitrary
 >limit.

Agreed. Also, I somehow find it a bit odd (in the "Y-wing rear gunners
use 
WW2 targetting techniques" way) that you can't coordinate more than 36 
fighters with weapon ranges measuring in tens or hundreds of miles to 
attack the same target over a period of several minutes...

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."