Re: [FT]Random Musings

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 06:35:39PM +0100, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
>Roger Burton-West replied to Alan Brain:
>>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.

Granted, but so are the tech rating rules. If I wanted to fight Renegade
Legion battles, I'd be seriously considering re-calculating the points 
values anyway, from the point of view of tactical doctrine as well as 
pure mechanical effectiveness.

I don't think it would be sensible even to try for a system which would
both let me fight Renegade Legion battles _and_ bring those ships into
the GZGVerse to fight the NAC.

>>>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.

I will admit that I'm arguing primarily from aesthetics rather than
balance, here: I'd like to see fighters' long-range attacks relatively
less effective than dogfighting, rather than more or less equal as they
are now, but not non-existent.

>>>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.

Fair enough.

Given that a fighter group that's taken five losses can still be an
effective screen, would it be reasonable to say that a group can be
broken into "screening elements" (between 1 and 6 individual fighters)
which must be engaged normally? A screen comprising smaller groups would
die faster but could hold off an attack while doing so.

>>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.

Yes, fair enough; I'm certainly inclined to require individual ADFCs per
fighter group (or missile or whatever) target in exactly the same way 
that one requires normal FCs per ship target.