Re: Fighters

>From: "Tomb" <tomb@dreammechanics.com>

*SNIP*
>Therefore, believing this to be
>Jon's most probably approach, I would expect that any tweaks made to
>rules will be made with the idea that the FB designs are the benchmark.
>I don't expect to see many, but I would expect to see something done
>with fighters to reflect common FB designs/frequencies of classes and
>the efficacy of larger fighter formations.

This would be, IMO, a bad thing, since the designs are flawed according
to 
most players, and using them as a benchmark ties the system more closely

into the background.  The reason I got iinto GZG was the attraction of a

generic system that I could apply to any background.  Anything that
detracts 
from that generic quality of the games detracts equally from my
attraction 
to the games in general.

>I think some of the discussion towards fighter groups has centered on
>these points:

>3) One off games aren't realistic, nor is not knowing about your enemy,
>nor are you forced to use FB1 designs or models - BUT, a majority of
>people seem to do that - run one off games where each side shows up
with
>an NPV and FB1 designs as standard.

Again, this is a choice people make, and the better solution is to reach
an 
agreement with your opponents regarding standardizing designs within
your 
own setting, campaign format, etc.

>4) You are always free to ignore the rules and do your own thing within
>your group

this is also true of a game set in the Tuffleyverse, and I see no reason
to 
change the rules to suit that specific setting.

>5) The objectives of at least one of the better options seemed to be:
>Make attacks by small fighter counts at least somewhat useful (okay,
who
>has showed up with a BDN with one fighter group and thought "what the
>heck for?" - hand up, I know you're out there!), make fighter attacks
by
>huge groups of fighter less efficient/effective, give fighters a reason
>to meter their attacks and thus have some staying power. All of these
>will tend to make the game more fun - making small fighter formations
>have some use will mean when people take standard JoaT designs
>(admittedly not optimized), then the NPV for the fighters won't be
>wasted. Similarly, when people take large fighter fleets, they will be
>very dangerous, but not disproportionately so. And encouraging fighters
>to spread their attacks over a turn or two will tend to remove the "one
>wave, win or lose, game over" mentality.

One option that someone mentioned is to allow PDS and ADFC to defend
against 
multiple fighter groups.  I'm starting to warm to that idea.

>Now, one could argue this is changing rules to setting.

And I have.

>Yes and no.

Mostly yes.

>Yes,
>because it is trying to legitemize the FB designs.

Which doesn't seem fair to the system, if, as it's been argued, the
designs 
are flawed and not worthy of such legitimization to begin with.

>No because the PDS
>(or other) rules the way they are today exist by an equally arbitrary
>choice and reflect some sort of view of how things work... changing
this
>is not a case of violating some sacred generic system... because ANY
>system involves some portion of "setting" in it. Even the one we have
>today.

This is true to an extent, but the trick to maintaining the generic feel
is 
to limit that setting influence AMAP.  The more you tweak it to fit the 
Tuffleyverse, the stronger the arguement that it's not generic becomes.

>In the end result, you can do whatever YOU want with the game. Some of
>you use house rules, others mix alien and human tech, others build
their
>own ship designs with a very different philosophy, etc. This is all
>fine... so why you'd worry about any official modifications to the base
>rules, I can't image...

Because the more the rules are changed/added to in order to legitimize
the 
FB designs, the more the rest of us have to sift through them to
determine 
which work and which don't in a given system.

you'll just continue to do your own thing, to
>change things you don't like, and to ignore what doesn't suit you (as
>you should!).

And, I might point out, as can anyone using FB designs.

>OTOH, those who play vanilla out-of-the-book ships/fleets
>will tend to have (one hopes) a more enjoyable game.

There's nothing stopping those who use "vanilla out-of-the-book" 
ships/fleets from using their OWN house rules like those suggested in
order 
to accomplish just what you proppose, but that doesn't necessitate
making 
those rules canon just to suit that group of players.

3B^2

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: