Re: Fighters

On Friday, May 3, 2002, at 08:27 PM, Eric Foley wrote:

> Um... at risk of flaming... too bad.	That's part of the point of the 
> game:
> it's SUPPOSED to be generic and able to support custom designs without
a
> hitch.  If you don't want to bother with the design system.... go
ahead 
> and
> ignore it!  Play with the FB1 ships and don't worry about it!  There's
> nothing wrong with that!

I'm at a loss to see where you feel the need to be just a little 
condescending here.  There isn't a need for everyone to agree, I was 
however voicing a opinion, one which I believe never insulted .  I never

claimed that I didn't want to bother with the design system, but it is 
only part of the system.

> I, on the other hand, have been playing with the custom design system 
> for
> years and have derived countless hours of enjoyment, and at the moment
I
> generally tend to ignore that there are example designs in there at 
> all.	I
> don't care about them.  At all.  I've left the Tuffleyverse behind
> altogether and am out exploring on my own... and to put it a little
> tongue-in-cheek, I greatly resent the rumblings I'm hearing from those

> who
> stayed behind that I need to come back and genuflect at the altar of
the
> great almighty gawd known as "Fieturz Artoo Powurfull".  I'm not a 
> believer
> whatsoever.

This is great that you enjoy playing outside the Tuffleyverse.	 There's

no claim that the rules require you to use it.	I've had fun playing 
other story lines as well.  However, since it appears this discussion is

getting away from balancing a system and more into what is the "correct"

way to play the game I suggest that analyzing what the root of the 
problem is first might be beneficial.  I find that fighters can be 
overwhelming under any design approach that doesn't forbid or greatly 
increase their cost.  Their usefulness, as one poster mentioned, is 
greatly increased with the addition of more - thus where maybe 4 
squadrons is next to worthless, 12 squadron might be worth more than 3 
times those original four in the same situation.  I believe under most 
preferred styles of play that use the design system as printed in the 
rule books fighters can become unbalanced when one side has a vastly 
different number of them.  In many of these situations it comes down to 
out guessing in the design phase.  Any design system that places too 
much importance on design alone, while in some cases it may be 
"realistic" depending upon the background portrayed, can lead to an 
larger numbers of games that are unenjoyable for one or more 
participants.  No design system can totally balance every aspect without

killing off the width of it's options IMHO, but coming as close as is 
reasonably possible is a worthy goal.

I admit that I've tended to skim and lightly read some of the response, 
but I fail to see when discussing a base point to start discussing 
balance issues where that has in anyway said "You must abandon the way 
you enjoy playing".

Balancing the ships to only one aspect, be it optimized ships or FB type

ships, is not a good way to go.  It appears the main comment I mentioned

above was overlooked.  For whatever reason (maybe I didn't state it 
clearly, cloaking it in my preference for FB ships as a base approach) 
the whole system needs to be addressed.  What balances a system in one 
aspect of design approach may not be balanced in other perspectives.  
Fighters/PDS is one such issue.  Just because it's balanced for FB ships

or custom designs (if it is for either) doesn't make the combat/design 
system balanced for the other.

As you mentioned above a "generic" system should work for any type of 
play; be it optimized designs, FB designs, Star Trek adaptations, B5, 
etc.  Another factor to consider is the rule system has a long past of 
using a particular base for starting its testing and discussions, 
branching out to test things in other gaming approaches.  Radically 
changing that balancing point means potentially restarting and redoing a

vast amount of playtesting and work that's already been done.  Some has 
to be done anyway with any changes, but with the amount of time that 
would be needed to redo so much more could greatly delay newer 
material's releases.  Just a comment here though.

Kevin Walker
Horizon Concepts, Inc.
Macintosh & Windows Development
Miniature Painting & Sculpting