RE: Re: Fighters

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> [mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf
> Of Brian Burger
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 8:25 AM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: RE: Re: Fighters
>
>
> I'm afraid I'm pretty much in the "Fighters as
> written Are Too Powerful"
> camp.
>
> For starters, they cost (SWAG here) about half what
> they're worth, for the
> stock rules. Maybe not half, but they're way
> underpriced right now.

I'd have to agree. In non-campaign games we used to have a
problem with people bringing loads of carriers to the table vs.
those who chose a more balanced fleet. 'Soap-bubble' carriers
were also a problem when we allowed custom designs later on.

We fixed the problem by doubling the cost of fighters, and it
pretty much sorts itself out in campaign games as one of the
players that favoured carriers found out to his cost :) Design
doctrines amongst those in the campaign game tended to more
balanced fleets with the odd specialist ship, and equally more
mid-range ships as opposed to big ships due to the need to
defend over wide areas.
>
> Either double the price, or redo the fighter weapon
> systems as PDS - kill
> 1 fighter on a 4,5; 2 on 6; do one point of damage to
> a ship on a 6. Let
> interceptors kill 1 fighter w/ 4; 2 on 5,6; no damage
> possible to ships.
> Leave the torp fighters as is - they're balanced.
> This has the advantage
> of making the fighter & anti-fighter weapons use the
> same mechanic. (KISS
> principle)

We experimented with allowing ADFC controlled defences engage
any enemy fighter group whether they were attacking friendlies
or not, and also allowing ADFC controlled defences to engage at
9 MU (not both rule changes simultaneously though). This
generally led to wholesale slaughter of the fighters against any
fleet fielding ADFC systems until players got used to holding
their fighters off at considerable range until they were ready
to commit in a large group.

It also wouldn't solve the FB1 ships issue with no ADFC NAC
vessels and mostly ADFC systems only apearing as known variants.
>
> Having a half-range B1 that can't be killed beyond 6"
> away, and can't be
> killed unless it's actually attacking you, sucks royally.

I think the biggest stinker here is that you can't attack them
until they choose to attack you. I'd favour any change that
allows your ADFC to start pumping the flak out as soon as
fighters are in reasonably close range as in my opinion that's
more 'realistic' maybe with reduced hits if the group isn't
actually making an attack run (which is something I've proposed
as a house rule for our gamers - any fighter group within 6 MU
can be attacked by ADFC with 1 fighter killed on 5 or 6 [6 only
for heavies]).
>
> I'm talking FB-stock ships/fleets here, not custom
> oddness. I'll grant
> that you can balance fighters with custom ship
> designs with all the costs
> as they are, but with the FB ships as they are
> fighters are too cheap.
>
>SNIP<

Rgds,

Alfie