Re: fighters, the saga continues...

At 5:01 PM -0400 5/6/02, Tomb wrote:
>Nice post Noam.
>
>One other thought:
>The suggestion of PDS engaging all targets had two parts:
>1) To put a nice cap on the number of fighters it is really useful to
>attack with (ie there really isn't any PDS overwhelming)
>2) To make fighters in small numbers MORE viable
>
>There has been a lot of focus on #1, but #2 is equally useful. Right
>now, if you show up with a BDN or two, your fighters might as well put
>on their rising sun headbands and right their last will and
>testament.... not only will they die, but probably without having much
>effect.

While I'm not certain how it works I like the principle and this is 
where I always wondered, what the heck does a BDN or SDN derive from 
a fighter group or two? They are bloody useless in a battle against 
other ships of the line and aren't terribly useful against medium 
combatants in that size. Their only benefit is being able to go after 
smaller stuff before it out runs the fighters.

>I liked this solution because:
>1) You can attack with as many fighters as you want... just no one gets
>a free lunch so the optimal number becomes "how many do I need to do
>some damage" not "how many can I pile on".
>2) Small fighter gaggles (not a swarm, not enough of them) are more
>effectual, thus making them worth the points you pay
>3) In this kind of game, fighters instead of being a one or two-turn
>feeding frenzy can end up being a multi-turn weapon used very
carefully,
>a few squadrons at a time. This is probably even MORE fun.
>4) Nice perk: FB designs end up looking viable both against other
>designs that use guns and those that use fighters.
>
>Although I see 1 as important, and 4 as nice, 2 and 3 are as useful for
>making the game interesting and fun.
>
>Remember too that some of FT is a matter of choices and
>inclusion/exclusion of rules. Vector or cinematic? FB1 vector or FB2?
>Roll allowed or not? etc. Having another PDS rule which you could use
>(or keep the current one) wouldn't do anyone any harm.
>
>And I also noticed Ryan's (I think) assertions about where a carrier
>should be and how carrier games should be conducted is based on his
PSB,
>not anything from the game. The fact we see them on the board and that
>fighters have relatively short engagement ranges and fuel supplies
[snip]

Well, a group can cruise along at basic speed for a massive number of 
turns Transit onto the board complete some combat, then transit off 
the board (to the next board over) to go back to the carrier 
(assuming they survive).

>
>They could, but the game doesn't really suggest that to me. Whether
they
>should or should not in the real (???) world of space combat is utterly
>a personal opinion. Some might even say due to reaction mass issues,
>fighters are not even viable in space. But it all comes down to taste
>and PSB.

The whole concept of a carrier is that they project power away from 
the task group out of visual range of the Carrier. If the fighters 
are just the same in the end as a set of guns, why build them in the 
first place? The weapon system has to derive some different set of 
advantages and disadvantages from the other weapons.

Fighters are disconnected from the ship for a reason. They become 
more vulnerable for a given ability to project that firepower away 
from the ship. The disadvantage is that they aren't carring all of 
that mass and hull around with them on the attack to prevent their 
destruction. They are targeted directly unlike Beams, P-Torps and 
SMLs are.

At least the NAC carriers work this way in that they aren't line of 
battle ships that happen to have a bunch of fighter bays. Or are 
those fighters just there because that's the way that the Emporor 
decreed that they'd end their lives? :-P

>And in one small aspect, I agree with 3B^2 --> the rules should not be
>strongly tied to a particular PSB or genre assumption. OTOH,
>overwhelmable PDS already IS tied to some assumption, so I have no
>problem with an alternative mechanism being produced tied to another.
In
>fact, having both may be considered even MORE generic.... if you think
>about it.
>
>T.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill			     '01 Honda Insight -
- rmgill@SPAmindspring.com			    '85 CB700S -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com		 '76 Chevy Monte Carlo -
- www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       '72 Honda CB750 -
-				      '60 Daimler FV701H Mk2/3 -
-				   '42 Daimler Scout Car Mk II -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-    Smart ID cards in the US, Smart ID cards in Hong Kong,    -
-		      what is the difference?		       - 
----------------------------------------------------------------
-  C&R-FFL  /  Protect your electronic rights!	  \ EFF-ACLU   -
- SAF & NRA/  Join the EFF!  http://www.eff.org/   \ DoD #0780 -