For Beth

1. let PDS attack every squadron that 
attacks.

1a. if so, adjust PDS to-hit *down* so ships 
don't become
invincible

2. increase the points and mass up the 
wazoo.
2a. Or tamper with requirements for 
carriers, not fighters,
to avoid soap bubbles.
2b. Make a non-linear scaling for fighter 
costs

> 3. let class-2 and above take pot shots at 
any range
3a. Randy's Proposal: let bigger weapons shoot 
at "coasting" (nonCEF expending) fighters
3b. Like 3a, only I think big weapons should be 
limited to killing one fighter each, or if you want 
to roll all the dice together, maybe they should 
fire as PDS. (Less effect than dedicated PDS/B-
1, though at range)

4. adjust the effectiveness of PDS to close 
to scatterpack

5. shoot whoever started the thread.
5a. Shoot those complaining about the thread, 
since they were probably complaining about the 
flamewars which were our previous situation.... 
<g>

6. reduce the endurance of fighters
6a. charge endurance for every turn 
fighters are in flight,
not just combat and secondary moves
6b. charge endurance for:
	- evasive movement
	- secondary afterburn movement
	- dogfights
	NOT for coasting
	NOT for attacks IF you're already 
paying for evasive movement that turn
This kind of goes with 3a or 3b. 

7. Allow mixed tech (plasma, scatterpacks) 
as a way of balancing fighters

8. Status Quo

9. Reduce Fighter attack damage to 
perhaps equivalent to a PDS instead of a B1

10. Limit fighters attacking per ship to X 
(6? some function of mass?)
10a. Limit fighters attacking per arc

Of course, there are probably mix and 
match options, and some are probably 
dependent on others. So you've probably 
got at least 30 games to test various 
feasible permutations... Fill Yer Boots! 

I think in eyeballing these things, we want 
to ensure:

If fighter points don't change: 
It would be ideal if small fighter groups are 
made a bit more useful, large fighter 
swarms are made a bit less useful (or a lot 
less useful all at once). 

If the points values change, then there may 
be no need to change any rules. Of course, 
both may need to change. 

It would a nice plus to introduce some 
more tactical choices for the players (for 
example coast/don't coast, which Multi-
Role packet to kit my fighter out with, etc). 

It would be nice to make FB1 designs more 
well balanced even against other FB1 
designs. 

New (well I think) thought:
Instead of wrangling over the fix/don't 
fix/oh-my-god-carrier-are-useless 
thinking.... why don't we think about it this 
way - what do we want to model?

A) Carrier Ops like those in the modern day 
- multi role fighters, carriers far apart 
(probably off board) and the game is 
defending against fighter strikes often with 
massed fighters.

B) Standard game with carriers on the 
board, standard ship types, one off play, 
where we want fighters to be roughly point 
costed correctly. 

C) WW2 Carrier games where fighters and 
bombers and whatnot were more 
specialized (probably didn't change from 
one role to another in 15 mins)

D) Anime where a fighter squadron can 
take apart a small fleet... 

By thinking in "model" or "genre" terms, we 
could define a number of "rules mixes" and 
costing modifiers. These could appear as 
short entries in FB3/FT3/somewhere??? 
and thus let Ryan play his game, Eric play 
his, me play mine, etc. The "standard 
rules" would fit definition B above but there 
isn't a really good reason not to at least 
give the nod to other types of gaming 
unless their is a space crunch. (no puns 
intended)

Tomb. 
---------------------------------------------
Thomas Barclay
Co-Creator of http://www.stargrunt.ca 
Stargrunt II and Dirtside II game site

No Battle Plan Survives Contact With Dice.
-- Mark 'Indy' Kochte