RE: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

> From: ~ On Behalf Of Allan Goodall
> Sent: 31 January 2003 19:38
> Subject: Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

> It's not what the group has been doing, no. But it has certain
> aspects of things the playtest group was studying.
>
> However, I think the playtest list's proposed solution is a bit
> more elegant.

I hope I haven't missed anything here. Any proposed solution is
still under wraps with the playtest list, and nothing has been
publicly announced, correct?

> It doesn't have a combat results table, for instance (which Jon
> isn't crazy about anyway) and it sticks closer to the rules 
> already in place (thus it's easier to remember).

A general aversion to CRTs is certainly understandable, and I've
seen some that could be written simply as a "roll X or more, +1
if..." rule. Having said that, mechanisms can be created using a
CRT that can't be duplicated with a straight rule.

What is the easiest way to describe the relationship between
beams and shields to a newbie or transient player? Draw a table.

I must admit that the second stage of my suggestion ("Part V")
does go a lot further than the first bit, and as I noted I am
concerned that it nullifies the effect of shields against
fighters. Each part was intended as a separate successive
suggestion, and the first stage can be used in isolation if CRTs
are undesirable.

> Nathan's solution also doesn't deal with salvo missiles

I didn't mention them, but an adaptation shouldn't be difficult.
Every salvo missile gets shot at on the way in, and the only
real question is how lethal SMs are to be.

Wild totally-untested idea: when rolling for the number of
missiles in each salvo that strike, deduct the ship's PDS rating.
If that makes PDS too weak, try adding 1 to the PDS rating if
the target is under thrust.

> or class 1 beams in PDS mode.

Even when a very large vessel is under attack, how much do B1s
add to the defence? I suspect it's more of a psychological prop
for the player being attacked. Why is this support needed? 
Could it be that the ruleset is under pressure to find more
ways to fend off massed fighter and missile attacks?

Along the lines of recent suggestions, I'd say let B1s pot at
any fighter group lurking within 6mu as part of the normal fire
phase, but deny them any role during a close attack. Add a
requirement for a free firecon, one per group if you want to
be nasty to fighters and one per fighter if you want to
severely limit the effect of superships on fighters.

(A fighter may of course avoid all B1 fire by manoeuvring down
 any covenient trench in the hull of the supership.)

> The biggest negative to this idea, other than the CRT, is
> that it requires recalculating ship cost.

{stage whisper} If FB1 had to be reprinted, it would be an
opportunity to correct some of the typos. (Somebody correct me
if the current edition is already fixed!)

I didn't have a precise recosting / rebuilding of the FB1 ships
in mind. My "quick fix" conversion went more along the lines of
"you have have X PDS therefore have spent Y% of your TMF on PDS
 at a cost of 3X points; it follows that your new PDS rating is
 Z, add or strike symbols accordingly". A bit like an errata.

> For one thing, you have to take _all_ the fleets into
> consideration, including the Phalons with their PBLs.

True, and adapting the idea to handle the PH weaponry will be
particularly difficult. I don't use FB2 and have never faced
SV or PH, so I don't really feel that I can offer a good
suggestion here. I'm facing a big enough battle getting SMs
accepted by my usual group.

> I suspect that by the time Nathan has played enough playtest
> games to find the problems and sort them out, the playtest
> lists' proposal will be out in one form or another...

It's a fair cop, guv! I only get to play FT a few times a year,
and I know from putting new ideas on the table how difficult
it can be to get the balance right.

Nathan "the guinea pigs are revolting!" Girdler