(fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

Oerjan asked me to forward this on to the mailing list. He's currently
reassembling his computer at home, as he is currently in the middle of a
move.

---

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:50:51 +0100 , Ohlson Örjan
<orjan.ohlson@dynamics.saab.se> wrote:

Imre A. Szabo wrote:

>> Your above statement is certainly correct for the *currently
published*
>>rules.
>
>Actually, my statement is partially wrong (which makes the whole thing
false
>in logic).

Well, it is correct for five out of the seven published "official"
fleets,
and the FB2 Sa'Vasku are so totally out-of-balance anyway that they
hardly
count either - not when they're likely to get a complete re-write as
soon as
possible :-/

>>Allan was, however, talking about the playtest list's proposal for
solving
>>the fighter balance problems you describe - which makes your statement
>>quite inaccurate indeed...
>
>My suggested salvo missile decoys, as originally suggested are illegal
- no
>hull.

Similar decoys ("banzai jammers", or "BJs" for short) have been in use
since
about one month after FB1 was published, and are quite effective against
fleets which rely too heavily on missiles - but can be effectively
countered
by eg. FSE-style forces which combine missiles with decent beam
armaments.
Yes, they will take heavier losses than they would if they didn't have
to
get within the enemy's beam range before launching missiles - but
they're
still quite capable of winning battles.

However, unless you also change the rules for anti-fighter fire such BJs
have no effect whatsoever against the *fighters* which are the subject
of
the current discussion...

>If you allow fractional mass for FTL drives and main
>drives, you can build a small decoy, so you can have a mass 4 decoy
with 1
>hull integrity, FTL, thrust 7, and PDAF for 13 points; 

Apart from the "PDAF" which is no longer used in the FT/FB rules (PDS
has
not only a different name, but somewhat different abilities as well),
this
ship is perfectly legal under the current (FB2) ship design rules. No
need
for "fractional engine masses".

>or a mass 3 decoy with 1 hull integrity, FTL, thrust 4, and PDAF for 10
points.

This, however, is not legal without a rules change.

>In a game I fought a couple of years ago, the ESU player took about 6
Lenov
>class scoutships in his fleet.  I blew two of them up with enitely too
many
>salvo missiles.  I burnt the rest of them down with beams that turn,
but
>they had already cost me too much... 

In other words, you launched your missiles too early and paid the cost
for
it <shrug>.

***
CS Renegade wrote:

>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?

Correct. This is the very purpose of the playtest list :-/

Mind you, just like Jon T. the playtesters pick up a lot of interesting
ideas on the various open GZG-related mailing lists (including this one
-
remember the "all stuff posted here is the intellectual property of GZG"
bit
in the "welcome to this mailing list" post you got when you
subscribed?), so
don't be surprised if the 'official' fighter-balance fix resembles some
of
the stuff you've seen here :-)

[...]

>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.

Not only did it nullify screens against fighters; it also raised a bunch
of... interesting questions about Heavy, Attack and Torpedo fighters,
and
also about how ADFC are intended to work. (Plus of course the ones about
SMs
and PBs that Allan asked earlier.) 

(Side note: although the re-rolls are described as an "recommended
optional
rule" rather than a compulsory one in FB1, the various weapon costs are
determined assuming that it is in use - so if you don't use it, you'll
probably find beams to be a fair bit underpowered/overpriced compared to
P-torps and K-guns :-/ )

On PDS vs SMs:

>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.

If it makes PDS too *weak*? I'd say that they make PDSs much too
*strong*
instead...

>> or class 1 beams in PDS mode.
>
>Even when a very large vessel is under attack, how much do B1s
>add to the defence?

You're looking at the wrong end of the mass range here. B1s don't add
much
to the defence of LARGE ships, because large ships usually have a
relatively
large number of PDSs and rather few B1s.

It is for the SMALL ships, up to about DD size, that the B1s' PD
capabilities have their largest impact. Under the current rule 33% of
the
anti-fighter firepower of an NAC Ticonderoga comes from its B1
batteries;
for the NAC Tacoma or ESU Warsaw the corresponding figure is 50%.

>{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!)

FB1 was re-printed and had its typoes corrected a couple years or three
ago.

Later,

Oerjan

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"We come into the world and take our chances
 Fate is just the weight of circumstances
 That's the way that Lady Luck dances
 Roll the bones." - N. Peart