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

> From: ~ On Behalf Of Allan Goodall
> Sent: 03 February 2003 14:26
> Subject: (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.

I'm impressed. The last thing I'd want to do in the middle
of a move is worry about a tricky issue like fighters.

>> ... 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 "all stuff posted
>> here is the intellectual property of GZG"?

Oh yes. That's an accepted fact of participating here.

>>> CS Renegade wrote:
>>>
>>> I must admit that the second stage of my suggestion
>>> ("Part V") does go a lot further than the first bit..

>> 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.)

The old FT grade 3 screen certainly cut fighter attacks down
to size.

I've always considered the variant fighters an optional
rather than a core rule, possibly because they first appeared
in MT. However, FB2 appears to make them core. To answer the
question I looked at modifying my abominable CRT:

 Roll one die per fighter. Deduct one from turkey
 dice and add one to ace dice, so you can now have
 mixed squadrons if you really want to.

 Die:  0    1	 2    3    4	5    6	  7
 PDS
  0    M    M	 A    1    1	R    R	  R    
  1    D    H	 M    A    1	1    R	  R    
  2    D    H	 M    M    A	1    R	  R
  3    D    D	 H    M    M	A    1	  R

 D: Fighter destroyed
 H: Heavies survive, others destroyed.
 M: Missed, but counts as a turn of firing.
 A: Attack fighters hit, others miss.
 1: Hit. One point of damage scored.
 R: Hit and reroll

 If a fighter is destroyed by a re-roll, the
 original point of damage stands.

For Torpedo fighters I considered saying read any
result yielding an A or an R as the amount of damage
caused. Torpedo Aces might need to be prohibited.

Unfortunately this doesn't work, at several levels.

The basic D6 range is just too granular. Heavy fighters
become almost bulletproof and Attack fighters enjoy too
great an advantage attacking heavily-defended targets.
FT is a single D6 system so the range can't be extended.
You only get more variation by saying "check die A then
maybe die B", which is a far cry from what I was trying
to achieve.

If there was a larger range available then screens
could resume their existing role by replacing some of
those "1" results with "1 point, deflected by grade 1
screen or better" and so forth.

The other problem is that the CRT is now becoming more
cluttered with different results. The problem might be
solved with one CRT per fighter type (or screen) but
the cure is worse than the disease.

ADFC becomes a major problem when PDS is calculated as a
rating rather than a count of finite systems. If the
fighters have to run the gauntlet of an ADFC ship rather
than the PDS of the target then there is the obvious rules
abuse of a small escort covering a large battleship. I'd
say the total TMF of all escorts used in this way should
equal or exceed that of the target.

For example, I've got a Milan configured for ADFC. It will
take two of them to cover a Roma and four of them to cover
a Foche if I extend them a fraction.

Alternatively, to keep the new PDS out of the hands of
banzai jammers and strikeboats, I had contemplated a new
requirement for a (mass-consuming) direction centre for
PDS. Adding a fixed cost would make any PDS impractical
for such vessels, but this would be a major change to FB1
and the existing designs so is a non-starter. ADFC would
have become a larger, more expensive variation of this. 

>> (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)

No, but then I wouldn't permit designs armed exlusively
with PTs, and I've never fought modern KV. Are there any
figures to suggest what the increase in the price of PTs
(probably the easier way of looking at it) should be? 

>> On PDS vs SMs:

>>> .. 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...

It's too late for me to trot out the progression needed to
calculate the reroll, so leaving that aside each PDS
currently shoots down 0.66 of a salvo missile. That's not
entirely true since the requirement to allocate PDS fire
will occasionally leave a battery idle whilst elsewhere a
salvo strikes home unopposed, but it'll do.

The rating proposal has each PDS bagging 1 missile with no
chance of failure, and repeating the performance for every
separate salvo that attacks. However, there are far fewer
PDS under this system than there currrently are. Examine my
table of FB1 conversions and it will be seen that all of
the superheavies and all but two of the battlewagons end up
with a PDS rating of 1 at 2% TMF per grade.

>From my very limited experience with salvo missiles, a
stronger defence against massed attack would be no bad
thing. I've had too many players reduced to gibbering "what
'appened to me spaceship?" to allow salvo missiles on
anything more than a token basis.   

>>> Even when a very large vessel is under attack, how much
>>> do B1s add to the defence?

>> It is for the SMALL ships, up to about DD size, that the
>> B1s' PD capabilities have their largest impact.

Statistically that is very true. But also irrelevant. These
ships generally have a pair of B1s and a single PDS, guarding
five to ten hull boxes. If attacked by two SM salvos then
this class of vessel is kaput, and a single salvo will
probably put it past the first threshold.

I can see that this has turned into a "knock the salvo
missile" posting. I'm going to try a larger scale at my next
game since part of the problem could be that we are using
cinematic movement on what I suspect is too small a tabletop.
Speeds are consequently low and it's probably far too easy
to predict where the enemy will be, both for missiles and
submunition packs. Meanwhile, the problem of massed fighter
and missile attacks remains unsolved.

>>> {stage whisper} If FB1 had to be reprinted, it would be
>>> an opportunity to correct some of the typos.

>> FB1 was ... corrected a couple years or three ago.

Well at least Jon's got a sale out of this. Having brought up
the subject of the old errors I now feel morally obliged to go
and get a new copy. Unless {chortle} FT3 is going to be
available at Salute this year?