Prev: Re: [OT] Fuel Cells was: Space Programs Next: Re: [OT] Space Programs was: Columbia

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

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@h...>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 10:15:52 -0600
Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:30:25 +1100, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

> OK, I'm new to Full Thrust so am probably sticking foot in
> mouth here...

Hi there!

> Is increasing the cost of each fighter not an option? Seems
> a lot easier than coming up with new weapon rules or even
> reprinting the fleet books.

As mentioned, the problem is one of scaling fighters. A single fighter
squadron has a pretty accurate cost. If you have 5 or 6 squadrons,
you're cost
is still pretty accurate as far as their capability. If you have a force
of 15
to 20 squadrons, you'll pretty much beat anything out there that doesn't
use
the same thing. 

One of the big problems is that of a "soap bubble carrier". This is a
carrier
that has very little other than a drive, FTL, and hangar bays. The rest
of the
points are spent on fighters. The math's been shown here before, but if
the
flock of squadrons concentrate on one or two ships at at time, they can
destroy the ships before they've lost anything close to the equivalent
points
in fighters. In the end, the other fleet is destroyed and the fighter
fleet
wins.

We could come up with a point system that works for scaling fighters,
but the
math gets nasty without the use of a calculator. The idea is to keep the
point
system simple. Also, we want to keep the points for the existing fleet
book
ships as they are, and validate the ship designs in the fleet books.
Obviously, if soap bubble carriers worked _so_ well in the "real life"
of the
Tuffleyverse background, you'd see NAC, NSL, ESU and FSE soap bubble
carriers.
So, the fix for fighters would hopefully justify the designs in the
fleet
books (they may not be optimal, but they should at least be somewhat
viable).

> (I'm just bitter because my fighter-heavy NACs just got thumped
> at a convention, so don't want them made less effective :-) )

Were you using ships out of the fleet book? If so, the designs in there
are
fairly balanced. If you were building your own ships, you probably
didn't
build enough fighters! If you are playing fleet book ships, you
shouldn't
worry as the new fighter rules are particularly interested in huge
swarms of
fighters.

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

Prev: Re: [OT] Fuel Cells was: Space Programs Next: Re: [OT] Space Programs was: Columbia