Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@hyperbear.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: [FT] CPV vs. NPV

> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:00:09 -0800, "Eric Foley"
<stiltman@teleport.com>
> wrote:
> >Call me selfish, but I'd rather not see the point system and the
> >anti-fighter rules twisted like balloon animals in order to cure
problems
> >that crop up primarily in vector and aren't even particularly bad
issues
in
> >cinematic.

> Nobody said they were. The anti-fighter rules pop up in vector and
cinematic.
> The point system is still primarily cinematic based, as vector is an
> "optional" system. As such, any solution must first work in cinematic.
It
> should also work in vector, as a system that works in cinematic but
completely
> breaks down in vector is of zero use to those who prefer vector games.

> But no fear, the playtest list has players who play in both modes, and
all
> rules proposals are tested in both modes.

Well, here's where I'm at in my own experience and what worries me about
this enigmatic "playtest list".

As I've already said in previous messages, the typical game in my
circles
tends to call for us to use 5000 points of ships and we're allowed to
more
or less design anything we want that isn't Sa'Vasku tech.  At present,
enough PDS or scatterguns typically are deployed in those games that if
you're bringing fighters as a stand-alone weapon without plasma to back
them
up, you're going to need at _least_ 50 groups to have any confidence at
all
that they'll be effective.  If you bring lots of plasma to back up your
fighters you can cut that to about 30.	Neither one of them is at
outright
soapy levels of fighter masses... and frankly I'd like to be able to
continue using things _like_ them and be able to employ fighters as an
offensive and defensive weapon _without_ having to go soapy to see them
be
effective.

However, when I hear a lot of rumblings about a playtest list that's
going
to turn the fighter rules around, this worries me.  If they're merely
going
to change the design rules so that soap bubble carriers are no longer
possible to use, then I'm all for that... I think it's completely fair
to
say that absolutely no one on this list will miss them.  If they're
going to
leave the design rules alone but strengthen point defenses _slightly_ so
that custom designs don't have to bring quite as many scatterguns or PDS
to
stop soap bubble carriers, then I can live with that, too.  I personally
think that only PDS really needs a change of any sort, and not even a
particularly drastic one.  But if they're going to change the PDS rules
so
that FB1 ships can come right out of the box and beat soap bubbles
silly, I
don't see a way of doing that without rendering fighters ineffective
altogether.  I _do_ trust that there's going to be a middle ground left
in
there, and that the end solution will be considerably less radical than
a
number of people have advocated on this list... but with the amount of
point
defense I _already_ see in my games, I don't see very many possible
changes
that wouldn't make that impossible to overcome without at least getting
soapy, if at all.  I don't _want_ to have to go soapy to use fighters,
and I
don't want to have to not use fighters because they don't work at all.

As for large ships... I see them as a far less worrisome thing than
fighters.  I think the only real solution that's needed there is to make
main drives more expensive for them than they are for smaller ships. 
That
was already the case in FT2, and I do agree that FT2.5 sort of "broke"
that
by making it a purely linear thing.  I think scaling the amount of
percentage of mass dedicated to drives in order to get the same thrust
rating to the size of the vessel is still an excellent way to go.  It
simply
stands to reason that a little bitty destroyer should not have the same
equations for thrust-to-mass ratio as the Death Star.  Put that back in
there and the "problem" of large ships will largely solve itself.

E
(aka Stilt Man)