Re: Soap bubbles?

"Bradley, Jason (US - Minneapolis)" wrote:

> Thanks for the recap, I must have missed your post a few days ago.
>

No problem...  You can always skim the archives if you want more detail.

>
> So if I understand you right then it is fighters in large numbers that
begin
> to become a problem, sort of a loophole in the rules so to speak
because of
> their cost vs. effectiveness in numbers?  Is it possible to keep the
numbers

Yes.  Sorta.  It's a non-linear problem...  Low numbers of fighters tend
to be
near worthless (I say near because there are some "special" tactics one
or two
groups of fighters are still good for) for the points paid, whereas high
numbers
of fighters are worth much much more than what was paid.

>
> in check by limiting how many groups can be on a ship at any one time?
 It
> seems reasonable to me from a fluff/gaming standpoint, if you look at
> today's Aircraft carriers, they are limited in the amount of craft
they can
> support and carry, money being the biggest reason.  I suppose you
couldn't
> limit the idea that a player may have only so many carriers but there
has to
> be an inherent weakness in that style of play?  That leads me to the
soap
> bubble thing...

I was actually originally approaching that from the other direction... 
Possibly
limiting the number of fighters that may actively attack a ship.

There's a slippery slope here somewhere...  Let me say it this way. 
Unless you
minimize the number of carrier's in a fleet to ridiculus levels (like
1-2
period) you can't keep someone from bringing all carriers to any given
fight,
unless your number of points for a pick-up game exceeds the number of
points of
carriers in a fleet.  It restricts creativity, in design philosophies,
in
tactics and strategy, and in creativity.

>
> Is it absolutely necessary to come up with a rule to limit this sort
of ship
> building?  I am not sure if you guys are in the process of rewriting a
new
> edition to the rules but I know locally, players who tend to use
beardy
> tactics like that find they have fewer and fewer people interested in
> playing them.  Is it a popular tactic and is there strong opposition
to
> basically outright boycotting that type of craft?
> You will have to excuse me if that last idea sounds a little
optimistic or
> naive, I like to think that most gamers can enjoy and play within the
> "spirit" of the rules sometimes.

Ah, I knew there was a slippery slope...

Define to me what is beardy tactics?  I'll grant you the extremes, Soap
Bubbles
are dodgy/abusive.  How about a true carrier though?  Perhaps 4-6
squadrons of
fighters?  How about that same carrier that has no offensive weapons? 
Perhaps a
bit of PDS, some armor, and a somewhat weak hull (10-20%?)...  Still
beardy?
Abusive?  Perhaps...  Yet that's effectively what a modern CVN is.  It's
not
meant to see combat.  That's what the fighters are for, and the
screening ships
and subs if it comes to that.  How can you build a modern day equivelant
battlegroup if you don't allow the specialized carrier?  Ok, still a bit
bad.
Well, what if I put some armament on it?  How many B3's and B2's do I
need to
put on it before it becomes acceptable?  See where it's going?

Another example...  B4's and greater...  Nothing in the rules says I
need to
mount anything specific...  So I mount a B4 (or higher) on the smallest
fastest
craft I can.  With 1 hull.  Then I sit back and plinck.  Cheesy?  Yep. 
But how
do you solve that?  (Yes, I know the basic tactics to resolve this,
rhetorical
question!)

So now we get to the fundamental problem...   How do you allow a design
system,
allow different "flavors" of ships (who wants to redesign what already
exists in
the books?), without having people push the limits?  And how do you
define
pushing the limits?  Is it cheese to push a little?  Alot?  Where's the
line?

True, people who push to far tend to lack playmates.  But then people
who are
tactically better tend to win more...  Should you not play with them?  I
mean,
it's not alot of fun to know you're going to get beat in a fair fight
from the
start, right?  How about those who are praeternaturally lucky?	You know
the
ones...  They roll more 6's than all other numbers combined... 
(Especially if
you're the one's man?)	You shouldn't play with them...  etc.  
Extreme's can be
reached, but before then you start running out of people to play with...

While I can't change someone's luck, and I can't beat the genius, rules
can be
changed to level the playing field and hopefully allow the most
creativity with
the least amount of cheese possible.  Especially when there is a
fundamental
flaw in a part of the game.

Wow...	Long winded way of saying that taking your ball and going home
isn't
always a good answer.

For the record...  I've managed to design a fleet that I beleive (and
have
play-tested some) is fairly balanced against book fleets.  It has it's
strengths, and weaknesses.  It has fleet carriers that have no armament
(Although hull, screens, armor, PDS, ADFC, etc) that are big and meant
to carry
fighters but stay out of the fight.  I like fighters, and make extensive
use of
them.  But I also don't like that swarms are as effective as they are. 
And
possibly most of all, I dislike how crippled a single squadron is, but I
know
(from bad experience) that that won't be addressed until the swarm
problem is
fixed.	(Aside: PDS is too powerful, IMHO, but keep that quite since
it's a
_very_ minority held view...)

Rand.