Re: [FT] Yet Another Fighters Suggestion

Well, if this were a rule in my custom games I don't think I'd ever
bother fielding a carrier that carried fewer than about 12-15 fighter
groups.

The rules system itself is not the problem, nor has it ever been.  If
you're playing a custom game against someone who wants to pile
on the fighters against you, the answer is to pile on the scatterguns
against them.  On average, it takes two scatterguns (mass 2, cost
10) to wipe out an entire fighter group (mass 9, cost 45).  If you
want to play with the Fleet Book designs, then don't play custom
games with them against people who are going to want to mass
fighters.  They suck in those games.  End of story.  The rules system
itself provides ways to deal with that, and the Fleet Book ships don't
employ them.

Don't change the rules.  Change the ships or the scenario you're
using.

E
(aka Stilt Man)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hugh Fisher" <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:56 AM
Subject: [FT] Yet Another Fighters Suggestion

> The problem: increasing the number of fighters in an attack
> ("stack of doom") has a non-linear increase in effectivess.
> It is especially bad in large scale battles using standard
> Fleet Book designs.
> 
> From the archives, not every player would agree there is
> actually a problem. If you want to argue against the need
> for any change, please change the subject first?
> 
> My suggestion is a variation on numeric limits that doesn't
> require any changes to fighter movement or PDS fire. Limits
> have been suggested before - the oldest I could find is Beth
> Fulton in the late 90s - and nobody seems to have any
> objection other than the arbitrary nature of a fixed number.
> My idea os to make the limit vary consistently between
> genres/settings in a predictable way so that players
> (collective) have a degree of control.
> 
> Add to the rules on fighters:
> 
>	A ship may only be attacked by fighters from a
>	single carrier in any given turn. This limit does
>	not apply to fighter vs fighter dogfights, or if
>	the ship is asteroid sized or larger.
> 
> The PSB reason: a short range attack on a ship requires
> coordination and careful flying by pilots who train
> regularly together. There isn't enough time in the span
> represented by one FT turn for successive waves.
> 
> The real reason: a numerical limit on fighters is a magic
> number if a game that otherwise doesn't have any and is
> remarkably flexible. Making the limit be 'one carriers
> worth' makes it part of the setting or genre chosen by the
> players.
> 
> The limit is therefore 7 for Fleet Book 1, 8 for books 1 & 2
> (barring Sa'Vasku excessive wierdness, but what would you
> expect from Sa'Vasku?), and whatever the designers,
> organisers, or players want it to be in other circumstances.
> 
> I've tested this rule in a number of battles by limiting
> myself to never stack fighters from different ships together
> against one target. The effects I've noticed are:
> 
> Carriers now scale more like other ships: an escort carrier
> can fight escorts and cruisers, but if you want to take on
> superdreadnaughts, you'll need a fleet carrier. However,
> small carriers can defend themselves against a big one, as
> the rule allows stacking in dogfights.
> 
> Small battles with Fleet Book ships (up to 1500 or so points
> of capitals): carrier selection becomes more interesting. In
> the past I've mini-maxed by choosing two light carriers
> instead of one fleet, since eight fighters were always
> better than six. With this rule it's a meaningful choice:
> overall numbers or the heaviest individual punch?
> 
> Big battles with Fleet Book ships: this is where the problem
> seems to be worst and this rule is most effective. You can
> still have huge numbers of fighters, but won't be able to
> annihilate even  big ships in a single turn.
> 
> The case I haven't tested is battles with custom designs.
> Here the flexibility of a 'one carrier worth' limit instead
> of a number *should* come into effect: if you've got the
> points to build Battlestar Galactica you can, and get full
> value from it. Your opponents likewise know what they could
> be in for and can defend accordingly. But that's just a
> prediction.
> 
> Anyone else like to test it?
> 
> Cheers,
> Hugh
> 
> 
> 
>