Re: [FT] Yet Another Fighters Suggestion

Ryan wrote:
> Well, here is a question. Why is an imbalance wrong? 

The problem with an imbalance is that it throws the point system out of 
whack. 18 points of fighters should -- all things being equal -- do the
same 
amount of damage as 18 points of beams plus the mass of the ship and
drives 
needed to push those beams around. Likewise, 3600 points of ships should
have 
a roughly even chance against a soap bubble carrier and fighter groups
worth 
a total of 3600 points. Obviously this sort of thing is difficult to get

right, and you can only approximate it. As they currently stand, it
looks 
like fighters are about worth their current points... if you have a
small 
number of fighters. Once you get large numbers of fighters, they can
destroy 
whole ships in one turn with little loss to themselves. In large numbers

fighters are drastically under priced.

This in itself isn't a problem if you are aware of it and plan scenarios

and/or campaign limitations around it. In this situation, a broken point

system or no point system at all doesn't much matter.

It is a huge problem for those people who play "build an X point fleet
and 
meet me here on Saturday" type of pick-up games. In these cases you'd
expect 
X points for one player to have roughly the same chance of winning as X 
points for another player, but that isn't the case due to the fighter 
imbalance.

It's at this point that Eric points out that you can easily defend
against 
fighters with large numbers of scatterguns. Scatterguns are also
overpowered 
for their price. The end result is that there is an optimum combination
of 
weapons that you _must_ have if you hope to win in a pick-up game. Some
of us 
find this intensely boring, as there are a lot of neat systems that we'd
like 
to use, but can't as they aren't competitive due to point problems.
What's 
the point of saying "this weapon system is worth X points and Y mass" if
3600 
points in one configuration will always beat 3600 points in another 
configuration, regardless of how the players play the game.

If X points for one player is equivalent to X * Y points for another
player, 
there is a serious problem in the point system that needs to be
addressed. 
Either the points need to change (which then invalidates all the point
totals 
in the fleet books, and doesn't always fix the problem) or the rules 
involving those systems need to change.

> What's the counter to 50 fighter groups? Plan it so you're at the 
> carrier's flanks in 1 turn of movement, pound them and then leave the 
> map with your force intact.  Or just refuse the engagement entirely.

The problem is that a large number of fighter groups could -- in a
single 
turn -- take apart a ship worth way, way more than the equivalent points
in 
fighters. Even getting to the carrier's flanks in 1 turn (and just how
are 
you going to guarantee this?) isn't going to help you, as those fighter 
groups will absolutely maul your fleet. Refusing the engagement entirely

makes for a rather dull night of gaming.
 
> Intel on the opposing force is a good idea. Why should a totally 
> custom force have all the advantage on a non-custom book fleet?

I suggest you play a game with Oerjan, then. He'll tell you that he'll
bring 
a soap bubble carrier with a huge mass of fighters. You won't even have
to 
tell him anything. If you don't go with scatterguns, your knowing what
he's 
bringing and his _not knowing_ what you're bringing won't matter much.
 
--
Allan Goodall		   agoodall@att.net
http://www.hyperbear.com   agoodall@hyperbear.com