Re: [FT] Yet Another Fighters Suggestion

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

>My main point however, though I don't seem to have made it very
clearly,
>was that while your and Alan's proposals don't have a very big effect
for
>ships smaller than a dreadnought they make the larger capitals
considerably
>harder for fighters to take out than they are now (unless of course the
>carriers are also very big - in your proposal that is, not in Alan's).

 It does, but my impression is that a lot of players would
 prefer that.

>This extra "hardness" against fighters gives yet another incentive to
use
>dreadnoughts and larger ships only; conversely the extra power gained
by
>fighters based on very large carriers gives yet another powerful
incentive
>to make the carriers very large as well. Since there already are a
number
>of other factors which make large ships overpowered compared to their
own
>points cost of smaller ones, adding yet more reasons not to use small
ships
>does not strike me as a particularly good thing for the overall game
balance.

 Agreed. Since it's a general problem for all big ships, I
 think a general solution such as CPV instead of NPV will
 take care of it.

 Plus I did propose an escape clause that the one carrier
 limit doesn't apply to dogfights, so a bunch of little
 carriers can defend against one big one.

>In my experience the fighter balance problems you get in
FB-designs-only
>games are a mild breeze in comparison with what you can get with custom
>designs. As far as I'm concerned, if a fighter-balance fix doesn't work
for
>custom designs then it doesn't work at all.

 This is where my testing had stopped, and why I thought
 I'd suggest it to the list.

 If anyone does want to try it and report results to
 the list, it's very easy to playtest. The other player
 doesn't have to do anything at all: it's just a self
 imposed limitation "I will not combine fighters." My
 opponents in friendly games and the recent Cancon
 either didn't notice or were too polite to comment on
 my apparent tactical ineptitude.

 Beth and you have explained why there wasn't anything
 about the tests in the archives. Sorry for being a bit
 snappy, I hadn't thought of the NDA aspect.

	Cheers,
	Hugh