Re: [FT] Yet Another Fighters Suggestion

Hugh Fisher 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.

They prefer that capitals should be able to defeat their own points
value 
of fighters while smaller ships can't? I'm not convinced :-/

My impression is rather that most players would prefer both small *and* 
large ships to be able to take on their own points cost of any
combination 
of fighters and ships on roughly even terms.

> >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.

The current CPV system can't handle it. It might be possible to modify
it 
to do so (though I haven't succeeded), but even if it is we'd still have

the problem with smaller ships getting swept away by their own cost of 
fighters.

>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.

If the enemies brings one, yes. If they don't, then those smaller
carriers' 
(and dreadnoughts') smaller strike groups are seriously handicapped - 
particularly, of course, if the enemy doesn't bring any small enough
ships 
for them to pick on instead.

> >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.

General comment to this, not aimed at anyone in particular:

Note that "custom designs" here covers *all* designs which aren't
described 
in a published fleet book. Including, among other things, the future
stats 
for official GZGverse fleets like the Imperial Japanese Navy, the
Islamic 
Federation navy and the United Nations Space Command... which means that

saying "I don't care about game balance for non-FB1 designs" is
effectively 
equivalent to saying "I don't care if the FB3 fleets are balanced
against 
the FB1 ones".

>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.

No worries. Actually, as Doug reminded us this *was* in fact mentioned
on 
this list too about a year ago, albeit for NDA reasons very briefly (and
I 
had completely forgotten about it):

Alan posted his idea on February 18th 2003:
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200302/msg00631.html

And I replied to it later the same day:
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200302/msg00671.html

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry