Re: Fighters and Hangers

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> So scale the scenario back up to 4 groups vs 24 individual fighters 
> <shrug>
>

*shrug* It was made very clear to me, long ago, that the more fighters, 
the more unbalanced the rules.

>
> Since Bob's fighter groups still can't jump more than 1 enemy fighter 
> each, it makes exactly zero difference if Bob jumps the ones that have

> already moved or the ones which haven't moved yet.
>

Erm... Actually... It does make some difference. By tieing up his not 
yet involved fighters, you lessen the number available to gang-up... If 
he assigns one to each ship, and then I entangle one for each group I 
have, that leaves that many fewer that he can then pile on one ship.

>> And there's some easy rules to deal with this problem. (Dirtside has 
>> solved this problem, in an elegent way, IMHO)
>> One- Balance Initiative, he who has the most figures/counters/etc 
>> moves until a balance has been reached: Ie. Bob has 1, Jack has 4, 
>> Jack moves 3, then Bob move his 1,
>
>
> Since allows Jack to move first he moves one of his groups into a 
> dogfight with Bob's single group, which means that Bob can't move his 
> group without Jack's group getting a free shot at it. Your other 
> variants all share this same problem too: they allow Jack to engage 
> most or even all of Bob's fighter groups in dogfights before Bob can 
> move them.
>
If he's in a dogfight, he can't be fired apon by any other group. No 
real problem (the simultanious fire changes the calculations though) as 
those 23 other fighters can't fire at the six that are dogfighting. Per 
rule 2, above.
Oh, and that same rule keeps a furball from happening... If they can't 
be fired apon, they're not in a furball, eh?

>
> That's a nice solution. Causes a rather nasty book-keeping mess when 
> the fighters from a squadron have to move away in different 
> directions, but I could live with that.
>
I didn't say they were elegant, or effiecient solutions. :) (Did I?)

>> Alpha: Per PDS can target up to 6 fighters, with 6's and re-rolls 
>> spilling over group's until 6 fighters are destroyed, or the re-rolls

>> stop.
>
>
> So why can't you do this against salvo missile salvoes that roll less 
> than a "6"? (Or if you use scatterguns, against strength-1 plasma
bolts?)
>

You really want to open this can of beans? One problem at a time... :)

>> Beta: Fighter's in groups less than 6 no longer get 2 points of 
>> damage per 6, and no re-rolls.
>
>
> So as soon as any of Bob's groups takes a single casualty, each of its

> *surviving* fighters lose three-eights of its firepower? I'm afraid I 
> don't quite see the PSB logic behind this.
>

PSB? That can be invented, for anything, if you're willing to suspend 
disbelief... Honestly, anyone can come up with PSB for any rule, that 
makes the game more playable/fun.

I fell into the trap of trying to PSB a rule that hadn't been seen as 
necessary once before. This dog won't hunt. The list is to apt to jump 
all over PSB cause it doesn't fit thier personal belief/faith in thier 
own pocket reality/favorite-show/movie, people are rarely open enough to

suspend disbeleif and work _through_ problems with PSB, and to likely to

argue whether some mythical/mystical already assumed pseudo-science can 
be "real."

What's the PSB for groups of 6? Why not 7? 8? 12? (rhetorical question.)

Rand.