Beta Fighter game report

This weekend we played a game with the beta-test fighter rules and I
think we broke it, so I thought I would report our results.  I had not
commented on them earlier because I wanted to give them a try in a
normal fighter game first.

First, what and how we played:
4'x6' scrolling table
1/2" = 1MU
Narns vs. Centuari (4 players)

Narns:
2x Bin'Tak Dreadnoughts (TMF 403), 4 fighter groups each
8x Starcruiser variants (TMF 291), 6x 4 groups, 2x 2 groups
16x various escorts, no fighters (TMF 94-101)
total 36 Narn fighter groups

Centuari:
2x Octurion Battleships (TMF 401), 6 fighter flights each
4x Primus Battlecruisers (TMF 283), 4 fighter groups each
8x Light cruiser variants (TMF 143), 1 fighter group each
Total 36 Centuari fighter groups

Why did we play this?  Well, our games fall into one of two categories
as far as fighters are concerned.  Either a) no fighters, or b) tons of
fighters.  The "tons of fighters" are all based on established
backgounds such as SW, B5, etc.  We don't use fighters at all in our
own setting.  Additionally, we have played this specific scenario
before, using our house rules, so it would provide a reference.

Conclusions:
1)  The new rules may work OK for small numbers of fighters, but they
slowed the game down a LOT for the numbers of fighters that we use. 
This is were I think the rules broke.  The primary problem here is that
the player has to decide on level of evasion for each fighter group,
plus this has to be remembered or recorded to be used latter in the
turn.  Just one player who devotes a lot to such descisions really hold
up the game.  More than one such player would bring the game to a halt.
 You also have to remember to refer to the records for each group
attacked.  A better system is to have a fixed modifier so the player
doesn't have to make such choices.  This could either be constant,
depend on the type of weapon firing, and/or depend on the size/class of
the weapon.

2)  The new rules make heavy fighters much more resiliant.  The change
from level-1 defense to a -1 DRM effectively gives them level-2
defense.  There are several problems with this.
2a) Cost.  Either they were over-priced before or now they are
underpriced.  The new rules did not address PV.
2b) We like the "Heavy = defense-1" because it allowed us to add
"Extra-heavy = defense-2" for things like TIE Defenders or Imperial
Assault Shuttles.  If we now give TIE/Ds a DRM of -2, that will make
them tougher than we want.

3)  The new rules do not address the problem of fixed movement values
for fighters.  With the shift in FT standard to small MUs,  this is
much more critical tobe fixed.	This problem is relatively easy to
address, but has not been.  We never liked the FB system, and any new
rules which require its use to balance fighter operations are bad.  See
also #4 below.

4)  The new rules require the use of CEF in the combat resolution.  It
is no longer possible to disentangle the CEF rules from the fighter
rules if your group does not want to use them.	This is bad.  Many
settings (SW, B5, BSG, etc.) do not have limits on fighters' combat
endurance in the scale of the battles.	Another example is that some on
the list have argued that "fighters" are fully scalable, so can be
used, for example, to represent LACs in the HH setting.  Again, these
have unlimited endurance on the scale of the battle.

Any "fixed" fighter rules should function perfectly well without the
CEF rules, and CEF should be an option, not mandatory.	I would suggest
also seperating "Ordnance Factors" (e.g. torpedoes, missiles, etc.)
from CEF, so that "ordnance factors" rules can be used even if you
chose not to use "endurance factors" rules.

J