RE: Beta Fighter game report

--- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Was this because you had deep thinkers or were getting used to the
> new rules. The moreoften we've played with these rules the faster
> they go and we nowplay games in a 3rd of the time itvtook with the
> old fighter rules.
> 

In particular, we have one player who spends a lot of time making what
I would call "tactical detail decisions".  For example, when playing
Warzone, WH40k, or Battletech he agonizes over decisions about the
exact position and facing (LOS, fire arcs) each time he moves a figure.
 Since Stargrunt places much less emphasis on the facing and position
of individual figures, concentrating more on the squad/fireteam as a
whole, this runs much faster with this player.	This player is very
good at "position unit here and do XYZ" decisions, but gets bogged down
when presented with minutia-type decisions.  I have encountered other
players like this so I know ours isn't unique, but we have just one in
our group.

> > 3)	The new rules do not address the problem of fixed movement
> > values for fighters. 
> 
> Do you mean they should be able to have "ship-like" movement with
> regard to accumulating speed? 
> 

Sort of.  We use two versions of fighter movement; one "simple" and one
"complex.  We like both and use them depending on what we feel like on
a given day.  

The simple version, cherrypicked out of the internet some years ago, is
that fighters have a T value and a "radius of movement" which
accumulates turn to turn.  E.g. standard fighters have T 12 and
accumulates V.	If it moves 6 MU on one turn, then on the next turn it
can move up to 18 MU.  If it does move 18 MU, then on the turn after
that it will have to move at least 6, since it can't decelerate more
(18-12=6).  At higher speeds, this gives a donut-shaped area of possibl
movement.

The complex verion is: fighters have T and accumulate V.  Fighters
follow the same movement rules as ships (cinematic for us).  Movement
is NOT preplotted, rather the player is free to expend his T "on the
fly".  One change to the ship movement rules is that turns may be made
at any point in movemet.

> > 4)	The new rules require the use of CEF in the combat resolution.
> 
> Derek and I have dealt with this by giving fighter types/settings
> where fighters hang around for longer more endurance (and if you're
> in a setting where main guns can't target fighters fullstop give them
> unlimited endurance, that will mean the points aren't as balanced but
> you'll get the effects you're after and often are wars evenly
> balanced anyway? ;))

I guess the problem is that endurance RAW is connected to both movement
and attacks.  E.g. SW fighters are effectively unlimited endurance for
movement and energy-weapon based attacks, but also might or might not
be equipped with concussion missiles or proton torpedoes (ordnance). 
So for movement and regular attacks there is no expenditure of
endurance, but might have a limited number of special attacks available
(CMs vs fighters, PTs vs ships).  A similar situations presents for B5
and Honorverse LACs.

Simply put, my view is that since FT is supposed to be "generic", I
expect whatever modified rules to be easily adapted to either Starfire
type one-mission strikes or unlimited endurance equally well.  If the
system presented emphasizes one system over the other, then FT must
drop the pretense of being "generic" and admit that it is becoming a
system to support the GZG setting and the specific vision of only a few
people.

J