Re: Beta Fighter game report

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 
> >2)  The new rules make heavy fighters much more resiliant.
> 
> Much more resilient to *point defence fire*, correct; and if that
> were the only change their points value would indeed have been
> increased.
>

And also against other fighters, since they count as "PD fire".

> >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.
> 
> I'm sorry, but rules revisions can't afford to consider keeping
> individual groups' house rules intact. No matter how the rules are
> revised, there's always *some* group whose house rules get violated
> by the changes.
>

That is true, but it is not just us.  I have seen similar solutions in
many places on the web.

Additionally, I would maintain that it is the responsibility of those
developing rules revisions to keep as much as possible of the
flexibility of the genericness of the FT rules.

> >3) The new rules do not address the problem of fixed movement values
> >for fighters.
> 
> And if we don't come up with a fool-proof PSB for defending against 
> extreme-range hyper-velocity missile strikes against planets and
> other fixed locations, I don't think that any official Full Thrust
> rules ever will. If fighters can build up velocity from turn to turn,
> so can missiles  - and if hypervelocity attacks on fixed locations
> are possible in the game, it pretty much turns any space war into
> mutually-assured destruction...

That is BS.

First, under the current rules, if a ship comes zipping past at 1000 V,
a missile volley with arrive at a fixed target at 1000 +/- 24, yet
there is no modifier toany rules for their velocity.  Thus this is not
a consideration under the current rules.

Second, those long range HV strikes are only an issue if you set up
your games so that they can be an issue.  If you don't want them, you
don't have to include them in your games.

Third, HV missiles only build up velocity turn-to-turn independent of
the launching ship if they have the feature of multiple turn
persistance.	Is there such a system in the works for FB3?  If not,
then it is not an issue yet.

Fourth, there is a segment of FT players, including yourself, that are
proponents of transforming the original FT system to be tailored to the
use of small MUs and high speeds.  In my view, the responsibility of
getting the fighter rules to work with these high speeds falls to this
"Ecole de TGV" since it is that style which causes the problem.

>
> resulting either in extinction or in a cold war, but either way
> removing the need for fighting ship-to-ship battles. Game rules
> whose logical extensions remove the reason for playing the game at
> all are seriously bad for the game.
> 

So, if the IJN or IFN can find self-sacrificing pilots to fly cutters
in hypervelocity strikes against planetary targets, then the "build V
from turn to turn" rule is "seriously bad for the game"?  I don't think
either is correct.

> However, since the fighter movement rules are effectively independent
> of the fighter *combat* rules, you shouldn't have any problems
> importing whatever fighter-movement house rules you're currently
> using into the beta-test rules.

That is true for the FB rules, but not for the Beta rules.  Since the
CEF rules are central to the Beta "capital weapons vs fighters" rules.

> Just pray that no-one in your group
> catches on to the hypervelocity strike concept :-/
> 

We simply don't set up games to involve them, and campaign games don't
use planetary destruction strikes by mutual agreement.

> >4)  The new rules require the use of CEF in the combat resolution.
> 
> Yes. In that respect they're no different from the More Thrust or
> Fleet Book fighter rules; they too required the use of CEF in the 
> combat resolution. (OK, More Thrust "strongly recommended" it and FB1

> calls it a  "recommended standard rule", but that's as close to
> "require" as *anything* gets in a game where the first rule is "If
> you don't like it, change it!" :-/ )
> 

Not the way I see it.  The MT and FB CEF is "attack or don't attack",
but the Beta rules are "use of capital fire against fighters requires
CEF".  In order to disentangle CEF from the Beta rules, one has to
change both movement AND "attacked by capital weapons" rules.

> >It is no longer possible to disentangle the CEF rules from the
> >fighter rules if your group does not want to use them.
> 
> On the contrary, it is very simple: just go to a fixed DRM for the 
> fighters. Sure, doing so will upset the fighter points costs, but so
> does removing the CEF rules from the More Thrust or Fleet Book rules
> <shrug>

So then have both a fixed DRM and a CEF-influenced DRM in the rules as
two choices depending on whether players use CEF or not.

My point is that the published rules should allow players to use CEF or
not without either side of the decision unbalancing the game, nor
requiring the players to independently do the work of the game
designers.  Comes back to whether FT is still a flexibly generic game
or not.

> 
> >Any "fixed" fighter rules should function perfectly well without the
> >CEF rules,
> 
> They should, and in an ideal world they probably would too.
> Unfortunately our world isn't particularly ideal :-/
> 
> More seriously though, the fighters' tactical choice of sacrificing 
> something - either movement range (as in StarFire) or combat
> endurance (as in the Full Thrust beta-test rules) - to make
> themselves harder targets for the enemy's defensive fire is
> something all of the fighter-heavy backgrounds you listed show
> on-screen (and IIRC BSG:TOS and B5 occasionally comment on it in
> the dialogue as well).

Incorrect.  CEF is not an issue in SW, B5, or HH.  They may talk about
endurance in terms of life support in units of days or weeks, none of
them run out of fuel during a battle or are completely unable to attack
due to CEF limits, as all three have energy weapon armaments as well as
expendable ordnance.

Both BSGs have addressed fuel limitations, but neither has shot their
guns dry as far as I remember (the new BSG is still in first run on the
Sci-Fi channel).

> Paying for it with CEF means that 
> we already have a simple way to track it in Full Thrust; trading
> movement for evasion (like StarFire does) would increase the
> record-keeping quite a  bit more (just like it does in StarFire :-/
).
> 

I am a proponent of making it a fixed value as part of the basic
abilities of fighters/capital weapons, rather than a feature determined
by the player on a fighter group by fightr group and turn by turn
basis.	I think such decisions are made by the pilots below the level
of the player's decisions.  I.e. the commander (player) says "attack
target A" and the pilots evade (or not) as nessessary.

> >I would suggest also seperating "Ordnance Factors" (e.g. torpedoes, 
> >missiles, etc.)
> 
> Hm? Fighter-carried ordnance (currently only Torpedoes) is separate
> from the CEF in all of the More Thrust, Fleet Book and beta-test 
> rules.
> 

For example:
  TIE/F is classified as a light fighter, and attacks normally vs both
fighters and ships.  It may carry concussion missiles equal to 1
ordnance factor for X points.
  X-Wing is classified as a heavy fighter, and gets a +1 in all regular
(laser) attacks against both fighters and ships.  It may carry either 3
factors of concussion missiles for X points each or 2 factors of proton
torpedoes for Y points.
  TIE/B is classified as a light fighter, and suffers a -2 when
attacking both fighters and ships with guns (lasers).  It may carry
either 6 factors of CMs for X points each or 4 factors of PTs for Y
points each.

J