Re: Beta Fighter game report

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".

Correct. Still only makes them break even when the AS fire is weighed
in.

> >>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.

Of course; but we are *not* required to maintain the exact form in which

each particular gaming group has chosen to utilize that flexibility - 
particularly not since many groups has chosen their own unique ways to
do it.

Since I in my previous follow-up post already mentioned an alternative
way 
to get roughly the same result as your "level-2 protection" for small 
craft, I would contend that we have already taken our responsibility in 
this respect.

> >>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.

Nope. It is a very real problem which has already wrecked several Full 
Thrust campaigns.

>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.

Yes, it is. The problem is not that the hypervelocity makes the
*missiles* 
difficult to intercept, but that it makes the *launching ships* 
invulnerable to the fixed target's return fire by allowing them to
launch 
1030 mu away from the target instead of 30 mu away.

>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.

Tell that to the munchkins. Better still, tell them that they can't
spend 
several turns on-table but outside the fixed target's weapons range 
accellerating up to speed 70 or so before they launch against the fixed 
defenders - with FT's current weapon ranges 70+24 mu is just as much 
outside the defenders' effective weapon range as 1000+24 mu is.

>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?

Such a system has been in the game since 1993. It is still in the game.

>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.

Since I haven't changed any single rule in the game to tailor it for 
high-velocity games, I must say that I find your calling it "transform
to 
be tailored..." to be a rather impressive exaggeration :-/

> >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"?

It is, yes. I know several FT campaigns which has ended in almost
exactly 
that way, the only difference being the size of the ships used.

> >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.

The "capital weapons vs fighters" rule is part of the fighter *combat* 
rules, not of the movement 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.

IOW, all of your players are too reasonable to use this potentially 
war-winning tactic. You're very fortunate compared to many other
players.

> >>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".

Which has nothing to do with the fighters' *movement*. Weapons fire is
part 
of the *combat* rules, no matter how large the weapons are.

>In order to disentangle CEF from the Beta rules, one has to
>change both movement AND "attacked by capital weapons" rules.

Why would you have to change the movement rules? The only CEF used for 
fighter movement in the beta-test rules is the single point paid to make
a 
secondary move, and that is identical to the CEF usage in the Fleet Book

fighter movement rules. All other CEF uses are in the *combat* rules,
not 
movement.

> >>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.

Once we've determined the proper points value for effectively infinite
CEF, 
sure. Better pray that it doesn't turn out to be too high for your
taste, 
though; if it has to be paid exclusively with points it is rather
expensive.

> >>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.

Re-read what I wrote. I didn't claim that *CEF* was the issue in those 
shows; I stated that *sacrificing something* to gain the protection is.
In 
these backgrounds the sacrifice usually consists of forward movement
speed 
or manoeuvrability rather than combat endurance; but since Full Thrust 
already tracks CEF and *doesn't* track fighter movement it is much
easier 
both rules-wise and game-speed-wise to implement a CEF sacrifice than a 
movement sacrifice.

> >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.

And they have to sacrifice something to evade. If the sacrifice consists
of 
combat endurance or movement distance the player/commander has to track
it 
even if the pilots do it automatically (because the evading fighter
groups 
behave differently than the others); if the sacrifice doesn't consist of

either combat endurance or movement it has to be paid in points cost -
ie., 
starting numbers - instead.

> >>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.

And it tracks its concussion missiles in exactly the same way as Torpedo

fighters have tracked their torpedoes ever since More Thrust was
published, 
ie. separately from its CEF.

If you want more variety in fighter weapon types, it really would be
better 
if you asked for that instead of starting to talk about a book-keeping 
mechanic (tracking fighter-carried ordnance separate from CEF) which has

already been in the game for twelve years. FWIW there is an alpha-test
set 
of custom fighter design rules, but it isn't cleared for public
beta-test yet.

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