Re: Beta Fighter game report

Jared Hilal wrote:

 >>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.
[...]
 >For a game of strikes against planets or orbital facilities, we set it
 >up as a running battle with the attacker's victory condition to get a
 >number of ships/PTL/SMLs free of the defender off of a certain table
 >edge with a scrolling table.	Successfully evading the defenders is
 >taken to result in a successful strike.

Which works very nicely until the attacking player asks you to explain 
*how* the defenders managed to intercept the attacking force and force
them 
into a running battle. Just saying "they do" is usually not a sufficient

answer for this kind of player; you'll have to describe the initial 
deployments and subsequent manoeuvres used by the defenders to create
the 
converging interception necessary for a running battle. It is... a 
non-trivial problem, shall we say.

 >>>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.
 >
 >none of the multi-turn weapons from either FT2 or MT build up
velocity,
 >just fixed-move.  Nor are any with a relation to the parent vessel's
V.
 > Therefore none "build up velocity" to make HV strikes.

<sigh> We were talking about why it is a bad idea to allow fighters (and
as 
a side effect also missiles) to build up velocity. You stated out that 
(salvo) missiles couldn't build up velocity even if fighters are allowed
to 
do so because the (salvo) missiles do not have MULTIPLE TURN
PERSISTANCE. 
Then you asked if there is "such a system" in the works for FB3.

In the very post you were replying to, I stated that allowing fighters
(and 
as a consequence also missiles) to build up velocity from turn to turn
is a 
bad idea, and that I thought that no such rule will be introduced into
the 
game unless we manage to come up with a solution for the hyper-velocity 
strike problem. In other words, you already knew perfectly well that no 
weapon system able to build up velocity from turn to turn is in the
works 
for FB3, or at least none that I'm aware of.

Since you knew that, the only reasonable interpretation of your question
is 
that you were asking whether or not there is a weapon system with
MULTIPLE 
TURN PERSISTANCE in the works for FB3 - ie., a weapon which would
*become* 
capable of building up velocity from turn to turn if fighters were given

that capability - rather than asking about a system which already *is* 
capable of building up velocity.

I therefore pointed out that Full Thrust already has a weapon system
with 
MULTIPLE TURN PERSISTANCE, and has had that system since 1993. If
fighters 
get to build up speed from turn to turn, the same PSB applies to this 
particular multiple-turn weapons as well.

Clearer now?

 >>>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
 >>:-/
 >
 >You have said that the longer-range weapons (such as beams 4+) are
 >"priced" in terms of MASS and PV for large playing areas in the FB1 &
2
 >"FT2.5" system, which is a departure from the published standards in
 >favor of large playing areas (in trms of MU). You have also said that
such
 >systems are "overpriced" for 4'x6', 1"=1MU play. I understand that you

were one
 >of the primary proponents of these changes.

Ah, the dangers with careless paraphrasing :-)

If you check it up, I think you'll find that what I said about the 
longer-ranged weapons was that they are overpriced on small *fixed*
tables 
- ie., not just on small tables in general, but on those specific small 
tables where ships that leave the table aren't allowed to return
allowing 
the enemy to crowd long-ranged ships up against the "impenetrable" table
edge.

On a *floating* table OTOH, you can fly quite fast and maintain quite
long 
combat ranges even if the table is small - fast enough and long enough
that 
long-ranged weapons *are* able to take full advantage of their long
range 
(or almost full, if you're talking about really extreme ones like B8s
and 
larger)... provided of course that you're prepared to float the table
often 
enough. Playing on a larger table (in mu, at least) like I do merely
means 
that you don't need to float the table quite as often, but apart from
that 
it gives pretty much the same game effect as floating a small table
often 
does. Similarly, on non-floating tables where ships that leave *are* 
allowed to return eventually long-ranged ships are able to withdraw 
temporarily if the enemy attempts to crowd them; and while this doesn't 
allow the long-ranged weapons to use their full potential it
nevertheless 
makes them quite a lot more useful than they are on a small *fixed*
table.

Now, here's the fun thing: of these three table set-ups, only the
floating 
and the return-allowed ones are actually described in the basic FT2 
rulebook. The fixed table set-up OTOH is only mentioned in the MT 
supplement, as a suggested special rule for speeding up tournament
games... 
so which of these set-ups is "the standard", and which is "a departure"?

More importantly, for which table set-up do you think the Fleet Book
points 
system should have been designed - the floating and return-allowed
set-ups 
described in the basic FT2 rulebook, or the tournament-specific fixed
table 
set-up described in the More Thrust supplement? Since the FB points
system 
wasn't intended exclusively for tournament play, we designed it with the

FT2 table set-ups in mind.

Yes, my experience of what kind of weapon restrictions the FT2 table 
set-ups require if the players actually use them certainly influenced
the 
FB1 ship design rules; but I find it rather hard to call using an
official 
rule from the basic rulebook "a departure from the published standard"
:-/

 >>>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.
 >
 >So then why aren't you arguing for a change to the movement system to
 >put a stop to this game-wrecking disaster of a rule? :)

Because there is already a rule in place against ramming by crewed
units, 
which works reasonably well for curbing this type of attack (thwarts 
five-sixths of them after you've gone through all the trouble to set
them 
up). Unfortunately that rule doesn't apply to crewless missiles or rocks
:-/

And, of course, as I said in the previous post the main problem isn't
ships 
ramming planets but missiles launched from outside the defenders'
weapons 
range so the attacking ships are safe from retribution.

 >>>>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.
 >
 >So if I use our movement rules, which don't involve CEF, then the
 >combat abilities of the fighters will be exactly the same, even though
 >they are not expending CEF on movement?  I doubt that.

<sigh> Of course they won't. That's why changing the movement system
will 
upset the fighter points costs, which is exactly what I said in my first

post in this thread.

Thing is, the fighters' combat abilities under the *Fleet Book* rules 
*also* aren't the same if you use your own CEF-less fighter movement
rules 
than they are if you use the CEF-using Fleet Book fighter movement
rules. 
If you use a CEF-less movement system together with the Fleet Book
fighter 
rules, you have *already changed* the fighters' combat abilities and
thus 
*already upset* the fighter points costs (such as they are). Why, then,
do 
you make such a big deal out of changing the fighters' combat abilities 
and  game balance a *second* time by using your CEF-less movement system

with the beta-test combat rules?

 >>IOW, all of your players are too reasonable to use this potentially
 >>war-winning tactic. You're very fortunate compared to many other
 >>players.
 >
 >If lording over a glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot is
 >"winning".

There are quite a few people who think it is; and not all of them are 
gamers - I know several who are real-world politicians or high-level 
military commanders :-( In some game-related situations I can even agree

with them, eg. if the alternative is having your own species
exterminated 
or turned into food animals for an alien enemy.

 >>>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.
 >
 >The PT fighter mechanic is limited as it is simply a one-use weapon.

So? You asked for tracking fighter ordnance separately from the CEF. The

only current fighter ordnance available in FT, ie. the fighter torpedo,
*is 
already* tracked separately from the CEF. It wouldn't be tracked any
less 
separately from the CEF than it is now if each fighter had two torpedoes

instead of a single one; nor would the torpedo(es) be tracked any less 
separately from the CEF than it is now if the torpedo fighter had more 
substantial unlimited-shot weapons than its current "hits enemy fighters
on 
rolls of 6 only" guns. In other words, the exact game mechanic you asked

for is already in the rules.

If what you actually did ask for wasn't what you *intended* to ask for, 
then it would be better if you re-phrase your question so that it asks 
about what you intended. In this case, the examples you gave in your 
previous post made it quite clear that your intention was *not* actually
to 
ask about a new way for tracking fighter ordnance, but to ask for rules
for 
designing custom fighters and rules for greater variety in fighter
ordnance.

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