RE: Beta Fighter game report

Brendan Robertson wrote:

>*****
>Generic Fighter Rules for FT
>Rebuild from ground up.

That much we agree on, at least ;-)

Some comments and questions:

>Assumptions:
>d6 system
>1 fighter = 1 mass
>Beam => 4-5 = 1kill; 6 = 2 kills + beam reroll
>Non-Beam => 6 = 1 kill + beam reroll
>Turn order is still the same as FB1&2.

IOW, it retains the book-keeping problems with the FB1/FB2 turn
sequences :-(

>Movement:

Sounds reasonable, except that you make it rather difficult for fighters
to 
move into base-to-base contact with *friendly* ships (eg. to act as
fighter 
screens or to land aboard a carrier).

>Endurance/Ordinance:
>Fighters can purchase one or two ordinance chits to expend during
combat
>(uses for ordinance are noted in the appropriate section).  This
represents
>missiles/bombs and other expendable munitions not integral to the
fighter.
>If the fighter group does not have an ordinance chit to expend, it can
only
>use the base attack abilities.
>Fighters may expend ONE ordinance chit to gain the benefits of Screen-1
for
>the turn (or increase their screens by +1 if they already have them).

Hm. If ordnance chits represent missile/bombs/expendable munitions, how 
does launching/jettisoning ordnance make the fighter harder to hit? 
PSB-wise, I mean - I know the game-balance reason for this rule.

(Note that this is directly opposite to Jared's wish for *separate* 
ordnance and endurance loads.)

>Furballs and engaged fighter groups:
>Whenever two or more enemy Groups are in base-base contact, the entire
>dogfight is resolved immediately when any squadron is activated by a
player.

Each fighter group can be activated up to three times during the game
turn: 
once for primary movement, once for secondary movement , and once for 
combat. In *which* of these activations are furballs resolved? I'd
expect 
it to happen in the combat activation, but in that case what happens if
a 
fighter group which starts its *movement* activation in a furball
attempts 
to move away from it?

*How* is the furball resolved? Simultaneous fire (as per the FT2 rule
which 
applies when there's only one fighter group per side involved) or 
alternating fire (as per the FB1 for when there's *more* than one
fighter 
group on at least one side in the furball)?

>If the fighters are also in base-base contact with a starship, then
groups
>attacking the starship can be split off as a separate combat, but all
enemy
>Groups must be engaged by at least one friendly squadron each.

IOW, you retain the FB1 quirk which allows a single defending fighter to

tie up an entire full-strength attacking squadron and vice versa.

>Allocating Fighter Casualties:
>When taking fighter casualties in a furball or anti-ship attack, then
the
>defender may allocate which squadron takes the damage.

Who is the "defender" in an anti-ship attack - the ship defending itself

against the fighters' attack, or the fighters being shot at by the
ship's 
point defences?

>Damage must be applied in full to the same squadron (until destroyed)
and 
>any left-over
>damage is allocated to the next squadron of the defender's choice. This

>may result in groups that have already been activated taking damage,
but 
>both simplifies fighter combat and represents defensive formations and 
>other factors abstracted in the game.

If the "defender" is the fighter player, choosing a screened (or 
double-screened) fighter group as the initial target allows him to
ignore 
any rolls of '4' (or any rolls of '4' and '5') fired by the defenders.

If the "defender" is the player of the ship under attack, he'll strive
to 
target non-shielded fighters first and save any '5's or '6's for the 
shielded ones.

Either way, this rule allows a great deal of gamesmanship.

>Anti-fighter Combat:
>Fighters attack other fighters and missiles as follows (in initiative
order):
>If in base to base contact (see Furballs and Engaged Targets above):
roll 1
>beam die per fighter. If the fighter group expends their ordinance
chit,
>they receive a +1 DRM to their roll AND ignore any screens on the
fighters.
>If not in base to base contact, but within 6 MU of the FP/F/FS arc:
roll 1
>non-beam die per fighter.

This seems to mean that an attack fighter with a maximum load of
anti-ship 
ordnance is simultaneously the best anti-fighter interceptor you can
get?

>Anti-ship Combat:
>Fighters attack starships as follows:
>If the group is in base-base contact with the ship: Roll 2 non-beam die
per
>fighter.  If the group expends ONE ordinance chit, they roll 2 beam die
>instead.  If the group expends TWO ordinance chits, they roll 3 beam
die AND
>ignore any screens.

>If the group is not in base-base contact with the ship (but still in
the
>FP/F/FS arc and within 6 MU): roll 1 non-beam die per fighter.  If the
group
>expends ONE ordinance chit, they roll 1 beam die instead.

This hurts small numbers of fighters which need to make multiple attacks
to 
take out a single target, but massed fighter swarms which can take out a

target in a single pass don't suffer much.

>PDS & Ship defences:
>PDS:
>If the fighter group is in base-base contact: Roll 1 beam die per PDS;
each
>point of damage destroys 1 fighter (see Allocating Fighter Casualties
>above).
>If the fighter group is not in base-base contact, but within 6 MU: roll
1
>beam die per PDS, but the fighters benefit from having level-1 screens
(or
>increase to level-2 screens if they already had screens).

Can a PDS fire at *any* (one) fighter group not in base-to-base contact 
with the firing ship, or are PDSs without ADFC still restricted to
shooting 
at fighters that actually attack the firing ship itself?

Note that the FB1 and FB2 turn sequences both require the players to
track 
which weapons fired at fighters in phase 7 and which are still available

for shooting at enemy ships in phase 9. For PDSs and single-shot weapons

this is trivial, but for dual-purpose and anti-ship weapons it is not.
This 
is why the beta-test rules resolves all of a ship's weapon fire for the 
turn at one single time (to remove this particular bit of book-keeping)
and 
moves fighter-vs-ship attacks to *after* the ships' fire phase (to
ensure 
that the anti-fighter defences still get to fire at attacking fighters 
*before* the fighters themselves get to shoot at the ships).

>Non-PDS weapons:
>Regardless of whether a fighter group is in base-base contact or not,
any
>ship weapons that can fire and have not fired at another ship (beams,
pulse
>torpedoes, railguns etc) may roll 1 non-beam die for each  weapon
against
>any unengaged enemy fighter group. Using weapons in this way requires
the 
>use of 1 firecon (regardless of the number of fighters targeted) that
cannot
>also be used against ships.

The FB turn sequences resolve anti-fighter fire in an earlier phase than

anti-ship fire, so *no* direct-fire ship weapons have fired at another
ship 
this turn by the time they fire at attacking fighters. (Unless of course

your intent is to have the ship weapons fire at attacking fighters
*after* 
the fighters have already attacked, by which time it is usually too late
- 
but I don't think that that's what you meant!)

Allowing non-PDS weapons to fire only at fighters in base-to-base
contact 
with the ship makes them relatively useful against small numbers of 
fighters (ie. those which are too few to be able to use stand-off
attacks 
effectively and/or take the target ship out in a single attack), but 
without a stand-off range of their own the non-PDS weapons won't have
any 
noticable effect on massed fighter swarms which can overwhelm the target

ship (particularly not with the double-rate anti-ship fighter fire when
in 
base-to-base contact).

IOW, just like the Fleet Book fighter rules this concept makes massed
PDS 
and massed defending fighters) the only effective defence against massed

attacking fighters - which is precisely the feature in the Fleet Book 
fighter rules which causes the current all-or-nothing "game balance" (or

rather lack of game balance) for FT fighters.

>Morale:
>Optional rule:
>If your campaign requires the use of morale the following can be used.
>For fighter vs fighter attacks, no morale roll is required.
>When attacking a starship, count the number of friendly Groups
attacking the
>same ship AFTER PDS fire is resolved.	Roll 1d6 per group and total the
>roll.	This roll must EXCEED the number of casualties taken by the
entire
>group allocated to attack the starship. If there are defending
fighters, 
>the attacker must detach an equal number of
>Groups to "protect" the rest.	These Groups cannot attack the starship,
so
>do not count as part of the morale roll.  (See Furballs and Engaged
Fighter
>Groups above.)
>Eg.  5 Groups are attacking a freighter.  Having previously taken 12
>casualties (amongst the various Groups), they roll 5d6 and must roll 13
or
>more or break off the attack.

This morale rule has at best a marginal effect against the massed
fighter 
swarms which need toning down - either the defences are powerful enough
to 
kill lots of them in a single turn in which case the fighters will lose
in 
a couple of turns even without the morale rule, or the defences only
manage 
to kill a few of the fighters making it very unlikely that they'll fail
the 
morale roll (since there are many squadrons and thus many dice, making 
extreme morale rolls unlikely). OTOH it is very harsh on those smaller 
fighter numbers which are already underpowered, since they both take 
proportionally higher casualties from the defensive fire and are more 
likely to roll extreme morale dice.

>Fighter costs:
>Including hanger bay/cargo space, a basic fighter costs 5 points with
no
>ordinance or upgrades.

Including the hangar bay *itself* that is; its supporting engines and
(in 
the NPV system) the basic hull structure still have to be paid for
separately.

>ONE endurance = +3 points (Attack/Interceptor fighters)
>TWO endurance = +7 points (Long Range or Torpedo fighters)
>HEAVY (level 1 screens) = +5 points
>FAST (36 MU move) = +3 points

>This makes FAST/HEAVY/TORPEDO fighters 120 points per squadron.

You mean "FAST/HEAVY/TORPEDO/SUPER-INTERCEPTOR" :-/

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