Re: Fighters.... Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

Phillip Atcliffe wrote:
>  
> Irrelevant, because that wasn't the point of the suggestion, which was
> that the "weenie ships" are as effective in the anti-ship role as the
> massed fighters. Okay, so the ships are in trouble against the
fighters,
> but could that be alleviated by adding a PDS to each ship? They're
still
> small, and there will be fewer of them, but now they have some
defensive
> capability against the fighters, and high-speed passes against the
> carriers will still leave the fighters in deep kimchee.

I took it as an example of how there is more than just one way to
munchkin the design system.  My response was intended to point out that
even another attempt to be a munchkin wasn't as effective as going
extremely fighter-heavy, munckin-style.

Whose munchkin-fu is the best?	*g*

> It seems to me that this is an unsolvable problem if we demand
complete
> balance and munchkin-proof rules. Back in FT2, fighters could only be
> carried by capital ships, and no more than two groups by non-CVs; that
> was changed in the interests of more flexibility, and now we can have
> "Cylon Tankers" -- no weapons /but/ fighters if that's what the
designer
> wants -- but we're no happier. This boils down to a difference in
genre
> that is best dealt with away from the table -- in scenario design and
> the discouragement of rules lawyers/munchkins who play the rules
rather
> than the game.

That forces the adoption of a background of PSB.

> Fact is, fighters can be made vital or irrelevant in a specific
setting
> according to the level and kind of PSB assumed, and FT, as a generic
> game, needs to be able to deal with both ends of the spectrum -- but
> does it have to cope with both ends at the same time? I can't help but
> think that we're spending far too much time trying to hammer out a
> system specifically for the use of munchkins when a little sense would
> show that the setting dictates ship design and saying that any force
of
> 6000 points must be equal to any other force of the same nominal value
> is an impossible demand to meet.

"Can't be done." accompanied with much hand-waving doesn't erase the
fact that the TMP thread that started this fighter discussion (again,
*sigh*) includes opinions that Starmada appears to have accomplished a
favorable approach to fighters than the extant FT rules.  Without, I
might add, forcing players to PSB a background and develope house rules
and limitations for players to follow.	YMMV, but I tend to agree based
on the admittedly limited playtesting the SX has gotten with my group,
and would like to see FT "improve"...

--Tim