Re: Fighter Defenses was Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

Flak Magnet wrote:

 >One idea we've tossed (and the playtest group too, I gather) is to
 >somehow allow anti-ship weapons to engage fighters at range with
reduced
 >effectiveness, of course.

Pretty much, yes. See eg.
<http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00286.html>

 >Stop thinking of PDS's as a distinct weapons choice and instead start
 >using them like a level of protection, like shields.	After all, how
is
 >ONE PDS system able to defende ANY ship of any size from attack that
 >comes from any direction?  IMO, it only makes sense that PDS be
 >abstracted from discrete "weapons" into networks of guns that cover a
 >ship's hull.

Sounds like you're reading this straight out of the FT2 description of
beam 
batteries (FT2 p.9)... they too are networks of projectors rather than 
single systems. Most other weapons can be abstracted in the same way
too.

 >Instead of stocking up on massed PDS, PDS are bought like shields, in
 >"levels".  The die roll that each fighter makes on it's "attack run"
is
 >used to determine no only whether the fighters attack is successful,
but
 >also it's evasion of the attacked ship's fighter defenses.
 >
 >For each fighter that misses, if the die roll is =< the attacked ships
 >PDS-level then that fighter is destroyed.

This is essentially the same as Starmada's "anti-fighter batteries"
(except 
that you allow more than one level on each ship whereas a Starmada ship
can 
only have one set of AF batteries), and shares its basic problem: if you

allow too few levels it usually won't be enough, and if you allow too
many 
levels it makes the fighters useless instead. FWIW we've tried several 
different variations of this theme, but none of them survived past the 
first playtest battle :-(

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