Re: Limiting number of fighters per target - was RE: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada

So let's look over the possibilities of this plan.

If ECM is a fixed mass, then a large enough ship can make itself 
invulnerable to fighters (if there is no ECCM or advanced sensors)
simply by 
stocking a high enough ECM power and enough PDS to shred whatever fits
under 
the limit.  Even if it's scaled to the size of the ship, this just makes
it 
a matter of expense.  We probably would have to make it relatively 
inexpensive, or else the whole paper-rock-scissors bit gets uglier,
because 
if it's scaled to any significant amount of the ship's mass, then the
gap 
between anti-fighter ECM packing ships and enemies that simply pack 
direct-fire weapons will get that much more gross, which ultimately
leads us 
to the same mess we have now, where you take a wild guess whether or not

your opponent is carrying fighters or not in blind one-off games.  If
ECM is 
expensive enough that the penalty for guessing wrong is large, then this
is 
not an improvement.  However, if it's inexpensive enough we're
essentially 
rendering fighter-based fleets that don't carry a countermeasure
useless.

Conversely, if advanced sensors or ECCM is in the game with it, then
what 
kind of idiot is going to pack fighters and/or missiles without also
packing 
advanced sensors or ECCM?  Unless you're trying to simulate different 
technology levels by doing this, there's very little point to not
bringing 
it for a competitive game.  If you're after a scenario design, then
sure, 
it'll be fine, except that the game as it stands now works just fine for

someone who wants to build a pre-set scenario.	Similarly, you'd
probably 
have to make ECCM similarly inexpensive, or at least not much more
expensive 
than ECM, so that you don't balance things in favor of either side. 
Depending on how well the ECCM works versus the ECM, you have one of two

outcomes if both players hedge their bets:  either it's random as to who

gets the upper hand, or it becomes pointless as each cancels out the
other 
and you're back to square one.

Perhaps this is an oversimplified analysis, and I -can- see perhaps
-some- 
element of ECM that could come with it.  The problem will be making it 
actually have a point to the game without being so complex that Full 
Thrust's simple, generic nature is preserved.  I don't know that I see a
way 
to do it, and limiting the number of fighters that can attack an 
ECM-protected ship without ECCM of its own basically just forces people
to 
carry more gadgets on a ship in order to get the same results we've
already 
got now.

Eric/Stilt

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B Lin" <lin@RxKinetix.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 1:52 PM
Subject: Limiting number of fighters per target - was RE:
Fighters....Re: 
Full Thrust vs Starmada

> The number of fighters should be inversely limited to the amount of
ECM 
> the target has:
>
> More ECM means it's harder to lock-on which limits the number of
attacking 
> entities. So the more ECM, the fewer groups that should be allowed to 
> attack.
>
> Note that under the current rules, there is no limit to the number of
SM's 
> that can attack a single target, so it seems odd that there should be
a 
> limit to the number of fighters that can attack.  If unlimited SM's
can 
> attack then they are using some sort of targeting system that doesn't 
> interfere with other SM's, and you should be able to use the same
system 
> for fighters.
>
> Perhaps ships with no ECM can be attacked by unlimited
fighters/missiles. 
> Ships with level 1 ECM can only be attacked by X (say 12) and Ships
with 
> level 2 ECM can only be attacked by X/2 (say 6) groups.
>
> Alternatively, just abstract ECM and roll for "lock-on" for both
fighters 
> and missiles.  Only groups with a lock-on may attack.  The owner of
the 
> fighter/missiles designates groups to attack, then rolls to see how
many 
> actually get a lock-on and close. Fighters can either be done per
squadron 
> (whole squadron passes or doesn't) or be more like missiles and have 
> partial squadrons attack (similar to morale rules).  ECM could
subtract 
> from the lock-on roll to make the ship harder to attack.
>
> This would open up new defensive territory as you could add Area ECM 
> systems that generate electronic noise to inhibit attacks out to a
certain 
> range.  The disadvantage would be that your own attacks passing
through 
> that area would also be degraded by the same amount.	But since you
can 
> choose to activate or deactivate it on a per turn basis, you could use
it 
> to screen against an enemy alpha strike, turn it off for your 
> counter-strike, then start jamming again as you left the battle-field.
>
> The counter-measure would either be ECCM systems or advanced sensors.
>
> --Binhan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> [mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of
> laserlight@quixnet.net
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 2:17 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: Fighters....Re: Full Thrust vs Starmada
>
>
>>From: Flak Magnet (Tim)
>>Why not link the number of fighter groups that can attack a ship to
the
> number of Damage Control parties it has?  Maybe not 1:1 ratio.
>
> So warships are more prone to fighter attack than freighters?  And
what
> happens if you buy extra DCPs, per More Thrust?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>
>