Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters

Can I summarize here? It sounds like we have an interaction term. So
are fighters worth more or less than the sum of their roles?

More than the sum of their roles:

0) PSB. Answer: Winchell Chung points out we shouldn't be using fighters
at all.

1) The cost of extra bays to house extra fighters should include the
added hull, drives and maybe defenses. If I add 6 mass of payload, I
shouldn't ignore the 2 hull boxes, 2 mass of drives, and 1 mass of FTL
that supports it (and even arguably the PDS installation that defends
the correspondingly more juicy target). Multirole or swing fighters
avoid this cost, so more of your fighters points end up in "fighters"
than "launch overhead". This is an advantage that should cost.

2) Swing and multirole fighters reduce uncertainty. Part of the points
cost reflects the fact that the fighter may not be actually useful in
a particular scenario against a particular enemy. Flexibility like
this eliminates risk and uncertainty, and should be paid for in
points.

3) Swing and Multirole fighters can adapt during a battle. That is,
they can launch as Interceptors early on to sweep enemy fighters away.
Then (in the case of Swing fighters, after re-arming) they can start
strike runs against enemy ships. Clever tactics pits each type
according to its mission. Multirole fighters are always the right
mission for the job.

OK arguments that they're LESS than the sum of their parts

0) PSB. Answer: Winchell Chung points out we shouldn't be using fighters
at all.

1) You can only die once. PDS or interceptors will clear our multirole
fighters, reaping far more points than they cost. The only upgrade
that helps survivability is Heavy, and that doesn't help all THAT
much.

2) You only get so many turns per battle. In a 10 turn battle, if I'm
spending 2 turns maneuvering (and maybe 3 turns returning and rearming
for swing fighters, of course, fighter endurance means you might need
to return and re-arm anyway), then I only get 3-5 turns of
Interceptors and 3-4 turns of Attack runs. Just taking multiple
specialists gives you both capabilities that cover the whole game.

3) There's only so much map space on the board. Multirole fighters
might be great interceptors and great attack fighters, but in a game
where there's lots of fighters on the board and combat is at pretty
long range, you'll want interceptors close to your ships and attack
fighters near your opponents' ships. Multirole might do both jobs, but
they can't be in two places at the same time.

This is the kind of thing that really only playtesting can resolve.
However, my feeling is that the Long Range Heavy Attack Interceptors
that people want aren't really specialist roles, they're a proxy for
superior wealth/technology. If this were a democracy, I'd say separate
quality from design decisions. If nothing else, when we bring our BSG
fleet to fight someone else's Star Wars fleet, and then suddenly some
Starfuries pop out of the local jumpgate at a convention, you still
have something that's roughly comparable but fully reflects the
different settings.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:26 PM,  <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ryan,
>
>
>
> This is where point systems need to show finness. Instead of A+B=X,
these
> multiple role fighters should come down to A+B(c)=X where "c" is a
modifier,
> making the second role cheaper than it would be if it was the sole
role of
> the fighter. This would reflect that the fighter has extra
capabilities, but
> that the limitations on the fighters' ability to act within the rules
> hampers those extra capabilities.
>

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l