Prev: Re: [GZG] FT:XD changes, part 1 Next: Re: [GZG] FT:XD changes, part 1

Re: [GZG] FT:XD changes, part 1

From: Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@c...>
Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 15:50:04 +0200
Subject: Re: [GZG] FT:XD changes, part 1

Eric Foley wrote:

> >Unfortunately you don't need basestar-like fighter numbers to rip
> >through a Fleet Book fleet. It is quite sufficient to bring a couple
> >of Fleet Book fleet carriers (except the NSL ones), unless the
> >opposing fleet brings a similar number of fighters of their own or
> >consists mostly of escort cruisers (since most of the ADFC-equipped
> >ships in the Fleet Books only carry 3 PDSs each). IOW, under the
> >Fleet Book rules the PDS levels featured on the Fleet Book ships
> >don't make sense *even in the GZGverse* - and I know several
> >"official designs only" gaming groups that have implemented rather
> >strict rules on permissible fleet structures to ensure that no-one
> >can bring too many fighters to the fight. (Or too many
> >superdreadnoughts, for that matter - though the CPV rules seem to
> >have reduced that problem, at least.)
>Oh, I understand all this very well.  It changes absolutely nothing 
>in terms of my end point, though.  I accept that FB1 ships have very 
>poor defenses against amassed fighters, and I'm perfectly willing to 
>hand-wave it away if I want to play with them -- with the idea that 
>GZGverse powers don't have enough carriers (and, if you prefer, 
>superdreadnoughts) to put enough of them in one place that it 
>overwhelms the balance or fun value of the game.

To me, that kind of hand-waving is pretty much the same as saying 
that "all GZGverse admirals are complete idiots" - because if you can 
get as a big advantage as the current rules allow by prying loose 
just *one* extra fleet carrier (or pair of light carriers) to 
reinforce your strike fleet, anyone but a complete idiot would do his 
utmost to arrange just that. Particularly since, in any setting where 
it takes time to build ships and move them from the yards to the 
front (such as the GZGverse), the enemy can't radically change his 
fleet mix for the next battle in order to counter the strike fleet 
the way players can do in one-off games (or narrative campaigns with 
no restricting fleet design rules) :-/

>The game system, as it already sits, is actually quite good at 
>dealing with a variety of these situations one-off custom games where you can change your entire fleet mix 
from one battle to the next. Agreed. The problem really comes to the 
fore when someone tries to use the game as the tactical engine of a 
full-blown campaign (which is effectively what the GZGverse 
background is supposed to be), because then you need all sorts of 
arbitrary limitations on ship/fleet design to avoid having a "rock" 
fleet tear up an entire sector simply because the opponents started 
out with a "scissors" fleet mix and couldn't switch to "papers" fast

>(Not fond of the CPV system either. Hate it, in fact.)

Could be because you're so fond of big superdreadnoughts ;)

> >(FWIW I'm not sure which version of the beta-test fighter rules TomB
> >is talking about - the ones I've seen /either/ allow all PDSs on a
> >ship to engage all incoming fighter groups /or/ allow anti-ship
> >weapons to engage fighters effectively, but not both at once.)
>Yeah, the one I've seen did the latter.  As I've said before, I'm 
>actually all right with a weakened version of the latter -- XD does 
>a hits-one-fighter-on-6-only version of this, and I've generally 
>been using that in my own games.  I _might_ amp it up to 5+, but 
>I've got no intention of adopting the playtest rules I've seen.

"Hits-fighters-on-6-only" gives about the same number of fighter 
casualties as the beta-test rules with 2-3 CEF spent on evasive 
manoeuvres; "hits-on-5+" corresponds roughly to 1 CEF spent on 
evasion. IME the former makes the fighters a bit too survivable 
(which is why the beta-test rules made them pay a lot of CEF for it); 
the latter should work OK without any additional CEF cost. The 
important things for the fighter-vs-ship game balance are

1) To allow all that Mass spent on anti-ship weapons to be of at 
least *some* use against a fighter strike, instead of sitting 
completely idle as they do in the FT2/FB rules. The purpose is to 
reduce the current rather extreme gradient in PD firepower as a ship 
goes from low PDS/lots of anti-ship weapons to lots of PDS/light 
anti-ship armament. (Relying on improved PDSs only, as in the "each 
PDS fires at every incoming fighter" concept, is NOT a solution since 
as you noted it makes it pretty easy to make a ship completely 
invulnerable to fighter attacks - IOW, improving the PD systems only 
will increase the PD gradient even further, when the very root of the 
problem is that it is already too steep.)

2) To allow ships to *gradually* attrit enemy fighters from a range 
instead of being able to shoot at them only when the fighters deign 
to attack (enabling escort screening formations etc. to work, and 
reducing the need for massive PD batteries that can stop the fighters 
cold with a single salvo).

The original beta-test rules were the first "semi-official" attempt 
to do both of these things at once, and I quite agree that they 
did  them in too complex a way. (They also attempted to clean up a 
number of other features such as the badly messed-up FT2/FB dogfight 
rules, and to top it off spent roughly three times the verbiage 
they'd've needed if a native English-speaker had written them which 
reinforced the *impression* of complexity way beyond the *actual* 
complexity level <g>) The XD "hit-on-a-6-only" is IME too weak; 
"hit-on-a-5" should be pretty much OK.

(Oh, and you're by no means the only one to go on at length at times



Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] FT:XD changes, part 1 Next: Re: [GZG] FT:XD changes, part 1