[GZG] FT:XD changes, part 1

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJust to be
clear:

I do think you can solve almost any of the flaws of a ship design system
(which are really only flaws of a ship design system + a tactical set of
game rules) by scenario design.

However, not everyone is up to that. I don't think everyone should have
to
be up to that.

And oft times, people will focus on one aspect of the way things are
broken,
neglecting another. They patch one situation, creating a focus on
another.
Then they try to fix it, rinse repeat.

You sort of need a complete fix. You can do that if you truly understand
the
problems. Most of the time, that's a doubtful circumstance.

Again, I'm not married to any particular solution, but I want one that
addresses the range of issues that have been identified. No sense fixing
half of the gaping hole in the hull - the air is still getting out. :0)

Let's say I agree that, by manifestation of design + tactical rules,
ships
appear to have too little point defense. You'd fix this by changing the
amount of point defense and requiring reconstruction of various SSDs.
That's
one solution, though I think it makes the single-squadron BDN and small
carriers look *even worse* instead of better. So I call this a 'half the
problem' solution.

My solution of making the existing designs work reasonably is based on
the
hassle of redoing all the SSDs and the fact that I'd rather solve all of
the
problem aspects. If designs include a fighter squadron and it is worth X
in
terms of on table combat power in the points system, if it is actually
worth
0 (or near to it) every time it meets an enemy ship, then you've got
something broken.

I concede that, in a custom construction game, since you can build
anything,
your rules would have to cope gracefully with all combinations. That's a
bigger challenge that what I suggest.

If you are only worried about official designs or those that attended
the
same Naval Architecture College, then you've got a smaller subset of
issues
to deal with.

Most of my situations are predicated on human fleets clashing with human
fleets and with no integrated alien tech. I've played with Kra'Vak a
fair
bit, but not much with Savasku and have (for aesthetic reasons) rejected
Phalons from my table.

Given the standard human on human battles, using official designs, I'd
like
to see both the 'fighter advantage = crushing advantage' and the 'few
fighters = pointless waste of time' dealt with in whatever rules
incarnation
ensues. If your suggestion only fixes half of the problem, that's still
only
half of the solution.

Note to John:

If fighters are very hard to replace, then their campaign cost (if you
want
to think of it that way) would have to reflect that. At that point,
other
units other than carriers would come into vogue and you have problem
solved
on the mass-fighter appearance. OTOH, you haven't solved the BDN single
fighter squadron being worthless.

Plus, and this goes to a point Eric made earlier:

It doesn't matter what the normal convention has been. As soon as one
admiral discovers he can bring a slightly bigger hammer and have
disproportionate success, the tactic will catch on. Which means, given
time,
it will become a standard tactic.

No active conflict conventions will extend to ensuring regular losses.
No
active conflict conventions will prohibit the following of a
significantly
better strategy if it is discovered.

The theory that both campaign proposals I've seen advanced to avoid the
'fighter imbalance issue' have failed on is this very point.

Sure, at the start of a conflict, maybe nobody has figured out the
fighter
imbalance. But when someone does, they will ruthlessly use it to crush
their
foes and their foes will take note. Shortly, since there is no adequate
defense in existing fleet designs, they will have to either surrender or
adopt a similar strategy.

One could argue this forces them to redesign their fleets and that would
be
a long term result. Short term, everyone would try like the dickens to
show
up to battles with more carrier strength than the enemy and to flee from
fights where they had even a weak fighter disadvantage to avoid
disproportionate losses.

Campaign conventions that don't act in oppostition to winning tactical
doctrines can persist for some time. Those that do try to run in the
face of
survival will be quickly ignored or worked around.

Better to solve the problem in the ruleset, I believe.

Tom