Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re:
From: Tom B <kaladorn@g...>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 23:08:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re:
Gzg-l mailing list
questions for Indy:
If you want some testing, should it include:
Any form of Fighter Endurance (and if so, what variety/rules?)
To Mr. Lerchey:
I can see a flavour point for what you argue to or for Indy's view.
I'm quite happy with 'PDS made better with a better FC' or 'a shorter
longer range PDS system' (much like you have B1, B2, and B3
batteries). Either seem to have a reasonable sensibility about tthem.
However, notice that no other system in the game is improved by another
system in the way PDS was improved by ADFC nor in the way the Lerchey
variant would work. We don't have batteries and then improve them with
better FC. If it would make sense for PDS, wouldn't it make sense for
the weaponry? We just generally don't price FC (at least range from FC)
separate item - it is rolled into a weapon mount. So I can see Indy's
approach being coherent with that standard.
It also eliminates a variability of valuation and that seems like a big
ADS as a long range PDS - pay X PV, get X dice of PDSness.
ADS as a range extender on PDS - pay X PV, magnify the effect of every
on the ship (which could be any number from 1 to very many more than
One of those schemes scales in a predicatable fashion. ADS as PDS range
extender has a value that would vary with PDS count - on ships with few
it would be worth way less than on ships with many. For reference
see "Fighters, value changes with ratio of fighters to enemy fighters +
So, I think Indy's approach is better. Flavour wise, both systems work.
wise, I think the longer ranged PDS option is more evenly applicable.