Prev: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: Next: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance

Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re:

From: John Lerchey <lerchey@g...>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 10:56:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re:


That's a viewpoint that has never been presented to me before, and now
having heard it, I'm going to happily abandon my former request to
have the advanced fire con option.  You are correct, it would be a
"too unique and why doesn't it available in other places" kind of
option. :)

Along those lines, I would then want to advocate a minor change to the
proposed PDS/ADS convention.  I know that the difference only effects
range, but still think that it's worth considering.  Leave them all as
PDS, but assign numbers.  So you have PDS-1 with a 6mu range, PDS-2
with a 12mu range, and if you are so inclined, PDS-n with 6nmu range.

Quick thought about CIDS and cost issues for very small/very large
ships.	On larger ships I think that the increased mass can be PSB'd
away as having to simply cover more area because the hull is huge.  If
it seems to be too cheap/small on very small ships, give it a minimum
mass and cost that is prohibitive for whatever class is "too small" to
have CIDS, beit it FF, DD or whatever.

Thanks for the insight Tom!


On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Tom B <> wrote:
> Follow up questions for Indy:
> If you want some testing, should it include:
> Fighter Morale
> 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 and
> 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
> 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
any of
> the weaponry? We just generally don't price FC (at least range from
FC) as a
> 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
> advantage.
> 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
> extender has a value that would vary with PDS count - on ships with
few PDS,
> it would be worth way less than on ships with many. For reference
> see "Fighters, value changes with ratio of fighters to enemy fighters
> PDS".
> So, I think Indy's approach is better. Flavour wise, both systems
work. PV
> wise, I think the longer ranged PDS option is more evenly applicable.
> T.
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: Next: Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance