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

And I still like my idea of the slight extra book keeping of dividing
uber
numbers of fighters attacking a single target as 'waves', and allowing a
PDS to engage each wave.

Look, I think another thing to suggest is not one way of running
fighters,
but alternate fighter structures suggested to play different fighter
intensity, not merely different fighters. A) This is Star Trek, dammit;
Jim
Kirk never saw a fighter!, B) This is Wing Commander, dammit. I can see
table between the fighter markers, C) Well, in Star Fleet Battles,
fighters
play but dominate...

Hate to tell you the voice I heard on the last one.

The_Beast

Zoe Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote on 05/05/2010 08:01:27 AM:

> I still like my proposal from long ago.
>
> You place fighters, missiles etc in one or more of the six 60 degree
> firing arcs when they attack. They, and missiles, get a free 6" move
to
> place them in base contact with the defending ship, unless pinned by
> defending fighters - who get a free shot if they attempt to attack.
>
> PDS can fire in 1 of 2 modes: Barrage and Individual.
> In Barrage, they can fire at each target in one 60 degree firing arc.
> In individual fire, they can fire at *one* target, using the normal
rules.
> Due to fratricide and mutual interference, only one PDS can fire in
> barrage mode per firing arc.
>
> That's it.
>
> It means that massed fighter attacks lose effectiveness, as with 6
PDS,
> every fighter group will get attacked. Also, adding additional PDS
> doesn't really help a lot. And even one fighter group has a reasonable
> chance of survival. And with 12 fighter groups attacking a ship with 3
> PDS, at least 6 will get fired at.The greater the fighter imbalance,
the
> more effective PDS becomes.
>
> Try it in playtest.

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