Re: [GZG] Hugh's New Fighter/Point Defence rules

I'll start off by saying that I like the general idea, although I think
it needs some tuning.

My first observation is that while salvo missiles are not significantly
different than they were before (you can overkill one salvo and spill
the extra onto the next), while fighters, heavy missiles, and (possibly)
plasma bolts potentially can be completely stopped by just putting up a
high enough point defense level.  This potentially makes salvo missiles
a lot more powerful just by virtue of their being the one thing that
isn't drastically affected.

I would suggest that the following changes be made to the way fighters
strike:

1.  Attack fighters keep their current +1 to which PD band they strike
in, but also get a +1 to their to-hit roll.

2.  Torpedo bombers should get a +2 to which PD band they strike in, and
keep their current ability to retain their to-hit roll as their damage
die on a hit.  (i.e. if they need a 6 to hit and get it, they do 6
damage, etc)  Torpedo bombers should be worth that 36 NPV cost, and they
_should_ be terrifying to a fleet when someone's willing to expend the
budget.

3.  (Maybe)  Heavy fighters also get a +1 to which PD band they strike
in, because their pilots feel less deterred to break off an attack by
point defense fire.

I'm not sure what to do with plasma bolts under this system either. 
They're a very powerful weapon as they are, and to some degree I like
them that way because they strongly discourage fleets from piling their
entire force into a single bunched formation that is vulnerable to being
wiped out at all at once, and thus force admirals to space out their
ships more and maneuver.  It does also happen to leave them more
vulnerable to fighters while they're at it when they can't pile the
whole force into an area defense formation, but the rest of this system
reduces that threat somewhat.  The flip side is, at sizeable fleet
levels it gets easier and easier for plasma bolts to wipe out an entire
fleet without a whole lot of effort, too.  I've usually resisted
dramatic changes to plasma bolts, and I'm not a big fan of allowing any
task force or squadron that can put up 11 PD hits between them to
completely ignore them here, either.  I've been pondering allowing
plasma bolts (and/or mi
 ssiles) to always be allowed to hit on a to-hit roll of 6, but that
still seems a little too easy to ignore them.  I'll think about it, but
it needs work.

Will think on it more and probably have more thoughts later.

E

-----Original Message-----
>From: Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
>Sent: Nov 25, 2010 3:59 AM
>To: "gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: [GZG] Hugh's New Fighter/Point Defence rules
>
>
>For some time I've been working on new rule mechanisms
>for fighters and point defence in Full Thrust. (Seems
>to be an epidemic of this going around.)
>
>http://members.ozemail.com.au/~laranzu/fullthrust/rules/HughsNewFighter
Rules.pdf
>
>The intent is not to 'nerf' fighters or stop fleets with
>large numbers of fighters from being able to win. These
>rules are intended to make battles less predictable, less
>determined solely by fleet composition. And they also
>attempt to address the opposite end of the scale, where
>too few fighters get predictably slaughtered.
>
>The new rules seem to work, but my ideas for test cases
>are frequently not representative of how other people
>play FT. So I'd very much appreciate other people trying
>them out.
>
>Any and all feedback welcome.
>
>	cheers,
>	Hugh
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
>http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

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