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

Eric Foley wrote:
>Well, now that I've thought about it a little longer, there's a flaw 
>here.	It assumes that whatever intelligence that controls fighters 
>cares any more about preserving them than the intelligences that 
>control missiles.  Sure, we have morale rules to suggest that Full 
>Thrust fighters are crewed, but a casual glance at the rate at which 
>air forces around the world are moving to remote-piloted drones even 
>before we've gotten off our own planet in real life would tend to 
>cast doubts on whether there'd still likely be crewed fighters in 
>use by humans in the late 22nd century -- which also happens to be 
>the same reason I'm not a fan of the morale rules in the books, 
>either.

Most likely true, but irrelevant. In the GZG setting AFAIK fighters
have human pilots. (Plus some AI wingmen - er, wingdroids - in one
of Beth's stories.) Human fighter pilots, or aliens with similar
behaviour, are the dominant trope in the "cinematic" science fiction
(both written and screen)) from which I draw inspiration for FT:XD.

Salvo missiles represent kamikaze RPV/USV type fighters fairly well
already. And if you want to devise new rules for robotic fighters
or alien psychologies, I'm certainly not going to stop you.

>They work well when played within their own universe and present a 
>fun game, which is what they're supposed to do.  I'm more concerned 
>about the issue of fighters either being overwhelming or useless... 
>although I'm not _that_ concerned because I've generally found that 
>there are things that can be done about both.

Me, I want to see Cylons take on NAC take on Starfleet ... So I
want the new rules to work with fleet book designs. I guess that
is another section for my rationale.

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