Thinking about Fighters (FQ)

Home of SOLAR STARFIRE, 6th edition, rules based on the upcoming history of the Terran Solar Union.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Thinking about Fighters (FQ)

Postby Cralis on Fri 09 Dec 2016 16:50

Whitecold wrote:I'd see overall the large unit munition coming before the fighter based one.


Probably, especially since Gunboats appear an SL before Fighters.

One thing to consider is that if this special munition is also XO exclusive, it starts getting pretty crammed there, especially if you still want to mount regular munitions. I take it box launchers able to deploy specialty munitions, but were broken on their own. If we introduce more specialties, I'd suggest some sort of appropriate universal launcher, able to launch various munitions, but bigger and more expensive than regular launchers.


XO rack mounted munitions are required to have their warhead type chosen when loaded. But internal launchers have something like a "dial-a-warhead" function and can choose their warhead type at the moment of launching, unless you use the optional rule that says you have choose the warhead type upon loading into a magazine.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Thinking about Fighters (FQ)

Postby Dawn Falcon on Fri 09 Dec 2016 17:53

Cralis wrote:As Whitecold says, EM with small craft has a pretty small effect. And it doesn't fit the pseudo-science for squadrons. Been thinking about totally banning EM for squadrons and using decoys or jammers or something with a finite but tangible effect. That and it eliminates the pseudo-physics implications. Still just a concept right now.


Well you know me, I care about the effect first - it would be the same, trading MP for survivability.

(Unless you want to take me up on my idea of toughness :P)
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26

Re: Thinking about Fighters (FQ)

Postby PracticalM on Sat 10 Dec 2016 12:00

Cralis wrote:With your definition, I can see where you're coming from. I just can't figure out how to make that definition fit in our pseudo-physics. I'll have to think about how it might be possible... and I'll be honest, as a munition it would fit perfectly with our explanations given ADM and such :)

Just as a feeler, what do you think about making this as a munition instead?


If the pseudo-physics doesn't work and it has to be munition then why would you need fighters instead of just using gunboats. That's the only reason I wanted it built into the fighter itself.

The problem with it being a munition instead of it being something part of the fighter itself is that you can only fire the weapon during the combat phase and you don't get the furball effect of the fighter entering the hex with the GB and stopping its movement.
--
Jeffrey Kessler
PracticalM
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed 15 Jul 2009 10:27
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: Thinking about Fighters (FQ)

Postby Cralis on Sun 11 Dec 2016 07:32

PracticalM wrote:If the pseudo-physics doesn't work and it has to be munition then why would you need fighters instead of just using gunboats. That's the only reason I wanted it built into the fighter itself.


I already mentioned the possibility that it simply doesn't affect fighters as much, or maybe has less of a chance to affect them, along the lines of a plasma torpedo adds TM to its to-hit chance. As I said, we can make this very clear by giving fighters a better turnmode like 2 hexsides per turn.

The problem with it being a munition instead of it being something part of the fighter itself is that you can only fire the weapon during the combat phase and you don't get the furball effect of the fighter entering the hex with the GB and stopping its movement.


Hmmm a good point. I would see that working like an "Interdiction Cruiser" (if we borrow from Star Wars for a second). The biggest problem I have with the concept is that I can't think of any non-totally arbitrary reason for it not to work for any other unit small or large.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Thinking about Fighters (FQ)

Postby PracticalM on Sun 11 Dec 2016 11:32

Cralis wrote:
PracticalM wrote:The problem with it being a munition instead of it being something part of the fighter itself is that you can only fire the weapon during the combat phase and you don't get the furball effect of the fighter entering the hex with the GB and stopping its movement.


Hmmm a good point. I would see that working like an "Interdiction Cruiser" (if we borrow from Star Wars for a second). The biggest problem I have with the concept is that I can't think of any non-totally arbitrary reason for it not to work for any other unit small or large.


Certainly it should work with everything from Gunboats on down. There has to be some PP (pseudo-physics) difference between Gunboats and large units which to hang this on.

Or let it affect ships but not as much (-1 to I, -2 to J), doesn't affect Jc or Ic at all. Not sure about the other drives.
Only one system can affect a ship or small unit per turn.
--
Jeffrey Kessler
PracticalM
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed 15 Jul 2009 10:27
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: Thinking about Fighters (FQ)

Postby Cralis on Sun 11 Dec 2016 17:26

PracticalM wrote:Certainly it should work with everything from Gunboats on down. There has to be some PP (pseudo-physics) difference between Gunboats and large units which to hang this on.

Or let it affect ships but not as much (-1 to I, -2 to J), doesn't affect Jc or Ic at all. Not sure about the other drives.
Only one system can affect a ship or small unit per turn.


Let's take this a step further. Why wouldn't this affect missiles and plasma torpedoes? Other small craft? Everything? And why does it have to be a fighter or gunboat that can somehow create this field affect (or worse from the pseudo-physics POV, modify it's drive-field to create the effect)? Why can't large units do the same thing but on a much greater scale?

And from a gameplay POV, even if we allow for this to have a to-hit we are talking about a field effect that begs for increased radius and eventually completely affecting all units within it's radius. I know the argument is "you don't have to go there!" but since trying to maintain some sort of integrity with the pseudo-science, this really does open up possibilities...

And then I started thinking about other field-effect concepts that could be functionally similar...

You know, allowing for this is a whole can of worms I think I'd rather not open.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Thinking about Fighters (FQ)

Postby PracticalM on Sat 17 Dec 2016 16:46

Cralis wrote:
PracticalM wrote:Certainly it should work with everything from Gunboats on down. There has to be some PP (pseudo-physics) difference between Gunboats and large units which to hang this on.

Or let it affect ships but not as much (-1 to I, -2 to J), doesn't affect Jc or Ic at all. Not sure about the other drives.
Only one system can affect a ship or small unit per turn.


Let's take this a step further. Why wouldn't this affect missiles and plasma torpedoes? Other small craft? Everything? And why does it have to be a fighter or gunboat that can somehow create this field affect (or worse from the pseudo-physics POV, modify it's drive-field to create the effect)? Why can't large units do the same thing but on a much greater scale?

And from a gameplay POV, even if we allow for this to have a to-hit we are talking about a field effect that begs for increased radius and eventually completely affecting all units within it's radius. I know the argument is "you don't have to go there!" but since trying to maintain some sort of integrity with the pseudo-science, this really does open up possibilities...

And then I started thinking about other field-effect concepts that could be functionally similar...

You know, allowing for this is a whole can of worms I think I'd rather not open.


Missiles and Plasma Torpedoes are not going to get close enough because they detonate far enough away.
Small craft - stop them all like Gunboats
Make it a one time use effect with a to-hit on all targets in a single hex
It only recharges after reloading in a carrier bay.
If you want to let large ships do it, then build a system that does it and then destroys 2 engine rooms (not tug rooms) Might be worth it for WP defenses.
I wouldn't allow it in drones or buoys - (you'd have to determine the reason (too small; not large enough drive)

There has to be some reason DF are different for GB and ships, just hang the effect on that.
--
Jeffrey Kessler
PracticalM
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed 15 Jul 2009 10:27
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: Thinking about Fighters (FQ)

Postby Cralis on Sat 17 Dec 2016 20:53

PracticalM wrote:There has to be some reason DF are different for GB and ships, just hang the effect on that.


That's the issue with the pseudo-science integrity, is the difference is primarily that the miniaturization and speed gains come from a hybrid technology between small unit drives and missile drives. It's the reason they can't just be turned on and off.

I'll have to think about it. I've written the arguments and notes down for further consideration.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Thinking about Fighters (FQ)

Postby Whitecold on Sun 18 Dec 2016 02:20

I really don't like the idea of an interdiction cruiser. As far as the starwars version went, it prevented hyperspace travel, and there does exist a system to block WPs, even though it is fairly high up the tech tree.
Though more importantly, as far as preventing movement, there is already the tractor, which works at a distance. A system working in the same hex it is in will not change the squadron engagement much. It would likely be a sizable system, and thus will require a sizable ship that can't close the range with squadrons. If if you make it small enough that something like a CT can mount it, these small ships are those that die the fast, especially if you want them to get to range 0 with GBs. Which brings us back to the known problem that ships just are not survivable against gunboats.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Previous

Return to Solar Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests