| Subtopic | Posts | Updated | ||
| Archive through September 13, 2006 | 25 | 09/13 03:27pm | |
| Archive through September 14, 2006 | 25 | 09/14 06:18pm | |
| Archive through September 19, 2006 | 25 | 09/20 01:47am |
| By James Chou (Jchou) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 12:09 am: Edit |
One man's attempt to screw is another man's fairness and realism, and vice versa.
Carriers are the worst case of rule lawyerism run amok in F&E, in my opinion. Carriers are almost immoral -- until end game or capital assault, yet they provide free attrition. It's highly unrealistic as well -- are you expecting a human piloted crafts to kamikaze every time?
Realistically, soldiers may be willing to go into high risk situation, but not certain death. And damage allocation represent enemy shots taken at the most advatageous time -- you are expect fighter to attract those shots like magnets? A more 'realistic' representation would distribute the damage among ships and fighters. Fighters will still provide attrition -- I merely want this attrition as a discount of overall attrition, rather than totally free. The issue is more fair apportion of risks.
And yes, you still get your immortal carriers.
Since capital battle is going to kill a lot more ships, it would be quite a bit easier for Hydran to return to capital, if it ever lost it at all.
This will balance Federation as well, by the way.
| By Terry_OCarroll (Terryoc) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 12:43 am: Edit |
Fighters lost in combat do not necessarily kill the pilot. Some proportion of the pilots will escape in life pods. SFB also has rules for remotely piloted fighters, which will cut down on the number of pilot casualties. Piloting a fighter is very risky, but it's not certain death.
The free fighter attrition represents the fact that fighters are easy to kill and dangerous enough to be worth killing, and that it's often possible to influence what the enemy shoots at - operate the fighters closer to the enemy and those will tend to get shot at first.
| By James Chou (Jchou) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 12:47 am: Edit |
Terry -- assuming I buy your argument, would you rather let me take a shot at your carriers without touching your escort first?
| By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 01:23 am: Edit |
Actually the enemy ships AND fighters would have to get through the fighters tasked for defensive operations and the fighter pilots may very well sacrifice themselves in defense of their fleet, especially if they have no where else to land. If the choice is between dying alone of oxygen deprivation and/or freezing to death, I know that I would rather do what I could to prevent the enemy from going past me to the CV. At least someone may survive and the fleet would hopefully still be around to get my friends home.
Quote:It's highly unrealistic as well -- are you expecting a human piloted crafts to kamikaze every time?
| By James Chou (Jchou) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 01:47 am: Edit |
Michael:
WW-2 is not SFB. In SFB, fighter is expected to fight with the fleet, and carriers fight on battle line. Fighter operating alone would be blasted by a good size fleet with long range fire, without causing any damage.
I don't buy your argument about rescue pods either -- considering we are talking about unimagable power of the futuristic weapons.
While it's very well that pilots will sacrifice themselves on circumstances, it's too much to be expected on current life expectancy of a pilot in F&E -- SFB pilots would have better odds, and isn't F&E suppose to simulate SFB?
At the end, all I am asking is if you are going to use attrition tactics on me, let me attrition your ships as well -- and I will accept lessor odds. If you are going to damage my ship, let me have a decent chance of damaging yours as well -- I will accept lessor odds. Near immortal units with free attrition ability -- it's too much to swallow.
| By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 05:08 am: Edit |
I don't suppose you saw the U4.0 CV Group Campaign?
A fighter fights with the fleet as well as on independant strikes in SFB AND F+E.
POIS rescue pods are in SFB. It's under J6.6.
The life expectancy of an individual FIGHTER in F+E is between 6 months and the end of the war (odds are not good that it will survive until the end though). The life expectancies of the PILOTS are quite a bit longer when you take into account J6.6.
You're right, it isn't. Do you know what the average life expectancy of a bomber pilot in WW 2 was? I'll give you a clue, their life expectancy was not measured in months but in missions. How many missions do you think they flew every day/week/month? And they still found pilots for them. They were also NOT kamikazis.
Quote:WW-2 is not SFB.
Correct again. But why would it be alone? One fighter would be destroyed at long range for free, 36-48 fighters would put a serious hurt on whatever they decided to shoot at, if they didn't kill it outright.
Quote:Fighter operating alone would be blasted by a good size fleet with long range fire, without causing any damage.
Fine by me, get rid of SFGs and Maulers and I'll give you better odds. That's actually what this whole thread has turned into, a search for a way to give both sides better odds without unbalancing it.
Quote:At the end, all I am asking is if you are going to use attrition tactics on me, let me attrition your ships as well -- and I will accept lessor odds. If you are going to damage my ship, let me have a decent chance of damaging yours as well -- I will accept lessor odds.
| By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 05:15 am: Edit |
Duplicate post deleted.
| By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 08:15 am: Edit |
James Chou. There are some key points that you are missing.
1. Undamaged ships in F&E are not necessarily undamaged in SFB; they are just not crippled.
2. Purchase module J2; you will find the rules on remote control fighters enlightening.
| By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 09:58 am: Edit |
Andy: thanks for mentioning the RC fighters rule in J2. It takes the air out of some of the arguments.
| By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 10:17 am: Edit |
Going back to the proposed 1/3rd rule...
I have a line in battle as follows:
C8
3xD7
3xD6
F5L
2xF5
E4
I take 30 damage and my opponent declines to DD.
Normally, I would cripple 2xD6, 2xF5, E4. But under the proposed rule I cannot cripple more than 3 ships. (11/3 rounded down)
Now I kill the E4 and cripple 3xD6.
Or I kill F5L, E4 and cripple D6, 2xF5 with (3) plus points into the next round.
Is this the desired result?
| By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 01:23 pm: Edit |
Greg, I would write the rule to say it's 1/3, rounded up (or at least to the closest up or down), so that in your example you can cripple four ships.
Then, if you started with the E4, 2 F5, F5L, you'd still owe 10 points. Cripple a D6, let the E4 die, and you've got only 4 cripples.
However, your concern is still appropriate - what if the enemy scored 35 damage?
Kill the F5L, Cripple 2 D6, 2 F5?
Kill the E4, Cripple 3 D6, F5?
Kill an E4, F5, Cripple 2 D6, F5?
So, is this too costly a proposal, or acceptible? What does everyone think?
| By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 02:23 pm: Edit |
Technicality question about the rounding.
Say you have a E4 and F5S holding a province and they get attacked by 4 Hunters, which inflict 2 points of damage (low BIRs and low rolls). If you can only cripple 1/3 rounded down, you wouldn't be allowed to cripple anything. Would the E4 explode (even though not enough damage was inflicted), nothing gets crippled (since you can't cripple the 1 ship), or does the E4 cripple anyway, in exception to this rule?
(Should be obvious, but not resolving the obvious leads to questions in Q&A.)
| By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 02:30 pm: Edit |
If a F&E turn was one single pitched battle with all the ships on the line at the same time then this 1/3 cripple concept might work. As remarked many times before it is six months worth of combat over a rather large chunk of space. One enguagement may just be D6s, another the frigates. Being able to allocate damgage without restrictions reflects local command decisions on what ships went where.
This 1/3 rule sounds too much like restricting captains to having to follow the "orders of battle" from the age of sail. Nelson ignored them. We would all be speaking french had he not done so. Je n'ai pas parle francais
| By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 12:37 am: Edit |
I will be opening up a group game called "You Make the Call" using enhanced dirdam according to SVC's rule outline of 9/13, with the discussed modification of formation and scout remaining at 3:1.
See the Report from the Front, cast your vote, and watch what happens!
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |