2e EA wish list

[H]

and i was being sarcastic, sigh.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Many a true word spoken in jest, Hiff...

 

[Locutus9956]

Well the issue as I see it though is that comparing the two main battle ships for example:

An Omega brings with it 4 flights of uber ass kicking Thunderbolty goodness, and is about as tough as a Primus.

But...

A Primus by contrast brings with it those two Raziks, which ARE, I still maintain adequate to stop the TBolts if used carefully (or better yet, left on the base in escort....) The ship itself I recokn has a HUGE advantage in firepower unless the EA ship can survive long enough (and relatively undamaged enough) to pass the Centrauri one and brings its aft guns into the mix.

Now of course if you expand this to a fleet battle the fighter situation is maginified and quickly the Centauri are left having to look at dedicated carriers or face swamping. But that said if they don't then the BEAM situation is equally magnified and the combined fire from several centauri cap ships virtually gaurentees the EA cap ships death before they get past the lines (at least some of them, and then the EA are fighting at a numerical disadvantage (which thanks to boresighting, doubly screws them).

Overall, as I've said before I LIKE fighters to be a serious threat to captial ships. In my eyes space combat games should require the use of other fighters to properly defend against fighter attack vs ships.

To use another systems example (well a couple actually):

BSG (yes I know you either love it or hate it seemingly and by and large I DO prefer ACTA but theres a few areas I feel that BSG still did much, MUCH better (and fighters is one of them):

Bombers were truly, and utterly HORRIFIC in power, and turrets on ships were frankly poor and inadequate defence, you used interceptors to, well intercept them or you died. Period.


Full Thrust: This in my oppinion is how fighters should REALLY be done. Fighters were very potent. Had lots of dice etc and could do a horrible damage. However. They were relatively easy to destroy, but each flight was a NUMBER of fighters with a 6 hit points (esentially representing 6 fighters). If you took hits you lost fighter and rolled that many less dice when attacking. More bookkeeping!?!?! I hear you cry. Well no not really, simply place a dice on the fighter base and a count it down as they take losses. Its not really any more bookeeping that models with multiple wounds in Warhammer or Staraship troopers etc. It allows fighters to be surivable enough to do damage and VERY nasty in a full strenght squadron but also allows you to put effective antifighter options in the game without completely making fighters irrelevant.

Seriously why, oh WHY, cant we just give flights of fighters six fighters and corresponding attack dice? Seriously?! (oh and dogighting could be simple too just roll all your dice and pair up highet vs highest and so on a la risk, greater numbers gives you greater chances of winning, but do something like dogfight score = that many extra dice (per wing).

In that instance: Tbolt Squadron 6 fighters each roll 1 AD cannon and 1 AD AP missile. So a full flight at 2" fires 6AD of regular and 6AD AP. Nasty yes (oh in this version of the rule fighters would NOT fire first by the way!!!). In the case of ties the figher with the higher dofight score wins.

However in a dogfight, between say 4 Tbolt Squadrons and 2 Raziks:

4 Tbolts: 28 dice (24 dice if we drop them back to +0 (which I do actually agree on there)
2 Raziks: 18 dice. However the Raziks win any ties. (and thats when outnumbered 2 to one mind you!

Again this is a rough idea and just a start but I do think it would be an improvement.

Edit: I should also point out that in this instance I would get rid of dodge entirely.

 

[H]

seems so.

so then EA get some more new toys, it's the age old debate on the EA getting more and more isn't it? just glad the brakiri get some stuff, hope the Pikitos is cool!

 

[Silvereye]

It's true, I can take a Balvarix loaded with Raziks, but doing so uses up a lot of my FAP total and the fighters are worthless once the enemy birds are cleared out. Not true for the EA, even Aurora Starfuries can hurt ships, but Sentris and Raziks will find that difficult.

Yes, but that FAP has just potentially protected ALL of your ships from the EA fighter menance. Once the enemy fighters are cleared out, your Raziks have recouped the points you invested in them, and if you can actually damage a ship with them, thats a bonus - although you may be better recovering them on the Balvarix so as to deny the VPs to your opponent.

Lets face it, if you would consider buying a competent anti-fighter frigate for use against EA, why should a fleet carrier full of fighter-interceptors be any less a valid reponse?

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Full Thrust: This in my oppinion is how fighters should REALLY be done. Fighters were very potent. Had lots of dice etc and could do a horrible damage. However. They were relatively easy to destroy, but each flight was a NUMBER of fighters with a 6 hit points (esentially representing 6 fighters). If you took hits you lost fighter and rolled that many less dice when attacking. More bookkeeping!?!?! I hear you cry. Well no not really, simply place a dice on the fighter base and a count it down as they take losses. Its not really any more bookeeping that models with multiple wounds in Warhammer or Staraship troopers etc. It allows fighters to be surivable enough to do damage and VERY nasty in a full strenght squadron but also allows you to put effective antifighter options in the game without completely making fighters irrelevant.

Seriously why, oh WHY, cant we just give flights of fighters six fighters and corresponding attack dice? Seriously?! (oh and dogighting could be simple too just roll all your dice and pair up highet vs highest and so on a la risk, greater numbers gives you greater chances of winning, but do something like dogfight score = that many extra dice (per wing).

In that instance: Tbolt Squadron 6 fighters each roll 1 AD cannon and 1 AD AP missile. So a full flight at 2" fires 6AD of regular and 6AD AP. Nasty yes (oh in this version of the rule fighters would NOT fire first by the way!!!). In the case of ties the figher with the higher dofight score wins.

However in a dogfight, between say 4 Tbolt Squadrons and 2 Raziks:

4 Tbolts: 28 dice (24 dice if we drop them back to +0 (which I do actually agree on there)
2 Raziks: 18 dice. However the Raziks win any ties. (and thats when outnumbered 2 to one mind you!

Again this is a rough idea and just a start but I do think it would be an improvement.

Edit: I should also point out that in this instance I would get rid of dodge entirely.

I like this suggestion. It would slow down play, but so what? It's not that huge a step up in detail and time taken to resolve actions and it makes fighters more potent across the board. I approve.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Yes, but that FAP has just potentially protected ALL of your ships from the EA fighter menance. Once the enemy fighters are cleared out, your Raziks have recouped the points you invested in them, and if you can actually damage a ship with them, thats a bonus - although you may be better recovering them on the Balvarix so as to deny the VPs to your opponent.

Lets face it, if you would consider buying a competent anti-fighter frigate for use against EA, why should a fleet carrier full of fighter-interceptors be any less a valid reponse?

It's a fair comment. It just galls me that my fighters are basically unable to hurt any enemy ship, but other races get fighters that are good dogfighters and well able to to assault large ships and do damage.

I am, however, encouraged by Katadder's comments about the upcoming Centauri changes.

 

[Locutus9956]

Well like I said, its basically the fighter combat system from full thrust but with a slight tweak to incorporate ACTAs dogfight rules. And I know for a fact that it works beutifully in Full Thrust (which has been around for donkeys years now, and not without good reason!).

 

[katadder]

well 8 raziks hasnt protected all your interests in the EA brings an avenger, plus omegas and novas and starfuries only need to be ohalf of them, starfury with one t-bolt supporting is equal to a razik.

 

[Burger]

When bought independently, Raziks are the best dogfighter in the game, because they get 4 per wing at Patrol level.

You can't be master of all trades.

 

[Silvereye]

You can't be master of all trades.

Well, you can. But as you only get one Nial flight per wing, those four Razik flights are looking like really good value for your FAPs.

 

[Burger]

You can't be master of all trades.

Well, you can. But as you only get one Nial flight per wing, those four Razik flights are looking like really good value for your FAPs.

Exactly, you prove my point 4 Raziks will easily kill 1 Nial.

 

[cordas]

You can't be master of all trades.

Well, you can. But as you only get one Nial flight per wing, those four Razik flights are looking like really good value for your FAPs.

Exactly, you prove my point 4 Raziks will easily kill 1 Nial.

Unfortunatly you also get fighters launched from ships as well as those bought at patrol level.... Some ships carry lots more fighters than others at a similar level which can unbalance them..... Also the blanket rules that some races ship based fighters can be swapped for others at no extra cost gives some races a fair advantage in the fighter stakes.... and the poor Centari with the Rutarian have to pay for the nose for what is admittedly a brilliant fighter, whislt others get hings like T-bolts or Nials as free upgrades, both excellent to brilliant fighters at their role.

 

[emperorpenguin]

BSG (yes I know you either love it or hate it seemingly and by and large I DO prefer ACTA but theres a few areas I feel that BSG still did much, MUCH better (and fighters is one of them):



Full Thrust: This in my oppinion is how fighters should REALLY be done.

BSG!? BattleStar Galactica :wink: You meant Battle Fleet Gothic I assume :lol:

Full Thrust: Agree, fighters in that are great

 

[emperorpenguin]

It's a fair comment. It just galls me that my fighters are basically unable to hurt any enemy ship, but other races get fighters that are good dogfighters and well able to to assault large ships and do damage..

When 2nd ed arrives you'll be able to shred fighters with the Maximus Lord David. Raziks are still fantastic dogfighters, Sentris can attack ships now! Rutarians are just cool........... You'll like them!

As a Centauri player though I have to disagree on Starfuries though, I like them being +2 dogfighters, I think it is fitting

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Damn it, EP, you're letting the side down! Back up your fellow fan-heads!

 

[H]

he's clearly from a rival house!

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I'll get the poison...

 

[Silvereye]

The old ways are the best.

 

[Locutus9956]

Yes but if the EA brings an Avenger then hes realying ENTIRELY on 8 flights of TBolts to make up the antiship capabilities of an Omega or a Marathon.

Really, in my oppinion the NASTIEST fighter fleet EA can pull off is if they play 3rd Age and spam Nova's loaded with T-Bolts. In a 5 point raid game thats 20 Thunderbolts and 5 Novas worth of broadsidey doom. HOWEVER:

The centauri could just field 5 Sullusts and obliterate those 5 Novas in about 3 turns. Sure they would take fighter attack but if they use ALL their non beam weapons on the T-Bolts they WILL drop them sooner or later, and Sullusts are hull 6 with interceptors. T'Bolts aint gonna hurt them much. If the Novas want to acutally LAUNCH those fighters they cant APTE to close faster (frankly Id bet theyll lose 2 or 3 of the Novas before they can get more than 2 or 3 flights out anyway and it wouldnt surprise me if they get wiped out before they can get the majority of their weapons to bear.