Arma: Fighters:Anti-Fighter:
- Thread starter JayRaider
- Start date
However, the Vree do have an insane number of Anti-fighter weapons of their own typically they have them in every arc.
I used the new fighter rule in the demo's I ran at ConQuest SF, and they worked out well. It could be that the vree in particular are now weak against fighters, but I think the rule fits well with most fleets. I was hoping to see fighters fire as activations, and not all at once, but the simpler rule mechanic won out this round.
Chernobyl
I used the new fighter rule in the demo's I ran at ConQuest SF, and they worked out well. It could be that the vree in particular are now weak against fighters, but I think the rule fits well with most fleets. I was hoping to see fighters fire as activations, and not all at once, but the simpler rule mechanic won out this round.
Chernobyl
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Chrn's right. The fighter's firing first was a quick fix that largely worked but unfortunately it did leave the Vree high and dry.
Almost everyone on these boards has been crying out that the Minbari are too powerful for a long time. Now stealth has been tweaked, and some people are crying out they've been nerfed. I guess you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Almost everyone on these boards has been crying out that the Minbari are too powerful for a long time. Now stealth has been tweaked, and some people are crying out they've been nerfed. I guess you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
But who chooses which ones? That's the vital thing when it comes to what ships get attacked, fighters can easily be in range of more than one ship, and one ship can easily shoot fighters down that were not in range of itself (the entire point of escorts).thePirv said:
Wulf
Wulf Corbett said:
Attacker chooses. Defender chooses. Pick one. Jeebus wept. I'm only trying to offer a suggestion to make everybody happy. Maybe instead of constantly nitpicking people could offer other suggestions or add to those that have been suggested.
Hows about destroyed fighter flights get to still make their shot on a 4+?
Another option: they attack simultaneously. That way the ship gets its full antifighter potential, before any damage or crits that might hamper it, and the fighters get their full attack potential. Everybody's happy, and it better represents the mess of flak and strafing runs etc.
Please forgive this socially unacceptable moment...
I told them so! And now they see!
Okay, that's done. After all the Ripple is just sowing doom and gloom I am relieved to see other folks start to address the issue I saw with the fighter change.
Having fighters move last and fire first is just too powerful. Allowing anti-fighter to fire first does help some, but most anti-fighter is not T/all arcs and or is a very limited number of dice. With fighters moving last they can almost always pick an arc that either does not have anti-fighter or very few dice. Give much of the anti-fighter is also weak the T-Bolts will still be an issue.
I would say go with the activation of a wing (as defined by the purchse number, regardless of origin) like a normal ship activation is a good bet. Multiple flights of heavy fighters is still dangerous and depending on the tactical situation worth doing. Alternately you could activate a wing (as bought) or a ship along with its fighters (watch out for the Posiedon finally).
The only other suggestion that seem worthwhile is to change how damage is allocated. Figure all damage for the turn as normal, but only apply the damage at the end of the fire sequence. It balances many things that are otherwise fairly sketchy due to Iniative bonus, concetration of fire on larger ships etc. but may be too radical a change to other factors.
Just a thought.
Ripple
I told them so! And now they see!
Okay, that's done. After all the Ripple is just sowing doom and gloom I am relieved to see other folks start to address the issue I saw with the fighter change.
Having fighters move last and fire first is just too powerful. Allowing anti-fighter to fire first does help some, but most anti-fighter is not T/all arcs and or is a very limited number of dice. With fighters moving last they can almost always pick an arc that either does not have anti-fighter or very few dice. Give much of the anti-fighter is also weak the T-Bolts will still be an issue.
I would say go with the activation of a wing (as defined by the purchse number, regardless of origin) like a normal ship activation is a good bet. Multiple flights of heavy fighters is still dangerous and depending on the tactical situation worth doing. Alternately you could activate a wing (as bought) or a ship along with its fighters (watch out for the Posiedon finally).
The only other suggestion that seem worthwhile is to change how damage is allocated. Figure all damage for the turn as normal, but only apply the damage at the end of the fire sequence. It balances many things that are otherwise fairly sketchy due to Iniative bonus, concetration of fire on larger ships etc. but may be too radical a change to other factors.
Just a thought.
Ripple
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Reaverman said:
You are probably right. I never had trouble with their stealth at the Into the Fire I tourney. A couple of scouts, a few fighters, and I beat the Minbari in 3 games.
Scouts and scanners take a little work to get right. I think many folks would rather play the game more straight-forwardly.
i think they needed to change it away from SFOS way of over 10" (?) plus one stealth was it? the over 20" +1 stealth is ok, but less than 8" giving opponent a +1 to break it is a bit much. think they should have just left it as standard under 20" cos stealth 4 is hardly worth having, and as over 75% of the fleet has that its dead.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Maybe instead of presenting half-arsed ideas you ought to think things through? Maybe instead of whining about criticism you ought to actually realise it's justified?thePirv said:
Wulf
Wulf Corbett said:
Criticism i don't mind. But it's the fact that nearly everybody on these forums just finds problems with nearly everythng that anyone suggests.
It was just a quick suggestion, and maybe instead of just shooting it down in flames, would it not have been better to say, "Well, ok, but there's a few problems here, so how's about doing this..."
I don't see how the game's ever going to get over the current problems if everyone is just constantly nitpicking and never doing anything constructive.
I know i'm hardly one to be giving this little lecture based on recent behaviour, but at least now i'm trying to help, instead of just being negative about everything.
Why not get off your high horse and try and add something good to the conversation instead?
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Well, here's something good. None of these ideas will be used, the next major update will be second edition, and that's a long way off. So use whatever houserules you like.thePirv said:
Wulf
Wulf Corbett said:
Good to see another thread descend into the mire.
So none of these ideas will be used? Funny, the number of comments in praise of MGP we hear because they DO consider what players are saying would suggest that (one) of these ideas may see the light of day. Not in its current form perhaps.
AlexB - I like your idea of the simulataneous firing, indeed was thinking about something similar myself - honest
Not sure it will make everyone happy - on the capital ship side, players will see their ships gutted by fighter wings (irrespective of how many they kill) while on the fighter side, it will be that , x race is too powerful in AF weaponry and all my fighters die...Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
I didn't say there wouldn't be a change. There will, but none of the ideas I've read so far are curently (or likely) part of the proposed set of changes. But whatever does happen, it's highly unlikely there will be another change before second edition, unless it's to comply with public demand - in which case, don't expect it to be anything other than a patch. It's the changes brought about to appease people that don't work.philogara said:
However, nothing has yet been decided for certain on second edition.
Wulf
TenaciousB
Mongoose
Wulf Corbett said:
This sounds a bit like "only changes that people have suggested that Mongoose have already thought of, will be made" to me.
There seems to be a lot of ideas floating around on this forum, yet almost each one gets shot down in flames.
I'm sure a lot of people are thinking "what's the point" and looking for other games to play right about now. :roll:
Wulf Corbett said:
I wasn't saying that these changes should be implemented now. The new fighter rules don't make a difference to me. I thought that most of this thread was directed at bringing up a new set of fighter rules that could possibly be tweaked or built upon for future use in V2.
I thought that most people were simply trying to offer up suggestions for possible future use to try and get the game back on track.
And for you to simply state that none of these changes will be used, that's just insane. Have you gone from playtester to Games Designer overnight?
Is it not possible that if the community continues to disagree over the fighter rules, that perhaps Matt might decide to make a change to them to try and keep people happy? Do you know for a fact that Matt will not make some form of change.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
OK, let me put this another way. If the present playtest material regarding fighters, or anything related to it, is used, it will bear no resemblance to what has been discussed here. I won't say anything more detailed as the playtest is, so far, only in it's initial processes, other than that it will require less bookkeeping/flight tracking than many of the suggestions.thePirv said:
Since anything more would risk the unwritten NDA we are under, I can say no more. I only wanted to point out that people are barking up the wrong tree so far.
Wulf
