Armageddon Fighters

Very true, the only way to prevent those interceptors from being stripped now is to get them engaged in a dogfight. I think that has the appropriate feel, every fleet with interceptors it going to want to bring them now.
That won't apply to the minbari since just about every weapon is beam or mini beam, but people use fighters to defeat stealth, (and since fighters ignore stealth within 1") they'll still need them. its shaping up like a good balance, based on the arguments so far.

Chern
 
Cap'n Silvereye said:
Providing of course the paper thin hulls of the smaller Vree sucers (Hull 3 or 4 below Raid) can survive the fighters. I guess the resulting ship explosions may take some of the enemy fighters with them.

Their background would need to be re-written a bit (SFoS, Pg 143, para 5) and a carrier (or even a competent carrier) added to the fleet roster to bring more of those Tzymms along.

And wow, if vree are that bad off with the changes with fighters (I hope they arent) maybe they could up the hulls a little.
 
On one hand I'm tempted to suggest allowing anti-fighter weapons to fire first but the problem with this is you have single weapon systems firing rather all the ship which adds a level of complexity to a game you're trying to keep simple. The problem being that in reverse, without their anti-fighter weapons certain fleets become brutally crippled(aka the Vree). Taking Tzymms isn't an ideal solution because most fleets will just swamp the Vree fighters with vastly larger numbers of their own fighters as they carry them as an integral part of their ships while the Vree don't.
 
Yesterday I played my first non-playtest game using the A fighter rules. I played EA, opponent played Drakh. The GEG is a powerful defense against fighters, my interceptors didn't come into play against fighters. I still managed to bring a couple Light Raiders down with T-Bolts, they couldn't do much offensively with me staying in their rear arc.

With the new fighter rules anti-ship fighters actually become effective against ships, where fighters could pretty much only kill other fighters under SFOS/Revised rules. Not overwhelmingly so, high Hull ratings will do what they're supposed to, as will interceptors (EA is a fleet that utilizes fighters well, both offensively and defensively, so it makes sense).

The new rules will have players increasing the quantity of fighters they take so this will balance out. Fighters operate the way they were originally intended to. Dogfighters are dogfighters and anti-ship fighters in numbers will bring down ships. The new fighter rules are the best addition to the game in A.
 
Celisasu said:
On one hand I'm tempted to suggest allowing anti-fighter weapons to fire first but the problem with this is you have single weapon systems firing rather all the ship which adds a level of complexity to a game you're trying to keep simple.
This was my suggested solution. I can't really see it as at all complex - if a weapon has the Anti-Fighter Trait, it must be fired BEFORE fighter fire, or it can't fire at all. If it doesn't, it fires after fighters. Once you decide when weapons like Mini-Beams fire (A-F only within 4"), the sequence is set and simple.

Wulf
 
Wulf Corbett said:
Celisasu said:
On one hand I'm tempted to suggest allowing anti-fighter weapons to fire first but the problem with this is you have single weapon systems firing rather all the ship which adds a level of complexity to a game you're trying to keep simple.
This was my suggested solution. I can't really see it as at all complex - if a weapon has the Anti-Fighter Trait, it must be fired BEFORE fighter fire, or it can't fire at all. If it doesn't, it fires after fighters. Once you decide when weapons like Mini-Beams fire (A-F only within 4"), the sequence is set and simple.

Wulf

I'd say Mini-Beams aren't AF weapons. They behave like AF weapons but they lack the AF trait so don't get to do reactive fire. Gives AF a slight boost to make it tempting if you're wondering "AF or Mini-Beam"? Not to mention preventing long range(relative to other AF weapons) Mini-Beam weapons firing on capital ships.
 
Cap'n Silvereye said:
And, as always, it seems the best defense against fighters is other fighters.

I might try a couple of solitaire carrier clash simulations over the next few days to see what the new rules play like with a non-cheesy fighter swarm.

1st Idea (for tomorrow): EA v Centauri (5 Raid PL).
EA; 1x Avenger (4 Thunderbolt), 1x Nova, 1x Hyperion, 2x Artemis (Starfury unless noted otherwise)
Centauri; 1x Balvarix, 1x Sulust, 2x Vorchans, 1x Corvan, 1x Rutarian replacement wing, 1 x Sentri wing.

Any suggestions other have to the fleet make up will be considered, I want to keep the 2 fleet carriers in there and the scenario rules say only ships of equal to or below can make up the remainder of the fleet.

For the Centauri, I'd drop the Sulust for a Dargan; similar firepower in different weapon types, but it carries a pair of Sentri flights. In this carrier clash the Centauri fighters are badly outnumbered. The EA has five extra flights to throw into dogfights and overwhelm the Sentris' dogfight advantage. Also, consider taking Razik flights in place of the Sentris for the extra dogfight point.
 
From what folks are saying the non-cheesy swarms are going to feel okay. That seems to be where the playtesting was centered. The questions I see are all in extreme examples or with the minor fleets. That and the interactions with the new prioirty system making large numbers of fighters possible at higher pls.

With fighters especially playing solo simulations will not tell you all that much. The all or nothing nature of fighter movement means that anticipating your opponents plans will play a large part in the positioning of fighters and you of course will know what you intend.

Ripple
 
Here is a possible solution...

AF weapons and Fighters fire simultaniously. All damage is scored appropriately including the loss of fighters... but not before they make their attempt at damaging their targets.

It's like Warhammer 40K. If you and your opponet have the same initiative then you roll for hit's simultaneously, each one doing WS (weapon skill), and S/T (strength/toughness) accordingly...

Just a suggestion, but chances are good that AF weapons operate AS quickly as fighters... so it would only make sence that they would fire at about the same time.
 
and really, are we closer to getting with the fluff. . . the Halik is called a fighter killer, yet we have all seen oodles of dice hit starfuries and them dodge them all. The halik guns should be anti fighter, otherwise it's not a fighterkiller... it's a brakiri nova!
 
Yellow Beard hiffano said:
and really, are we closer to getting with the fluff. . . the Halik is called a fighter killer, yet we have all seen oodles of dice hit starfuries and them dodge them all. The halik guns should be anti fighter, otherwise it's not a fighterkiller... it's a brakiri nova!

Yah, I always wondered about that. Its really pretty toothless vs fighters. Even before the changes.
 
Captain David the Denied said:
For the Centauri, I'd drop the Sulust for a Dargan; similar firepower in different weapon types, but it carries a pair of Sentri flights. In this carrier clash the Centauri fighters are badly outnumbered. The EA has five extra flights to throw into dogfights and overwhelm the Sentris' dogfight advantage. Also, consider taking Razik flights in place of the Sentris for the extra dogfight point.

Ok, I fought this out over 5 (well 6 if you count fleeing) turns. A long post detailing the engagement is available here. However terrain played a big part in opening of the game, and the new Stealth rules had a much bigger impact than I first thought they would have.

Fleets were:

EA: Avenger (4 Thunderbolt, 4 Starfury), Nova (4 Starfury), Hyperion, Chronos
Centauri: Balvarix, Sulust, 2 Vorchan, 1 Corvan, 1 Rutarian Replacement Wing, 1 Sentri Wing.

Comments (from 1 game admittedly):
Fighters, The new changes had made a little cautious with defending each fleet against the opposing fighters (this was probably from Forum comments and the like). A large dogfight erupted where the fleets clashed and there were very few oppertunities for additional shots on ships. The Sentri's were regularly beating the EA. Afterards when I read your post, I did not feel that Raziks were really needed. However in the fighter vs ship situations, the fighters were no more powerful than before. The higher hull value on the ships does count against the fighter shots, most hits were intercepted without significant degradation.

The Centauri managed to engage the hyperion with 2 Rutarians for very little overall effect, and 2 Sentris on the Chronos fared similarly. The EA mauled the Vorchans for two turns doing a grand a total of 10 damage after bulkheads, no criticals were rolled.

The combined EA fighter attacks on teh Vorchans totaled 5 Thunderbolts and 3 Starfuries. I would, however, have expected more hits and consequently damage. I guess that Hull 5 warships are just a bit out of most fighters ability to attack well, though I will need more fights to test this.

The Stealth tweak is actually quite telling. Rutarians were targeted with impunity with spare AD out to medium ranges and the Stealth was beaten much more often than it used to be. Close ranges, Stealth might as well have not been there (I don't know if the EA just got lucky). I am going to have a game with Minbari to try this and see what happens.

-Edit-
Link to battle report added.
 
All ships were SFoS. I didn't know how the Armageddon modifications might take things, so I just stuck to the current campaign set as SFoS.
 
Apparently Armageddon uses the Tourney version of the Starfury and Thunderbolt, so Starfuries are dogfight +2 and Thunderbolts are +1. Not sure how they worked that out but under those stats you'd definitenly want Raziks for fighter defence against EA.
 
Probably would be better in that instance. However I found the EA Avenger managed to re-cycle enough starfuries to whittle the Centauri down as the Balvarix wasn't as successful.

The +1 dogfight result told when the Avenger was Crippled though.
 
Read through the battle report...so...

No crits from the fighters was a bit disappointing I would think. With ten hits you would expect at least one.

I was surprised at the number of fighters engaged by ship weapons. I would have thought they would be farther back/more concentrated spacially.

Specifically was surprised the earth force went with both supporting fighters and attack wings. Would have with a heavier attack wing myself. I figured it would take eight to ten thunderbolts to kill a Vorchan quickly. The two and two (Ts and As) you listed seemed like crit fishing to me.

Ripple
 
Back
Top