Armageddon Question

[Kevin Clark]

The Campaign Rules revision allows ships with the carrier trait to automatically regenerate 2 flights of fighters per turn so long as they have vacant slots. These fighters are then available to be moved to other ships as per normal. So far so good.

Do carriers regenerate the basic fighter model, e.g. Starfury for EA, Sentri for Centauri, or do they regenerate the fighters stationed upon them, e.g. an Avenger set up to carry Thunderbolts. If so, what happens when a carrier has higher value fighters aboard, e.g. a Balvarix with Rutarians.

 

[lastbesthope]

I would say it could be any fighter the carrier can be deployed with without paying extra FAP.

SO no Rutarians on a Centauri carrier for example, only Sentri or Razik.

LBH

 

[Voronesh]

Hrm... thats a good question actually.

But id go with LBH on this case. Otherwise we would have VCD's spawning WSF.

But only fighters the carrier could ever hope to carry. The Rutarians are a special case, because of the different wing sizes, instead of carry ability. But id disallow it at first.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Do carriers regenerate the basic fighter model, e.g. Starfury for EA, Sentri for Centauri, or do they regenerate the fighters stationed upon them, e.g. an Avenger set up to carry Thunderbolts.

The key word is regenerate. They don't create them from thin air, they recover the same types that were lost in previous battles.

Wulf

 

[LaranosTZ]

Right, after all, even if a flight is 'destroyed' it's very likely that a ship or two survived the fight, a fleet carrier just has the tools to repair and reorganize those individual survivors into full flights again.

 

[Voronesh]

Well true about the regenerate.

Id be careful about the background explanation of surviving fighters. Tell that to the Minbari chaps being blown to bits by milewide e-mine explosions.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Id be careful about the background explanation of surviving fighters. Tell that to the Minbari chaps being blown to bits by milewide e-mine explosions.

Even then, there will be battered individuals limping home. There is no other sensible rationale for this rule!

Wulf

 

[Ripple]

Sure there is...

Hangar queens finally getting fixed, additional fighters carried in storage (intended for pilots who have to eject in one battle/replacement parts for damgaged fighters), additional fighters being sent up from home based on expected needs.

Pilots are actually often harder to come by than aircraft, at least that's what my marine pals used to say. Working aircraft on the other hand...that was trickier.

Ripple

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Hangar queens finally getting fixed, additional fighters carried in storage (intended for pilots who have to eject in one battle/replacement parts for damgaged fighters), additional fighters being sent up from home based on expected needs.

While the first two might gain you a few extra fighters, nobody carries entire flights of spare parts and then doesn't use them - or, worse yet, uses up all their spare parts by flying them off the ship! As for additional fighters, you spend RR for that!

Pilots are actually often harder to come by than aircraft, at least that's what my marine pals used to say.

And that's another rfeason why the rule is best explained by damaged aircraft limping home.

Wulf

 

[thePirv]

I would say it could be any fighter the carrier can be deployed with without paying extra FAP.

SO no Rutarians on a Centauri carrier for example, only Sentri or Razik.

LBH

I'd agree with this. Sounds pretty spot on.

 

[Kevin Clark]

I think I've grasped it now.

The carrier is assumed to recover the damaged and broken after the fight and the replenishment rate represents the mechanics fixing them and getting flights operational again. Bit like the Fleet Carrier trait does in battle only this occurs in down time.

In the series, even when flights/squadrons had the crap kicked out of them, very few fighters/pilots under normal circumstances were actually lost (just subject to varying stages of disabling damage) so I can see the rationale for it now.

This is not intended as a free generator of flights, simply getting disabled flights back on line. So the issue of what gets regenerated is not an issue after all. The answer is: what it was carrying, with the player prioritising what gets fixed first. Therefore, flights moved out of the carrier subsequently would need to be replaced in the normal way, i.e. purchased.

The next question that is logically implied is, can other ships rotate their disabled flights through a carrier's repair facilities? To which my gut feeling is yes, provided the fleet owner is prepared to put up with the amount of time it will take to do so and put up with the bookkeeping. I suspect that it will be easier for most fleets to simply buy repacements for their non carriers anyway.

 

[Ripple]

Not true.

Having a Morshin in the bay producing fighters every turn that you have transfered to, say, your whitestars is well worth the investment. This is also true of Drazi and Sky Serpents. A Nightfalcon in the bay producing fighters for the frequently lost Sky Serpents pays for itself in just a couple of turns.

This is legal under the rules as I understand them, but maybe I am wrong.

Ripple

 

[Wulf Corbett]

This is legal under the rules as I understand them, but maybe I am wrong.

It is. Which is why I kept telling Matt to change the rule...

Wulf

 

[Keith]

Stepping back from the details of the game mechainics for a moment, I feel the question here is one of balance. In this case between carriers (ships carrying auxillary craft) and "fighterless" ships.

The balance for one off games has been established assuming a full compliment of fighters.

Therefore to maintain this balance the repleacement/replenishment of fighters in the capaign should be equated, in terms of RR cost, to the repair of damage points.

The old system was obviously unfair on the carriers, particularly given that relatively few fighter bases/counters survive a battle. (In my experience if you are on the winning side and have only 50% fighter casualties you have done well).

The new system attempts to rectify this but perhaps puts the balance too much in the favour of the carriers. Time wil tell.It is also complex to administer. I have tried using it in a raider fleet incorporating Delta Vs, Delta V2s, Breaching pods and Double Vs.
In addition it benifits fleets with raid, or even skirmish level ships with the carrier trait (these can readily be put on the roster for fighter repair) whilst dicriminating against fleets without ships with this trait (e.g. Narn, ISA - for nials and EA fighters (allied vessels not withstanding)).

Has a simple RR "repair" cost for lost flights been considered?

 

[Ripple]

The main issue is that they are connected the carrier/fleet carrier trait to cost of replacements. This is what gives the wierdness of certian ships being able to act as fighter factories.

Under your supposition, balance should always include all ships that carry aux flights to have a full complement and should get some kind of replenishment allowance, not just carrier/fleet carriers.

Given aux craft almost have to die to get their monies worth out of them, we thought about making the fighters free to replace, but this is a bit too bad for the purchased wings. Also considering one point per base, but this is not so fair to the Kotha wielders. Same old issue of not having a real point system. Very hard to balance.

Ripple

 

[captainsmirk]

Well there must be some transfer in of new fighters to replenish groups which weren't destroyed but must have suffered some losses. It would be a bit odd if after a battle you only had flights which had been reduced below effective strength and flights which are at full strength with nothing in between...

Nick

 

[Epaminondas]

Do the math on the carrier ability as well- for EA Advenger for example, it would take 8 turns for the carrier ability to pay for itself.

For most carriers, it might prove useful, but not exactly overpowering bonus. If anything it helps elite fighter races like the minbari more then it helps horde fighter races....

Kinda gimp actually compared to selfrepair bonuses...

 

[H]

Do the math on the carrier ability as well- for EA Advenger for example, it would take 8 turns for the carrier ability to pay for itself.

For most carriers, it might prove useful, but not exactly overpowering bonus. If anything it helps elite fighter races like the minbari more then it helps horde fighter races....

Kinda gimp actually compared to selfrepair bonuses...

as a Narn player... whats a carrier ;-)

 

[angelus2000]

I think it one of those funny ships that carries a lot of fighters and doesnt shoot much. Could be wrong though. . Chuck some E-mines at it. I've noticed it takes care of pest problems