Armageddon: role of fighters in an EA fleet

[Fireymonkeyboy]

Hi,

Just had a thought. As I understand it, the Armageddon rules now provide for fighters to fire first. While this ups their combat potential, it also has other implications.

I'm in the process of piecing together my first fleet, EA. From what I've read, the emerging consensus on this fleet pre-Armageddon was that the boresight ships, with few exceptions, were too difficult to bring to bear, and that many EA players were increasingly relying on a combination of missiles and "buckets 'o dice" ships instead, teh latter to strip interceptors for the former's fire.

However, if fighters now shoot first, this implies a critical role for them. They will be able to strip intercepters from target ships before any capital ships fire.

I'm wondering if this will provide a new lease on life for long-range EA fleets. A mix of boresight and missiles becomes more viable if small missile ships, cooperating with fighters, can both sink initiative and get shots in, leaving the beam ships to finish the target off.

Thoughts?

FMB

 

[H]

Well, looking back through these pages you will find many discussions on the decision to allow fighters to fire first. yes it will strip interceptors, but seeing as how the main interceptor fleet is EA anyway, it won't be a huge benefit for them in that fashion (yes i know Abbai have more interceptors, but there are probably 50+EA players to each Abbai player)
the opinions vary wildly, Vree and Drakh will suffer to an extent, their weak hulls making them easy prey for fighters who now essentially get a free run.. I think the opinion of my group is not to implement this rule.

 

[Chernobyl]

If you do, don't expect opponents in tourneys not to...!

Chern

 

[Ripple]

True enough Chernobyl, but our group is also basically looking at not implementing it. Get enough groups like us and you may get feedback going up the ladder toward 2nd edition having a different mechanic.

We tried a couple of games today with the rule but I am not sure they were good examples. First fight we each had a stack of fighters that seemed to cancel each other out. Second fight there were not enough fighters on either side to see much effect. The scenario we are afraid of is the large swarm of fighters vs a fleet that cannot bring many to bear.

As to the effect on a typical EA fleet, I expect that it will depend largely on the era you choose to fly.

Early EA does not seem to have the large number of fighters available to them that other years do. Yes they will still have the Nova (I think) and the Avenger (raid but sans fleet carrier), but still mostly looking at one flight per ship or less in most fleets. So in this case I see mostly Sag/Nova fleets operating much like they did before as they will not want to count on fighters without the fleet carrier trait.

Third Age with the Omega in the battle line and I think the fleet carrier trait available again you might be able to play the fighter assault game more effectively. The big issue here is that fighters still die as fast as they did before if you do not destroy the ship you are attacking. So if your fighters only reduce interceptors they are likely dieing. Pile them up more and destroy the ship before it can fire.

Crusade era, well this looks like a bore big boys with Chronus/Hermes doing the interceptor nock/missle combos. Heck fire the bores first and use the Hermes for cleaning up the pesky interceptorless cripples. Fighters will likely be a follow on in this fleet initially. Mug whatever overflies you and kill it before it can fire.

Ripple

 

[Voronesh]

Perosnally we weill implement the rule.

But neither option fills me with much satsifaction.

Fighters firing first is great, if there arent too many fighters to do that, following the principle of effects based system.

But when there is a definite fighter advantage on one side, the fighters fire last rule is better for an effects based system.

Fighters should not be able to swoop in and cripple a ship before it can react. But neither should be fighters that weak, that you can ignore them. My Narn and my Centauri both ignore fighters for the most part, under the old rule. Very unsatisfactory considering the widespread and fast use of fighters in the show.

 

[Triggy]

Perosnally we weill implement the rule.

But neither option fills me with much satsifaction.

Fighters firing first is great, if there arent too many fighters to do that, following the principle of effects based system.

But when there is a definite fighter advantage on one side, the fighters fire last rule is better for an effects based system.

Fighters should not be able to swoop in and cripple a ship before it can react. But neither should be fighters that weak, that you can ignore them. My Narn and my Centauri both ignore fighters for the most part, under the old rule. Very unsatisfactory considering the widespread and fast use of fighters in the show.

After playing the new fighter rules I've found that taking some sort of fighter screen is almost always a good idea and fleets that refuse to (such as Vree as most players don't take Tzymm flights) will occasionally get hammered by their choice.

However, that said, fighters still don't consistantly do that much damage. The fighter game is generally fleet support - finishing off crippled vessels before they can fire, draining interceptors, hoping for lucky criticals, etc. Bizarrely enough, exactly the role they have in the show and IMO making them a good (but not automatic) choice for most fleets. I can't honestly see where the complaints are coming from - they certainly aren't from people who've played several games with the rules yet.

 

[Voronesh]

Well i aint comlplaining about fighters per se. Or the rules under which they work.

Cause they do just that, they work.

Until someone decides to be evil and break the game and pick a seriously fighter heavy force. Something like just fighters with a few hideyhole ships or whatever.

Its like the Sag fleet. With mixed stuff it doesnt seem apparent or with fighters isnt. But any Vree fleet will have serious problems against a T-Bolt only fleet. Youll never get enough Tzymms for fleet support, and T-Bolts can survive explosions rather well, Vree ships dont.

Sry extreme example i know.

I think the rulechange is very good. But yes i will be starting Crusade EA with Poseidons, so i will get some use out of it. Unlike my Emine them to death Narn.....

 

[Ripple]

I did one 'dry run' fight in which I was able to manuever twenty flights of t-bolts onto one nova. Rolling the dice we figured the Nova died. Five of those stands were only firing the 4 inch guns. A total of three flights were lost to subsequent ranged fire from chroni. Now we did not go through any more turns as this was a quick and dirty run to show I 'could do it' to a doubter. I did use up my afterburners so maybe I could not do it again.

We have also now played two other games with the rules. We are still playtesting the rule, but our initial impression is that it increases the rock-paper-scissors effect. Did you bring the right specialty fleet to beat my specialty fleet? This is a big issue for our gaming style, and a real concern for our campaign as you cannot always buy all possible options, and so have a potential answer to someone elses specialty.

Please do not assume that folks who object to the rule have no idea how it affects play. Also do not assume that your group has explored the options so thuroughly that you have found all the break points. That's how this very rule made it into the first edition. Some one said we need to have the fighters most folks take to a battle be viable without thinking through what happens if someone takes the super boat load.

Ripple

 

[Fireymonkeyboy]

Hi,

Just curious, in the game you mention, did the opposing player take fighters? How many? Did they take ships with AF weaponry? To what extent?

The reason I ask is beacuse I'm interested in running a fighter heavy force, not to break the game, but simply because it is the the kind of force I associate with SF / space battle games, beacuse I've decided to play EA, and because I think the Poseidon is the coolest looking ship in the game.

While I find it reassuring that 20 flights of Tbolts were able to take out a nova (it's what, 3 patrol = 1 raid PR, and 3 Tbolt flights = a patrol? So, 20 Tbolts = @ 2raid+ = battle PL +?), I kind of have to wonder how you managed to get that many flights onto a ship without encountering interference. What anti-fighter or screening capability did the EA player have?

FMB

 

[Celisasu]

I'm curious how the Vree are supposed to answer fleets by purchasing Tzymms. They'll get a few flights and still be vastly outnumbered. At best they pull a few flights off their ships and then the remainder of the fighters proceed to feast on the nice juicy low hull Vree ships who can't use all those wonderful anti-fighter weapons against them. Plus now the Vree have even less ships because they spent points on fighters while the other races just used the fighters that came with their ships. And of course in some cases it gets even worse. Such as Narn where the Vree fighters are effectively free VPs. They can't even stay inside their ships like the other races fighters can do when the Narn show up at the table.

 

[prelude_to_war]

While I find it reassuring that 20 flights of Tbolts were able to take out a nova (it's what, 3 patrol = 1 raid PR, and 3 Tbolt flights = a patrol? So, 20 Tbolts = @ 2raid+ = battle PL +?), I kind of have to wonder how you managed to get that many flights onto a ship without encountering interference. What anti-fighter or screening capability did the EA player have?

I actually wonder the same thing...in a straight-up fight it'd be the Nova (plus her fighters) vs. 9 T-bolts. This would be a different outcome I think. If it was mixed fleet vs. mixed fleet, what were the comps? You mentioned a Chronos...did the T-bolt player have only T-bolts? If so doesn't this set them up for potential loss in the scenario since they have no 'ships'?

Just curious since I for one welcome the change...

 

[Ripple]

Okay...how the flights stack up...

First, keep in mind that a around the small stick you can get about sixteen bases. We actually placed them on the table at one point, it was two rings of bases. Then use the fighter supporting another fighter rule to stack two fighters. This gets you lots of space to do this. Now that is an assumption on our part as it says you go into support by stacking, may be wrong there. Use the counters not the fighter bases btw. (I have added to a fighter thread on rulemasters to see if the stacking is legal, my threads do not get too many official answers.)

The opposing player did have a few fighter stands...I think eight total. His force was a few Chronus, a trio of hermes and the nova. The anti-fighter on the chroni did not cover in that turn as he was in a longer line formation, fore-aft with the hermes holding back to do a missile volley. My fighters moved second so was able to aviod his which were bunched rearward of the last Chronus. Think Y shaped with two chronus forward, nova, one chronus aft with trailing fighters.

My fleet was five Nova all trailing behind the fighters in a box formation. (Wanted to look at the square formation mentioned in another thread but forgot I would need a long range puncher in the center.) The Chroni fired their twin linked weapons on the fighters to get the kills, with the rear one firing its rail gun as well. The anti-fighter guns were out of arc and/or range in one case.

The following turn might have gone differently but the test was just to show I could with fast fighters make a lunge and kill a ship. I did not use bought wings as I was trying to prove that the wings already avialable to some fleets could be devestating. I had been told repeatedly that it was not possible to do this but by using the afterburners, supporting flights, winning initiative I had little trouble getting the shot I wanted.

The anti-fighter weapons on the Chroni were simply aviodable on the approach turn. Following turns maybe not so easy as ships begin to move around more and forward less. He did not use supporting flights of his own to block out parts of his base and reduce my area to place, might have made a difference. He held his flights back...seven actually...so he could pick his engagements the following turn as it seemed with the numer of twin-links covering his ships should deter me from jumping in on his fleet. It did not because I knew I would shoot first and had a good shot at taking down his Nova. This may not have been the smartest move as three Chronus and three Hermes vs my five Nova may have been a weak strategy. But I thought I had a better chance vs the Nova for the quick kill.

Not saying that this is indicative of what the new rules 'must' do, only that this was possible. I am sure that once folks adjust to the new rule they will figure out more defenses. The comment about the number of T-bolts being equal to twice the cost of the Nova is accurate, but misses the point. It is twice the value of the Nova that moves last, so often has position, and fires first, ie is never subject to a lucky no fire crit. It is concentrated firepower that unless countered by a similar configuration will gets its moment of glory.

By the same token, an ISA force that had achieved fighter superiority against my Brakiri was unable to make any hay with four nial flights against a Brikorta. This is more typical of a fight between standard fleets as they now operate, but I am trying to anticipate new tactics given the new rule.

Ripple

 

[Triggy]

Fair enough Ripple I think you've also shown that firing conventional weaponry at fighters at range can really be worth it in the right circumstances.

 

[Greg Smith]

20 T-bolts will kill a Nova but only if you get lucky criticals. It is possible to lunge and kill a ship with fighters.

However this is not new. If 20 T-bolts surrounded a Nova and the Nova could fire first (as per the SFoS rules) it would only kill 3 t-bolts on average.

Secondly grouping 20 t-bolts around a ship is hazardous to those t-bolts as anything with less damage points is likely to explode.

Thirdly, the opposing player did not use his fighters correctly. Having them bunched behind his fleet is not the way to go especially if you see your opponent grouping his launched fighters into a big wing.

I can see Ripple's point but I don't agree that the rule change is quite as dramatic as he feels it is.

---------------------------
A little maths to back up my statements:
Nova Hull 5.
15 t-bolts in range with pulse cannons: 30AD = 10 hits, average 1.6 bulkheads, 1.6 crits.
20 T-bolts in range with missiles: 40AD AP = 20 hits, average 3.3 bulkheads, 3.3 crits.
Doing 25 damage plus 5 criticals. Average additional damage from criticals is 1.375, additional crew is 1.708. So average damage is
On average the Nova takes 32 points of damage, 34 crew. Enough to cripple it. A few more hits, a couple of lucky crits or a few less bulkheads will kill it.
(Note I haven't applied its interceptors).

If the Nova had been able to shoot before the fighters, firing 40AD TL at Hull 5 TBolts: average 12 hits, on average two fail their dodge.

 

[katadder]

also as the nova player i would have had 4 flights on my flagship flying CAP against that many enemy fighters.

 

[Fireymonkeyboy]

Hi,

I kind of figured that was why novas carried so many - their own AF capability is limited, so they carry their own fighter screen.

FMB

 

[Ripple]

As noted, I did say that tactics would improve once the rule was more generaly applied.

As to the math, I find that crits because of their low numbers rarely average out damage wise. You tend to hit like a truck or a pea, no small rocks but using the average is a good base for discussion. I did get more crits than average in that I think I got eight and interceptors failed after only two blocks. The depleted interceptor saves stop another two or three.

As to the CAP/support thing, yeah, but then I jump a Chronus instead. He did not have enough fighters to cover all his ships effectively so he held them back hoping to pick-off a couple of mine the next turn. I agree that the CAP would have been a better choice, but it will allow me to by pass the fighters and go for another ship.

And one of the big points is that the AF capability of any ship is limited right now if the fighter swarm can get one of the weapon crits or get you to skeleton crew/crippled to limit the number of weapons you can fire. The lunge is used to gut one ship before it can fire.

Strangly given the length of the posts I am not really arguing against the change right now. I am just illustrating what I think the changes are. We have been looking at how fighters work and trying to narrow down the gray areas so we have fewer disagreements during an actual campaign fight.

We use a fair number of house rules for our campaign fights that make them unusable for playtesting so we have had to do these quick one offs/illustration battles to get a feel of the impact. When doing that I prefer to hit the extremes to see if I can get a feel for where one of my players may try to abuse the system ahead of time.

Ripple

 

[Triggy]

Even though you had a bit of luck with your rolls, I think it still shows that fighters really can be a dangerous weapon but you need to be careful when using them to not waste them against the first available target. Taking your time and striking in a coordinated manner will always net you better results than not, and now fighters have just enough teeth to make the bite hurt.

 

[Voronesh]

Hrm

This is a very good show of what would happen to a Vree force.

And 5 Novae arent necessarily a bad fleet.

Hrm guy at the LGS wanted to start Vree.......maybe thatll put him off ^^.