Carrier

[TrueCentauri]

At the moment various treads go on fighter survivability. This is not only an issue concerning if individual fighters can play a tactical role at all, but their motherships seem also in need for revival.

What is your opinion on the tactical role of fighters and carriers in this game?

Option 1: No need to change them. No need for them at all. This is a ship-to ship combat game, fighters just get in the way and complecate matters.

Option 2: No need to change them. This is a ship to ship combat game, but fighters have a supportive role in scanners to full, and finishing off defenseless ships.

Option 3: Fighting a battle with a carrier fleet should be an equal successfull option compared to fighting with the big guns. Carriers should have a powerfull fighter force able to kill ships, while still being vulnerable for the big guns.

Option 4: Fighters should be dominant in this game, the big guns get a secondary role

Option 5: There is no other.

I just added 4 for completeness.

Let's see what we all have in mind on this.

 

[Rodders]

i vote for the missing option 5 as a carrier fleet alone shouldnt be all conqueing neither should a fleet of big guns. you need a balance of both for mutual support and tactical flexibality like a real navy.

aircraft carriers with out frigate/destroyer etc support are as good as dead in the water


fighters have their role its just are you sure you're using them right or expecting too much from them by trying to win the battle solely with fighters

 

[Eryx]

I voted for option 2. Fighters are a supporting factor in a fleet game, not the be all and end all. The real players should be the capitol ships.

 

[prelude_to_war]

I voted option 3. A fleet built around a carrier should strike fear into the opponent like any other warship of the line. As of now they're just annoying.

If fighters are ever ammended per one of the 20 threads going on right now, carriers will become that much more effective.

 

[Silvereye]

I voted for 3.

A fighter wing or Carrier should have an equally important role to play as a fleet escort or dreadnaught. Depending on your tactics of couse. Nothing should be a must have, all dominating influence.

 

[lastbesthope]

I voted 2, leave them the way they are.

LBH

 

[Chernobyl]

3
this is a space game, not battle of the bismark. as fun as that is, its not a fair representation of why fighters are there.

in a traditional (naval) sense, fighters/carriers are of course dominant because they extend the range of the force by leaps and bounds. this is less of a factor in space. in ACTA, many ships are just as fast if not faster than fighters. so they shouldn't dominate. but, if they aren't at least on an equal footing (with ships of their class or PL), then there's literally NO reason to develop space carriers in the first place.

 

[Silvereye]

I agree, if there was no reason for fighters to be major military assets (besides short range patrol, shipping inspections, and anti-raider operations) there is certainly no need to invest resources in carriers when you can have a few warships instead.

 

[Shadow Queen]

I voted 3,

Why well i think that they should pack a punch as well as launch fighters/ bombers like the craft of today like the Enterprize and should be upfront and not at the back of the fleet

 

[Rodders]

I voted 3,

Why well i think that they should pack a punch as well as launch fighters/ bombers like the craft of today like the Enterprize and should be upfront and not at the back of the fleet

carriers always remain at the rear of the fleet and rely on their aircrat to use their range and do the fighting as they have very little in the way of defensive fire power

 

[Karhedron]

I think that Fighters and the associated tactics add an interesting extra dimension to the game. A fleet built around a carrier group should fight quite differently to a fleet based on battleships and destroyers but should be able to hold their own against them.

I would like them to be different but equal.

 

[Balance]

Would people be interested in seeing a trial 'Carrier Group' variant list of some sort? Maybe delay any major system wide changes by releasing a list that centers on a 'unique' upgraded Poseidon with options for fighters and escorts? Including a couple of the wacky idea we've suggested for carriers?

Ideally we'd also want the same thing for another race, I think... WHo would be a good fun match up?

 

[Morpheus1975]

Can a 5 point war fleet based on a carrier take on the same base on battletships?

Can a 5 point war fleet with a poseidon take on
another fleet based around
Bin'Tak
Sharlin(or Variant)
Octurion
Warlock

This should be tested out.

Any takers?

 

[Obsidian]

I'll run it through using a Warlock for the opposing fleet and keep all the other ships the same.

1 Warlock/Poseidon
2 Omega
2 Apollo (Standard missiles)
3 Chronos
4 Olympus

 

[MustEatBrains]

I voted 3,

Why well i think that they should pack a punch as well as launch fighters/ bombers like the craft of today like the Enterprize and should be upfront and not at the back of the fleet

carriers always remain at the rear of the fleet and rely on their aircrat to use their range and do the fighting as they have very little in the way of defensive fire power

Yes, that is true in real life, but look at all the cool Sci-Fi Carriers and what they do (the Wing Commander games, old-and-new Battlestar Galactica...)... ok, they DO hang back most of the time, but they always show some serious punch and staying power when engaged - no reason why that shouldn´t work in the B5 universe...

I voted for 3, because I think that carriers add new tactical choices and a different gameplay to those who use them, and those choices should be equally powerful to others when played out properly - otherwhise there would be no real point in using them in the first place.

Please note that I do mean the carriers themselves, not the fighters they carry (I think the fighter rules work quite well as they are).

 

[lastbesthope]

Yes, that is true in real life, but look at all the cool Sci-Fi Carriers and what they do (the Wing Commander games, old-and-new Battlestar Galactica...)... ok, they DO hang back most of the time, but they always show some serious punch and staying power when engaged - no reason why that shouldn´t work in the B5 universe...

Well we've never really seen a B5 carrier in the show, for any race, so how they would work is open to debate/interpretation.

LBH

 

[TrueCentauri]

Indeed no carriers are seen. Allthough Sheridan mentoined them in 'Shadow Dancing' (I remember this because in the Netherlands this was ill translated to bulkcarriers).

But the ship close to a Carrier in the show is Babylon 5 itself , before GROPOS.

It is curious to see that many things we see here is based on WWI/WWII naval combat. The names battleship and dreadnought, heavy and light cruisers are all invented because of international treaties and stem from those era.

Carriers were vulnerable in WWII because it was an exchange of armour versus more planes, and that hangars were built upon hulls instead of using armoured hulls. And because of the volatile nature of aviation fuel. The Royal navy had carriers that were well armoured but only carried 12 planes...... While the USN and IJN had carriers that were vulnerable, but could carry up to 80 - 100 planes.

One could debate weather this still stands. I think the vulnerability of the carrier is an input for game balance. IF a lower hull carrier adds to game balance, give it a lower hull. We can think of the reason why afterwards.

 

[Karhedron]

To be fair most modern ships do not rely on guns to do much damage. Their primary weapons are usually missiles or their fighters. Imagine an EA fleet based on Poseidons and Apollos.

 

[Obsidian]

Actually that could be kinda scary. A 5 Point War Fleet with 10 Apollos or maybe 8 Apollos and 3 Nova escorts. 64 AD of Super AP Precise missiles per round can put quite a dent in someone's fleet.

 

[E-Mines Hurt]

I like the idea as a "force multiplier". Big command bonus for the fleet and dogfighting and survivability bonuses for fighters. When deployed with a carrier other ships get a bonus and their fighters gain the carriers bonuses as well. Fighters should be able to kille patrol and skirmish ships and finish off damaged raid ships. But going up against Battle and War ships in formation should result in mass fighter casualties. As it is. Just like taking a Dag'Kar against 6 hull 30+ range beam weapons is just stupid. Taking carriers against a Bin'Tak or a VCD should result in dead carriers. However taking a carrier against a squadron of vorchans or white stars should be very very usefull. As it is right now.

However, there should be some threat to Cap Ships from fighters. I suggest something like this...

Carrier Strike: During it's movement phase a ship with a fleet carrier trait can declare a carrier strike against one other ship. When declared no fighter within 6" of the carrier at the end of it's movement can move. During the fire phase all fighters within 6" of the carrier can immediately move and then immediately fire on the declared target with the precise trait added to all their weapons for that fire phase. If the target has not fired any AF or MB weapons during that turn it may fire these weapons at the fighters after their movement but before the fighters fire.