Carriers

[Pavlov Grenadier]

So from the other thread, I started thinking on Carriers. Are they going to come to ACTA: SF? Im not well versed on the SFU but dont the Hydrans use carriers and fighters? Do the other races use them as well?

We've played many space combat games and usually fighters tend to overpower the rules (or be so meaningless no one takes them). The one exception was ACTA: B5...we never found them to be crazy even if you took a lot. If they do come into SF, hopefully they will follow that same path.

Any news/timeframes on that front?

Thanks!

 

[billclo]

I think the tentative schedule was for them to come out in 2013. I forget what product name it was to be called.

 

[Da Boss]

So from the other thread, I started thinking on Carriers. Are they going to come to ACTA: SF? Im not well versed on the SFU but dont the Hydrans use carriers and fighters? Do the other races use them as well?

We've played many space combat games and usually fighters tend to overpower the rules (or be so meaningless no one takes them). The one exception was ACTA: B5...we never found them to be crazy even if you took a lot. If they do come into SF, hopefully they will follow that same path.

Any news/timeframes on that front?
Thanks!

As Billco said I think the ADB people were saying 2013 - but only a maybe

Apparently fighters are a bit controvsial in SFB and not in FC (the amin source) aprt for Hydrans I think.

I agree though that apart from the sheer numbers of Gaim counters / fighters to move - IIRC there were no major issues with fighters in 2nd edition, oh and Shadow fighters but that got sorted

 

[Myrm]

I've never thought of fighters as controversial in SFB, although I suppose the choice to keep them out of FC must reflect some issues with them - they were potent in later periods of gaming but then they were a cheap high impact weapon reflecting the war economies - and for players they complicated things by having a LOT of manoeuvre units on the table to keep track of. Most complaints I have seen that are really really problematical in SFB revolve around just how much they can slow a game down with a vast number of units doing lots of things in lots of impulses.

Yes they are essential for the Hydran game, and arguably the Kzintis need some with their early Attack Shuttle line if the game is going to earlier YS dates. ACtA as a system is begging to give us fighters - it works well for evenn big fighter wings in B5, so I hope for them in SF.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Thinks it's possible that we WILL eventually see fighters/carriers in ActA:SF - the system handles fighters very well. The only issue that i can see is that of the fighters primary weapon - yeap ; you guessed it - DRONES :shock: . Yes they have phasers (Heavy's like the A10 can have a Ph-G pod, and i think might have been able to carry a one shot photon (not sure), but it was the multiple drones that were the main anti-ship weaponary.

Yes, MORE drones :?

 

[Myrm]

Heavys will be fine, as will phaser armament. Drones, yes the way they do drones they will be an issue - you'll need to either assume they are carrying only dogfight drones, or simply shorten the range on them to represent an effective range (not sure why this isnt the case for drones already given the way plasma is handed but thats the way it playtested) or there could be issues - we'll see what they come up with....

I might mung up a carrier or two to trial.

 

[Captain Jonah]

If Drones get tamed in a sensible way ( you reading this Matt) then fighters adding more drones isn't going to be as bad as it could be. Friendly fighters can act as drone defences giving you reason to use fighter screens.

Probably with Drone armed fighters they would be one shot, pick a target, fire Drone(s) and run for the carrier. Yes some Fighters carried enough Drones to keep going for half a battle but this is a fleet game. Tracking 24 fighters individual Drone launches, no thanks.

 

[Myrm]

They'd have to be one shot really even for 2 or 4 rail fighters - you can slap AD on for that - though for some of the heavier ones with 6 rails you might justify a 1AD with no limit. The problem will be as always the range and the fact that ACtA won't let you shoot inbound drones down - which fighters traditionally could do as fighter wave and drone wave passed.

You could simulate that by letting fighters escorting a ship (on the base as per B5 ACtA) fire defensively against inbound drones. That alone would make Gorn captains cheer for the flyboys.

 

[Reynard]

I know I've said elsewhere I'm not happy with fighters coming to ACTA:SF but now that I've become aclimated to the rules, especially with seeker weapons, I would at least give them a try if they get a similar treatment to simplify their game mechanics. To me a playing field covered in swarms of seekers and fighters was a nightmare! Please Keep It Simple and I'll be more than happy to launch fighters.

 

[McKinstry]

I know I've said elsewhere I'm not happy with fighters coming to ACTA:SF but now that I've become aclimated to the rules, especially with seeker weapons, I would at least give them a try if they get a similar treatment to simplify their game mechanics. To me a playing field covered in swarms of seekers and fighters was a nightmare! Please Keep It Simple and I'll be more than happy to launch fighters.

Amen to keeping it simple.

 

[Lincolnlog]

I wrote a set of home rules for carriers and fighters from B5 2nd edition. Since the largest carriers in SFB carry only 24 fighters, and the fighters use the same weapons tech as the ships, Fighters should be individual craft instead of flights. I recommend setting a limit (1 CVA or 2 CVL/CVE) per fleet. This prevents getting over 24 fighters per fleet on the board at a time. Since all fighters move last and by side this will not hang the game up anymore than suicide shuttles do now.

 

[Pavlov Grenadier]

One of the things weve done in the past to reduce the number of counters is to use the Litko dice holder for fighter flights. You still get the cool look of the 3-6 fightes on a raised stand but the die below indicates how many actual fighter stands there are in that "flight". Obviously, you can split them up if you want but I from what I recall of B5 (and assuming its going to be similar here), you would want as many fighters attacking the same ship as possible so no worries on modeling each stand individiually.

What I dont know is will that effect some range rule (B5 fighters used to have fiarly short ranges so this may seem to be an advatange?). Also, do we have any "area effect" template weapons in SF that would pose a disadvantage for "stacking" 6 fighters on one stand using the dice?

Anways, I know its way premature to really decide on anything but as I am at work (and obviously, cant work while at the office ), I must keep myself entertained with future planning.

Here is a pic of what Im talking about (the fighters are in the top of the pic). The holders fit the small d6 and based on the color of the dice, are not obtrusive.

 

[Da Boss]

You could simulate that by letting fighters escorting a ship (on the base as per B5 ACtA) fire defensively against inbound drones. That alone would make Gorn captains cheer for the flyboys.

in early playtests you could do that with phaser equiped shuttles but that was taken out as not SFU

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Whilst originally against the idea of single fighters, after a bit of thinking about the rules (weapon systems, etc), they'd have to be individual as you couldn't effectively model them as and target a flight with weapon systems as is without some book-keeping (as in B5W) in regard to individual fighters - even with '1 hit/1 kill', your still tracking fighters in a flight. And fighter strikes on ships would be problematic due to numbers.

Maybe some of our ActA:NA players can give us a feeling of how this works, as they have fighters that work in that manner ( :?: ), i believe.

 

[tneva82]

Whilst originally against the idea of single fighters, after a bit of thinking about the rules (weapon systems, etc), they'd have to be individual as you couldn't effectively model them as and target a flight with weapon systems as is without some book-keeping (as in B5W) in regard to individual fighters - even with '1 hit/1 kill', your still tracking fighters in a flight. And fighter strikes on ships would be problematic due to numbers.

Umm...Why multiple fighters in one stand wouldn't work? One hit to stand, fighter wing removed. Worked fine in ACTA: B5, works fine in plenty of star fleet games and gives good reason how individual fighter stand can pose credible threat at damaging capital ship.

Better reason for individual fighters is if the BIGGEST carrier has just 24 fighters. Though 3 per stand wouldn't be too bad. 8 stands in biggest carrier doesn't feel too low.

 

[Pavlov Grenadier]

Yeah, Im a huge carrier fan (as Mckinstry can attest to) and love the concept of fighter swarms attacking big captial ships.

I was initailly against the dice holders since I thought it might take away from the cinematic aspect but as we played larger games moving dozens of fighters stands around became tedious so we tested it out and its worked really well. I agree...some sort of a "compromise" on number of stands vs "flights per stand" would probably work for us.

Now all I have to do is finish my time machine and jump foward to 2013 so I can see the new carrier/fighter rules (of course, I guess it doesnt matter since the world will end this coming December <heavy sigh> ).

 

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, Im a huge carrier fan (as Mckinstry can attest to) and love the concept of fighter swarms attacking big captial ships.

I was initailly against the dice holders since I thought it might take away from the cinematic aspect but as we played larger games moving dozens of fighters stands around became tedious so we tested it out and its worked really well. I agree...some sort of a "compromise" on number of stands vs "flights per stand" would probably work for us.

Now all I have to do is finish my time machine and jump foward to 2013 so I can see the new carrier/fighter rules (of course, I guess it doesnt matter since the world will end this coming December <heavy sigh> ).

Or something to imitate the carrier battles of the Pacific theatre.

 

[Ben2]

Also SFU fighters are so brutal (and the later ones so chock full of drones) that a flight of F-15s would be like a cruiser in terms of firepower.

The problem with SFU fighters is drones at the moment. Drones need fixing. Particularly if you are going to have F-14s and F-15s that carry eight of the things.

The earliest generation of fighters (the Z-1, Z-2, F-4, A-6) are interesting because they have weaknesses and aren't super tough. But then you got tech creep and they ended up having six drone rails on the standard line fighter plus a phaser or two (or a gatling phaser).

Plasma fighters only ever got a plasma F one shot tube or 2 plasma Ds. Because plasma races suck for fighters.

 

[Pavlov Grenadier]

Or something to imitate the carrier battles of the Pacific theatre.

Exactly! I have a huge IJN fleet for VaS (or whatever other WW2 naval game we play) and dozens of Kates, Vals and Zeros based up...mwhahahaha.

 

[McKinstry]

We hates carriers. Hates them we does. Hurtss our precious battlecruisers they does.