Escorts, Carrier, Fighters Pt 2 - Fighters - UNOFFICIAL

[Rambler]

Thanks Rambler very useful post

6-8" maximum range seems fair for fighter weapons
As I mentioned drop energy drain from plasmas for ease.
I would be tempted to merge all the stuff about Balconies / launch tubes with Quick Launch Trait?
Why would the Carrier trait never be lost? I can see a Crippled ship loosing it etc? I would keep it as a normal trait.

Not sure you need both Carrier and Deck Crews - and if you ships is crippled the whole thing is likely falling aaprt and good chance the whole flight deck is trashed - the odd trait loss from criticals also seems logical enough.

Because the Ability to land all those shuttles is not the isssue, fighters can land in burned out shuttle bays just fine. It is the Lost of Specally Trained Crews (Deck Crews) and Equipment (Ready Racks) that actually reduce the carriers ability to function. The Fact that a Single Lucky Critical hit could eleminate a Heavy Carriers entire Fighter Compliment is way out of whack with the way the function.

Reload as outlined by Rambler makes sense.

I'd Drop Deck Crews - How is SFB does people on another ship help reload the fighetrs on another ship? What am I missing ?

Because Escort Ships had the thier own Deck Crews and Ready Racks bult in to them to service Fighters from the Main Carrier. They Had no Fighters Assitgned to them they just had the ability to help reload and repair Fighters since a Carrier could not land all its fighters in a given turn.

A Strike Carrier could Land 8 Fighters in a turn the other 4 fighters were SOL and had to wait. By adding Deck Crews to the 3 Escort Vessel you could land those 4 craft on a escort and it would repair and rearm them. Normal War Ships lacked these Specially trained crews and so though they could land and even repair a Fighter reloading one was a slow and difficult process with out the Fighter Ready Racks.

 

[Rambler]

I really don't like the idea of upto nine fighters firing drones at one ship, I would drop the whole flights idea and just keep individual models - so maybe allow 3 fighters and 3 drones to fire per turn?

Like I stated the Best Counter to a Fighter is a Fighter. Wither it is one Fighter or 12 Fighters firing at a single target isn't the issue. The Issue is do you have a compensating number of Attrition units to nullify thier advatage? If the answer is No bend over...

 

[Da Boss]

thanks useful info:

Like I stated the Best Counter to a Fighter is a Fighter. Wither it is one Fighter or 12 Fighters firing at a single target isn't the issue. The Issue is do you have a compensating number of Attrition units to nullify thier advatage? If the answer is No bend over...

Isn't this a big issue in SFB that we want to avoid? Countering fighters should not require you to take fighters or people are going to be unhappy same as it appears to be the case over on SFB or am I reading peoples posts wrong?

At present the Carrier trait just allows better initial deployment of fighters and luanching - SCramble Scramble allows you to launch as many as you like anyway? B5 had Fleet Carrier which also gave your friendly fighters get a bonus to dogfighting due to better co-ordination which would be nice for the big carriers maybe?
Deck Crews just gives a bonus to reloading - and is of no use if (and I agree) the Reload SA sorts out the reloading of fighter weapons.

 

[Rambler]

thanks useful info:

Like I stated the Best Counter to a Fighter is a Fighter. Wither it is one Fighter or 12 Fighters firing at a single target isn't the issue. The Issue is do you have a compensating number of Attrition units to nullify thier advatage? If the answer is No bend over...

Isn't this a big issue in SFB that we want to avoid? Countering fighters should not require you to take fighters or people are going to be unhappy same as it appears to be the case over on SFB or am I reading peoples posts wrong?.

I said the best counter to a Fighter is a Fighter not the only counter. If one side takes a Carrier and the other side does not then it is going to be trying to offest that advatage with more capital ships and some of those will probably be Escort Ships.
The majority of the SFB players do not seem to be upset with Fighters per se, it is tracking Fighter Operations that takes forever and a day. That they get unhappy about.

At present the Carrier trait just allows better initial deployment of fighters and luanching - SCramble Scramble allows you to launch as many as you like anyway? B5 had Fleet Carrier which also gave your friendly fighters get a bonus to dogfighting due to better co-ordination which would be nice for the big carriers maybe?
Deck Crews just gives a bonus to reloading - and is of no use if (and I agree) the Reload SA sorts out the reloading of fighter weapons.

Deck Cres would also control the Number of Fighters that you can service in a Turn if you had 12 Deck Crews you could service 12 Fighters. If you took a Critical Hit and what you had was 4 Deck Crew Scores of 3 you would lose the ability to service 3 Fighters reducing your effective Carrier Operation to 9.

 

[Ben2]

Bearing in mind I wrote both all these rules while on a big pile of (prescription) drugs.

Going back over it and with the comments here.

Get rid of new special actions.

Deck Crews - get rid of them. Carriers may reload up to as many fighters as they can carry. Fighters that sock by moving into contact with carriers in the movement phase are reloaded in the End Phase and available to launch in the following movement phase.
If a ship is crippled then it cannot reload fighters.

Carrier trait - any ship with the Carrier trait may launch half it's embarked craft in the movement phase. A ship with the carrier trait may reload the ordnance on a number of fighters equal to it's starting complement.

External Bays trait - These are shuttle bays on the outside of the hull. This means all fighters can be launched in one turn (Tholian Black Widow carrier and CVA have all their fighters in external bays, while the Neo-Tholian Space Control Ship has 4 fighters in external bays and 8 in an internal hangar). Would people cause a huge fuss if the NT SCS could launch it's internal fighters quicker?

Do people feel we should have escorts able to reload fighters (they can normally reload half their shuttle capacity)?

Phasers get their normal range, meaning phaser fighters (which all have phaser-2s) can hit out to 12". Do people think fighter phasers should benefit from killzone or not? I've deliberately done it so that to benefit from killzone you have to get into ADD/Plasma-D acting as ADD range/Phaser-3 killzone.
What do people think of this?

 

[Finlos]

I really don't like the idea of upto nine fighters firing drones at one ship, I would drop the whole flights idea and just keep individual models - so maybe allow 3 fighters and 3 drones to fire per turn?

Like I stated the Best Counter to a Fighter is a Fighter. Wither it is one Fighter or 12 Fighters firing at a single target isn't the issue. The Issue is do you have a compensating number of Attrition units to nullify thier advatage? If the answer is No bend over...

If this is true then fighters are too good. Period.

 

[storeylf]

If this is true then fighters are too good. Period.

I'm sure there is a reason, non-hydran, fighters were left out of FC. They ruined SFB (IMHO of course) for a variety of reasons.

The playtest rules for FC seriously tone them down. ACTA should take the same approach. Trying to replicate SFB style fighters would be a mistake IMO.

Star trek was never about carriers, but cruisers like the enterprise and D7s or war eagles. The more ACTA sticks with that philosophy the better. Sure, have the carriers, but not in a way that carriers end up being the must have ships.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Basically, carriers should be a support role rather than a fleet centrepiece if I understand you right?

 

[McKinstry]

I'm sure there is a reason, non-hydran, fighters were left out of FC. They ruined SFB (IMHO of course) for a variety of reasons.

The playtest rules for FC seriously tone them down. ACTA should take the same approach. Trying to replicate SFB style fighters would be a mistake IMO.

Star trek was never about carriers, but cruisers like the enterprise and D7s or war eagles. The more ACTA sticks with that philosophy the better. Sure, have the carriers, but not in a way that carriers end up being the must have ships.

I agree with that entire sentiment.

From what I can see, the ACTA -NA treatment keeps fighters reasonably neutered but if in the slightest doubt, I'd prefer to see them relegated to at best a tertiary role in the game.

I find it hard to think of any game, be it SFB, BFG, Full Thrust or whatever, that wasn't made materially worse with the introduction of masses of fighters.

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

I'm sure there is a reason, non-hydran, fighters were left out of FC. They ruined SFB (IMHO of course) for a variety of reasons.

The playtest rules for FC seriously tone them down. ACTA should take the same approach. Trying to replicate SFB style fighters would be a mistake IMO.

Star trek was never about carriers, but cruisers like the enterprise and D7s or war eagles. The more ACTA sticks with that philosophy the better. Sure, have the carriers, but not in a way that carriers end up being the must have ships.

I agree with that entire sentiment.

From what I can see, the ACTA -NA treatment keeps fighters reasonably neutered but if in the slightest doubt, I'd prefer to see them relegated to at best a tertiary role in the game.

I find it hard to think of any game, be it SFB, BFG, Full Thrust or whatever, that wasn't made materially worse with the introduction of masses of fighters.

People want fighters because they are so prominent in sci-fi. I for want want to have a battle above Remus with my CVA! (hopefully it doesn't get destroyed and crash into the planet though!).

I too don't want fighters to bring the game to a grinding halt, but I am optimistic it can be done well. Back in my SFB days we'd almost nobody played Kzinti (and were not even talking carriers - just cruisers and such) because of all the record keeping you had to do with the drones. That kind of issue is non-existant in ACTA, so hopefully that kind of design philosophy can be carried over into Fighters.

I have to say I like the idea of the fighters being individual miniatures, but being forced/encouraged to act as a single unit.

-Tim

 

[Ben2]

I really don't like the idea of upto nine fighters firing drones at one ship, I would drop the whole flights idea and just keep individual models - so maybe allow 3 fighters and 3 drones to fire per turn?

Like I stated the Best Counter to a Fighter is a Fighter. Wither it is one Fighter or 12 Fighters firing at a single target isn't the issue. The Issue is do you have a compensating number of Attrition units to nullify thier advatage? If the answer is No bend over...

If this is true then fighters are too good. Period.

I specifically want to avoid a situation where fighters become compulsory.

If fighters are an option that add flavour and do not complicate the game - fine for them to be in.

If fighters are so good that they are compulsory and slow the game down - fine for them not to be.

What I want to do is balance fighters so that they aren't wonder weapons. The large phaser-g Federation fighters with massive drone armaments are problematic, as are the late war fighters packing six drones, because they are so powerful in SFB and drones are pretty powerful in ACTA.

Plasma fighters are fine and I could convert them all over with no trouble. Tholian fighters, ditto.

There needs to be some sort of limit on how many fighters can target each ship, because if each fighter can fire two drones a turn (though the early war ones only get one salvo of drones then have to reload) then a squadron throws out 24, which is enough to overwhelm pretty much any drone defence.

There needs to be a way of balancing drone fighters that we can all live with.

 

[Finlos]

I also would like to see fighters brought in. But too use an analogy, they must be 'just right'. If they're 'too cold' then noone willuse them because they're useless but if they're 'too hot' then they become an 'I win' button against an opponent who doesn't bring them. It's a tricky balancing act.

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

What I want to do is balance fighters so that they aren't wonder weapons. The large phaser-g Federation fighters with massive drone armaments are problematic, as are the late war fighters packing six drones, because they are so powerful in SFB and drones are pretty powerful in ACTA.

I think it would be best to throw out everything about the SFB fighters except their names and general intent of what they do. No need to bring the baggage forward.

 

[Ben2]

What I want to do is balance fighters so that they aren't wonder weapons. The large phaser-g Federation fighters with massive drone armaments are problematic, as are the late war fighters packing six drones, because they are so powerful in SFB and drones are pretty powerful in ACTA.

I think it would be best to throw out everything about the SFB fighters except their names and general intent of what they do. No need to bring the baggage forward.

I don't think that would fly, as there are a fair few people expecting them to be reasonably accurate in their portrayal of SFB fighters.

Doing it from scratch there'd be 2-3 types of fighter per race, with say for the Federation an interceptor, multi-role fighter and assault bomber. Instead of drones I'd go with micro torpedoes, and apart from the Hydrans, no one would get Ph-Gs on their fighters.

But we've got to keep it within the parameters set by SFB.

Tomorrow I'll try and stat up all the Fed, Kzinti, Klingon, Gorn, Tholian and Romulan fighters.

I'll also update the rules.

What do people think about flights or the number of drone equipped fighters that can fire at a ship? That's the key balance issue we've got.

 

[Rambler]

I really don't like the idea of upto nine fighters firing drones at one ship, I would drop the whole flights idea and just keep individual models - so maybe allow 3 fighters and 3 drones to fire per turn?

Like I stated the Best Counter to a Fighter is a Fighter. Wither it is one Fighter or 12 Fighters firing at a single target isn't the issue. The Issue is do you have a compensating number of Attrition units to nullify thier advatage? If the answer is No bend over...

If this is true then fighters are too good. Period.

People can play all the word games or scream NO as loud as they want but the statement is true. Doesn't matter how Powerful or how Weak a Fighter is. The best counter to it will still be another fighter. Lets look at a different anology shall we.

What the best counter to a Sniper? It is another Sniper. Infantry in sufficent numbers will counter a sniper but, they will pay heavily to do it. Armor, Artillery and Airpower will also counter a Sniper but the collateral damage they will cause by saturating bombing will also be a high cost.

What is the best counter to a Battleship? Now we hit a grey area. Is it another Battleship like it was prior to World War 2 or is it a Jet Fighter carrying a Harpoon Missile. Both will counter the Battleship effectively the details now become important. Do you Build Bigger Carriers with more planes, Bigger Battleships with more Armour or, Or do you build Special Escort Ships???

 

[McKinstry]

ACTA is supposed to be a more playable alternate to Federation Commander, not SFB.

While it looks as if ACTA-NA has found a way to introduce fighters without mass numbers or making them a mandatory choice just to stay competitive, it is probably still preferable to let FC introduce their version of fighters and build/adapt downwards from there.

SFB is painful with even minimal ships per side if mass drones or fighter waves are involved. I'd like to see the simplified version that FC will produce and then let ACTA simplify even further (drones being a good example). Heck, maybe we could treat attack fighters as just another kind of seeking weapon and interceptors as another kind of ADD and avoid having to deal with any kind of miniature representation at all. Treat fighters as just another specialty weapon and all they need to be is a stat line on a sheet.

 

[Da Boss]

What I want to do is balance fighters so that they aren't wonder weapons. The large phaser-g Federation fighters with massive drone armaments are problematic, as are the late war fighters packing six drones, because they are so powerful in SFB and drones are pretty powerful in ACTA.

I think it would be best to throw out everything about the SFB fighters except their names and general intent of what they do. No need to bring the baggage forward.

I don't think that would fly, as there are a fair few people expecting them to be reasonably accurate in their portrayal of SFB fighters.

Doing it from scratch there'd be 2-3 types of fighter per race, with say for the Federation an interceptor, multi-role fighter and assault bomber. Instead of drones I'd go with micro torpedoes, and apart from the Hydrans, no one would get Ph-Gs on their fighters.

But we've got to keep it within the parameters set by SFB.

Tomorrow I'll try and stat up all the Fed, Kzinti, Klingon, Gorn, Tholian and Romulan fighters.

I'll also update the rules.

What do people think about flights or the number of drone equipped fighters that can fire at a ship? That's the key balance issue we've got.

I'd go for individal fighters only and have a restriction on the drones being able to fired at any one ship - so a maximum of 3 fighters and 3 ships (which could still be a lot of drones) or they woud just have to be immediately downgraded to make them playable.

Regarding making them the same as SFB - even the linked file that Rambler linked too says that many things - even numbers of fighters on board may need to be adjusted to make the game work. Drones are restricted to 8 hexes - which is probably range 4 or 6" for instance

 

[storeylf]

But we've got to keep it within the parameters set by SFB.

What makes you think that?

FC appears to be closer to the base game for ACTA, and that has no carriers/ fighters, probably for the reasons that many are concerned about.

There are playtest rules for FC carriers/fighters, and they significantly tone down what they can do. Given that those rules are from Cole himself I'd say you may well be wrong in saying SFB sets the paramaters. I may be wrong, but when he discusses carriers/fighters with Matt he may well take the same approach and be keen to prevent them becoming what they were in SFB.

The FC fighter rules that were put out limited fighters to range 8 drones as opposed to full drone range and they could only fire 1 drone a turn. There are several comments from ADB indicate that they would not put in the super Fed fighters, and that they would limit the fighters available to the basic drone fighter (ph3 and 2 drones) and a direct fire fighter (disrupter for klinks or the photon one for the Feds). The carriers ops themselves are a lot simpler, no deck crew tracking etc.

I've played a number of FC games using the current playtest carrier/fighter rules and seen that they are indeed as toned down as they appear. They are potentially very nasty, enough that you can't ignore them and let them get close, but they are readily counterable without having to have carriers and fighters of your own, or lots of escort style ships. YOu just shoot them down before they get in range, in a points game you will have spent enough on the carrier/fighters that the other guy is not at a huge disadvantage concentrating on the fighters, as he will probably have a DN extra to do it with.

They are IMO far far better than SFB.

I am happy with ACTA with out carriers, but if they do turn up I would not be unhappy if they were more similar to the proposed FC ones.

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

I think it would be best to throw out everything about the SFB fighters except their names and general intent of what they do. No need to bring the baggage forward.

I don't think that would fly, as there are a fair few people expecting them to be reasonably accurate in their portrayal of SFB fighters.

Doing it from scratch there'd be 2-3 types of fighter per race, with say for the Federation an interceptor, multi-role fighter and assault bomber. Instead of drones I'd go with micro torpedoes, and apart from the Hydrans, no one would get Ph-Gs on their fighters.

But we've got to keep it within the parameters set by SFB.

Tomorrow I'll try and stat up all the Fed, Kzinti, Klingon, Gorn, Tholian and Romulan fighters.

I'll also update the rules.

What do people think about flights or the number of drone equipped fighters that can fire at a ship? That's the key balance issue we've got.

I didn't mean to scrap everything and start new again. You can still have F14's, but they shouldn't carry 8 drones a piece and have Ph-g's just because they did in SFB. But they could have say 2 Ph-3's and one drone attack per turn, while the lesser fighters might just have a single Ph-3 and an ADD. A-10's would have something like a photon but maybe not a full one.

ACTA has already gone that way with Admin shuttles - Ph-3 in sfb, no phasers in ACTA!

BTW, I don't think I've read enough, but I'm assuming ADD's work on fighters? Because if they do it would actually make a good fighter weapon on interceptor types - would allow them to engage both enemy drones and enemy fighters without being a serious threat to ships.

-Tim

 

[Finlos]

Yes, ADDs work quite nicely on fighters. The only downside was that when fighters were in ADD range they were close enough to hurt your ship. No sacrifice, no victory & all that...