Escorts, Carrier, Fighters Pt 2 - Fighters - UNOFFICIAL

[Ben2]

*Edit* I've created an index page with all the files on to make it easy for people to find them.

http://actauncut.wordpress.com/index/

As promised, here is version 1 of the fighter rules.

Anything people aren't clear on, anything where there is an inconsistency or hole that could be rules lawyered, point it out.

These rules need to be simple and playable.

If the Reloading rules are too complicated (as you can reload fighters on escorts or the carrier) then say.

I will do Federation, Klingon and Romulan carriers and fighters a bit later on and post them, but here are the fighter rules to digest.

 

[billclo]

So far, I'm not really liking the rules about flight coherency. I think that allowing fighter flights to split up will slow things down. Just make all fighters in the flight part of the fighter marker/mini.

 

[Ben2]

So far, I'm not really liking the rules about flight coherency. I think that allowing fighter flights to split up will slow things down. Just make all fighters in the flight part of the fighter marker/mini.

I did it this way so players can split flights, but there are penalties for doing so.

If it confuses people or slows the game down I'll ditch it.

The way I've got it set up at the moment allows individual fighters (there are non-regular numbers of fighters on a lot of ships, especially Hydrans).

Switching individual fighters for flights will speed up the movement phase, and if people are happy with that level of abstraction then it would be simple enough to change it.

What do people think?

 

[tneva82]

So far, I'm not really liking the rules about flight coherency. I think that allowing fighter flights to split up will slow things down. Just make all fighters in the flight part of the fighter marker/mini.

I did it this way so players can split flights, but there are penalties for doing so.

If it confuses people or slows the game down I'll ditch it.

The way I've got it set up at the moment allows individual fighters (there are non-regular numbers of fighters on a lot of ships, especially Hydrans).

Switching individual fighters for flights will speed up the movement phase, and if people are happy with that level of abstraction then it would be simple enough to change it.

What do people think?

Still don't see why not do it with either ACTA: B5(squadron of fighter represented by stand) or noble armada(individual fighters per stand), neither which has the coherency rule.

If it ain't broken don't fix it

 

[Ben2]

So far, I'm not really liking the rules about flight coherency. I think that allowing fighter flights to split up will slow things down. Just make all fighters in the flight part of the fighter marker/mini.

I did it this way so players can split flights, but there are penalties for doing so.

If it confuses people or slows the game down I'll ditch it.

The way I've got it set up at the moment allows individual fighters (there are non-regular numbers of fighters on a lot of ships, especially Hydrans).

Switching individual fighters for flights will speed up the movement phase, and if people are happy with that level of abstraction then it would be simple enough to change it.

What do people think?

Still don't see why not do it with either ACTA: B5(squadron of fighter represented by stand) or noble armada(individual fighters per stand), neither which has the coherency rule.

If it ain't broken don't fix it

I wanted to give fighters a reason to stick together. This way it is flights moving across the table and engaging each other, rather than lots of single ships.

Operating on a flight level also avoids issues with drone fire (only 3 fighters fire at a ship? Some number higher than that?), allows flights to escort each other, etc.

There are reasons why I've done it, and any change would likely be moving up to single miniature is flights because single independant fighters with the number of seeking weapons around could be a real pain.

One miniature = 1 flight worked with B5 because everything cruiser sized and larger carried at least 12 fighters, often 24. So a B5 fleet might have 6-12 flights. A 1000 point Star Fleet force might has 5-12 fighters, so it's going to be generally as many fighters as Noble Armada and not on the scale of B5.

 

[Ben2]

OK guys

Here are two carriers and some fighters for the Federation, Romulan and Klingons. I'll add Gorn, Tholian and Kzinti later on.

http://actauncut.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/federation-carriers-and-fighters.doc

http://actauncut.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/romulan-carriers-and-fighters.doc

http://actauncut.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/klingon-carriers-and-fighters.doc

So now the big three have two carriers, four escorts and at least three types of fighter to start playing with.

Let me know how you get on.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Whilst it may break a little from previous ACTA versions, here's an appoach I was looking to take when I was working on an alternative space combat system:

A base represents a formation of fighters - the actual number of fighters is tracked either on a record sheet or by dice on the fighter base.

One point of damage destroys one fighter. (Optionally, traits such as double-damage are ignored to represent high-powered but focused weapons overkilling a single fighter, but not being overly great for swarms. Depends on the feel you want for the game.)

Formations fire as a single ship. Weapon stats show the firepower equivilent to a single fighter, and you multiply that my the number of fighters in the formation. It is acceptable for fighters to have a statline giving a weapon "0.5 AD" or similar. This just represents that you half the number of fighters to get the overall AD of the weapon. (Rounding up or down in these cases would be a playtest decision)

Whilst I didn't get this far, I suspect a B5 style dogfight score could still be used, with bonuses being given to the dice roll for outnumbering your opponent, having double the number of fighters they have, etc.


Fair enough if you don't think such a system would work with the ideas you're working on, but if you think it could come in useful, I'm happy to work with you on the ideas

 

[Ben2]

Whilst it may break a little from previous ACTA versions, here's an appoach I was looking to take when I was working on an alternative space combat system:

A base represents a formation of fighters - the actual number of fighters is tracked either on a record sheet or by dice on the fighter base.

One point of damage destroys one fighter. (Optionally, traits such as double-damage are ignored to represent high-powered but focused weapons overkilling a single fighter, but not being overly great for swarms. Depends on the feel you want for the game.)

Formations fire as a single ship. Weapon stats show the firepower equivilent to a single fighter, and you multiply that my the number of fighters in the formation. It is acceptable for fighters to have a statline giving a weapon "0.5 AD" or similar. This just represents that you half the number of fighters to get the overall AD of the weapon. (Rounding up or down in these cases would be a playtest decision)

Whilst I didn't get this far, I suspect a B5 style dogfight score could still be used, with bonuses being given to the dice roll for outnumbering your opponent, having double the number of fighters they have, etc.


Fair enough if you don't think such a system would work with the ideas you're working on, but if you think it could come in useful, I'm happy to work with you on the ideas

It wouldn't really change anything except a little bit of the dog fight mechanic and removing the flight rules.

At the moment if you wanted to go with flights as a single model you simply use a model, don't worry about the flights rules and if you dogfight an enemy flight you count how many fighter you've got, and if you have six and he has five, you dice off 5 times for dogfighting, but get to add +1 to one of the rolls.

It doesn't take much to switch from 1 fighter = 1 model to 1 flight = 1 model. You just delete all mention of splitting flights, remove the Pile In move, and change the dogfight text to basically work the way the example I gave above does, and you're there.

Having some sort of calculation for a ratio of outnumbering seems a bit complicated. At the moment for every extra fighter you have compared to your opponent you get +1 on a dogfight roll when rolling off your fights, which is fairly simple.

 

[Da Boss]

Impressive work: thanks

I must admit I do agree that the only bit I don't like is the splitting up flights/flight coherency and having to keep track of their home carrier - I just go with individual fighters or counters/models representing flights.

Few initial thoughts:

Quite rightly fighters don't have CQ - this does cause an issue with the Take Evasive Action SA? (maybe say they count as CQ 4 in this or similar circumstances?)

Reloading - I would drop the CQ check - Its going to take several turns to get back, relaod and launch anyway and otherwise you need to track..........

What value of Dogfight are you thinking of for general shuttles as I note one of the fighters is at -1?

 

[Ben2]

Impressive work: thanks

I must admit I do agree that the only bit I don't like is the splitting up flights/flight coherency and having to keep track of their home carrier - I just go with individual fighters or counters/models representing flights.

Few initial thoughts:

Quite rightly fighters don't have CQ - this does cause an issue with the Take Evasive Action SA? (maybe say they count as CQ 4 in this or similar circumstances?)

Reloading - I would drop the CQ check - Its going to take several turns to get back, relaod and launch anyway and otherwise you need to track..........

With the Take Evasive Action on seeking weapons launched by fighters, I'd go with a standard CQ of 4. I'll make a note to add it to version 1.1.

I'm not tied to CQ for reloading fighters, and I've included it as a carry over from Noble Armada. I'm ok with ditching it (and I added a Special Order so people don't end up spending 5 turns trying to reload their fighters).

I need to have a hard think about the launch mechanic for carriers, as there are some races with balconeys and launch tubes or whatever to let you launch 4 fighters at a time, but I need to read section J of the SFB rulebook again to give me an idea of what the launch rate for a carrier should be.

The cost of fighters should be one thing that keeps the numbers of them down. I've also thrown the F-15 in for the Feds, so they have a phaser-G armed fighter.

Two-shot means exactly what you think, you get two turns of fire with the drones/disruptors/whatever.

Should I fiddle with the range brackets on the plasma-fighters? Give the plasma-Ds a lower range? I just realised I should have left the plasma range for all fighters at 16, and I'll correct that when I've got some more feedback.

Done the Tholian and Gorn fighters and Carriers, which include the first CVA.

http://actauncut.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tholian-carriers-and-fighters.doc

http://actauncut.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/gorn-fighter-and-carriers.doc

Right - does everyone want me to ditch flights, and split flight penalties? Or just split flight penalties, remembering home carriers, whatever (home carriers should be easy in most games as I can't imagine people taking more than two carriers).

Would people want me to leave escort in? It gets a bit harder to track without flights?

Or simply say 1 mini = 1 flight? Having a CVA put four little fighter markers on the board doesn't seem anywhere near as dramatic as slapping down 24 fighters moving in groups of 6.

 

[billclo]

How about using small fleet scale type fighters, and put them 3 to a small base. Making a flight 3 fighters. This way a strike carrier would be putting down 4 bases, and a CVA might put down 8. You get the best of both worlds I think. You can see the 3 fighters and just remove one if you take a loss. It increases the number of fighter bases on the map, bettering visual appeal without being as cluttered as individual fighters (1 ftr = 1 ftr).

I don't think you need to fiddle with ranges on plasmas. Plas-D fizzle beyond 8", and Plas-F fizzle beyond 12". In SFB the Plas-F fired from a fighter is functionally the same as one fired from a ship.

 

[Ben2]

How about using small fleet scale type fighters, and put them 3 to a small base. Making a flight 3 fighters. This way a strike carrier would be putting down 4 bases, and a CVA might put down 8. You get the best of both worlds I think. You can see the 3 fighters and just remove one if you take a loss. It increases the number of fighter bases on the map, bettering visual appeal without being as cluttered as individual fighters (1 ftr = 1 ftr).

I don't think you need to fiddle with ranges on plasmas. Plas-D fizzle beyond 8", and Plas-F fizzle beyond 12". In SFB the Plas-F fired from a fighter is functionally the same as one fired from a ship.

Yeah, but energy bleed is based on range so I should fix them all to avoid confusion.

It's the interaction with maximum number of things that can fire drones at a single target I'm concerned about.

 

[Da Boss]

or just keep them at range 8 and drop energy bleed trait - much easier

Drones seem like the issue to look at

 

[The Big D]

Cool set of rules.

I've only had a bit of time to read them and there are a couple of observations I'd like to make.

The Squadron concept doesn't seem to fit too well. I like the idea but it is rather restrictive and a little beyond the 'simple and fast' idea of ACTA. Is it needed to play? Does it add enough to the game in what it takes away in tracking flights? My main concern is 1 flight of 6 can only defend 1 ship, whereas just having them as individuals allows for more freedom and tactical choices for the players.

As to launch and recover I checked module J and you can launch or recover 1 shuttle every 2 impulses per bay which is 16 per turn PER BAY! More than enough for the entire complement of a ship. Feels like restrictions are probably needed as that would just mean they can all launch and the extra stuff like launch tubes and balconys do nothing in ACTA.

Oh and you mention carrier trait in the rules but haven't given it to any of the carriers. Presumably a roll over from the noble armada rules.

I don't think the game needs more special actions. If reload on a CQ of 8 is a bit iffy then make it a 7. The deck crews do what the deck crews do. The captain shouting at them, more power or personell will do nothing except slow them down and get in the way!

Ships on take evasive action (stop moving around I cant land!) or All power to enginges (slow down I can't get in!) should probably be prevented from launching or recovering fighters.

I can see the point of the deck crews so that escorts can help with reloads as per SFB but as shuttle bays canot be damaged in ACTA it makes escorts somewhat redundant for reloading fighters. No other thoughts on this at the moment but it is rather late!

2 hit fighters might also be difficult to track. Better a 'tough X+' trait to simply ignore each hit on a X+ so it is simply alive or dead without having to track it. Decent fighters on a 5+, heavy fighters going up to a 3+ maybe?

Will throw in some other ideas as I think of them.

Keep it up! Fighters for me are the missing bit of ACTA SF and this should bring us 1 step closer to getting them done. Anything I can do to help I will.

Geoff

 

[The Big D]

Another quick one. The NA rules for escorting a ship are really easy. Put the fighter ON the base of the ship. It is now escorting it and moves with it. Max 4 per ship. Done!
Doesn't work with the squadron rules though.

Geoff

 

[Rambler]

Yeah, in SFB drone equipped fighters have tremendous stand off firepower.

I'm experimenting with reducing the range of stand-off fighter weapons to 6" (so fighter disruptors, ph-2s, photons, etc have a max range of 6") but have also thought about 8" (fits with ph-1 killzone, range bracket for plasmas, etc).

I'll try and type the fighter rules out neat and come out with Fed, Klingon and Romulan basic fighters today so people can play with them at the weekend.

In Federation Commander that range is set at 8 for Drones, Photons and Disruptors, all Phasers-2s and -3s use there normal Ranges but I would think about striping them of their Kill Zone and Precise Traits.

Ben2 have you seen this? http://www.starfleetgames.com/federation/Commanders Circle/CL37_Fighter_Rules.pdf

As to launch and recover I checked module J and you can launch or recover 1 shuttle every 2 impulses per bay which is 16 per turn PER BAY! More than enough for the entire complement of a ship. Feels like restrictions are probably needed as that would just mean they can all launch and the extra stuff like launch tubes and balcony do nothing in ACTA.

Federation Command goes on to limit this to a Max of 8 operations (Launching a Shuttle. Launching 4 Fighters or Landing a single Fighter or Shuttle) per ship. And ACTASF goes on to limit this to 1 unless you have the Quick Launch Ship Trait. See Balcony and Launch Tubes below. I can see that being reduced down in ACTASF to 4 Operations. B5 could launch scores of Fighters because of the way their Shuttle Hangars were designed. That system is not in place in the Star Fleet Universe.

Oh and you mention carrier trait in the rules but haven't given it to any of the carriers. Presumably a roll over from the noble armada rules.

Carriers should have a Trait calling them Carrier added in Italics so that it can not be lost. Also you might as well look at adding the Ship traits of Launch Tubes and Balconies.

Launch Tubes X: This allow Faster launching of Fighters without affecting Normal Shuttle Operations. A ship with Launch Tubes 6 could Launch 6 Fighters and still conduct Shuttle Operations like normal through its Shuttle bay Doors.

Balcony X: This Ship trait allows the Landing or Launching of a number of Shuttles equal to its score per turn. A ship with a Balcony can still conduct normal Carrier Operation through its Shuttle Door.

I don't think the game needs more special actions. If reload on a CQ of 8 is a bit iffy then make it a 7. The deck crews do what the deck crews do. The captain shouting at them, more power or personnel will do nothing except slow them down and get in the way!

In order to reload their Fighters the Carrier should have to use the Reload Special Action. (No Crew Check just like reloading Plasma or Photons) This is why Escorts were built. In the Star Fleet Universe, while conducting Fighter Ops, a Carrier is literally a sitting duck because it is suffering the effects of Power Drain. (it must be moving slow to recover fighters and it is diverting engine power to rearming and repairing its fighters) This is why Drones started becoming the perfected armament for Fighters in a attempt to mitigate that Power Drain.

I can see the point of the deck crews so that escorts can help with reloads as per SFB but as shuttle bays cannot be damaged in ACTA it makes escorts somewhat redundant for reloading fighters. No other thoughts on this at the moment but it is rather late!

I think they have a place as a Ship Trait on Escorts and Carriers. That way if you lost the Deck Crews you could not service Fighters. Carriers could have them but in split blocks so that you would not lose all of them in one go. Say a CVS has 12 Deck Crews on the Ship Card there should be 3 or 4 different Deck Crew traits of 4 or 3 each. This way a luck Critical Hit or even a Crippled status does not necessarily stop Carrier operation, it just degrades it effect.

Now a couple of my own thoughts.

Keep the One Model = One Fighter. If someone wants to track 30 some odd number of Fighters let them but instead offer incentives to use the Squadron (Read Flight) Rules. Say that if a Flight has 3 Fighters in it it gains a free Anti Drone Trait that resets every turn. If a Flight includes at least 6 Fighters one of the Fighters is abstracted out as a Electronic Warfare Fighter adding a Scout Trait to the Flight. IF a Flight has 9 to a max of 12 Fighters in it it gains a Second Free Anti Drone. A entire Flight counts as One fighter (AKA one Ship) for purposes of Drone Channels.

Fighter Drone Channels are separate from Ship Drone Channels this means that a Ship or a Fighter Flight could be targeted but 6 drone salvos in a turn 3 from Ships and 3 From Fighters. However Fighters axiomatically can lend Defensive Fighter to any ship with in 6 inches of them. (The best counter to a Fighter is another Fighter.)

 

[tneva82]

Carriers should have a Trait calling them Carrier added in Italics so that it can not be lost. Also you might as well look at adding the Ship traits of Launch Tubes and Balconies.

Dunno. I can see damage hindering with efficiency of carrier operation enough to warrant losing it.

 

[Da Boss]

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.
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 ?
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?

 

[Rambler]

Carriers should have a Trait calling them Carrier added in Italics so that it can not be lost. Also you might as well look at adding the Ship traits of Launch Tubes and Balconies.

Dunno. I can see damage hindering with efficiency of carrier operation enough to warrant losing it.

See the Comment on Deck Crews. The Ability to be a Carrier is not lost the ability to service Fighters can be lost by killing off its Deck Crews.

 

[Da Boss]

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.