Escorts, Carriers, Fighters Pt 1: Escorts - UNOFFICIAL
- Thread starter Ben2
- Start date
All fighters in FC are limited to speed 16 (existing Stingers, and in the playtest rules for all other fighters) so they are not guaranteed to get to short range at all.
Speed 16 in FC would equate to speed 8 in ACTA. That should ensure that they will not get into range unless you let them, initiative or not.
Speed 16 in FC would equate to speed 8 in ACTA. That should ensure that they will not get into range unless you let them, initiative or not.
but if fighters can't reach their targets unless you let them what is the point ? other than something else to shoot at they would not be very affective so why waste time building them.
maybe fighters should have the fast trait or set fighter (and later on gunboats) at a higher speed. say FC's 16 ?
maybe fighters should have the fast trait or set fighter (and later on gunboats) at a higher speed. say FC's 16 ?
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
You forget the times when an opponent needs to come to you.firekite said:
Asguard101
Mongoose
McKinstry said:
That is all fine and good, until Hydrans are brought into the game, their ships are built around fighters and a nerfed fighter would be bad for them. In FC, only the Hydrans have fighters, not sure on Starmada.
firekite said:
As noted, FC speed 16 would equate to speed 8 in this game.
Fighters in FC (currently only Hydran, but probably the others if they follow the paytest rules) are not the sort of thing you launch from a long distance away and hope they arrive at the target.
In the early days of SFB (prior to me losing interest) fighters in that game were also just as slow and easily handled if that is all you faced. It is only later SFB where fighters got really ridiculous, prior to that they were something you carried into a fight and then launched to directly support the main ships, not something you launched from many maps away and fought on their own.
Slow fighters in FC are not totally useless. There are 4 ways of using them.
1. Against static or very slow targets.
2. Defending a target (mobile or otherwise).
3. As a weapon system you drop off in the midst of the enemy, not unlike some players do with hydran stingers in SFB/FC.
4. You can also drop them off at range and follow them in. That is not actually that bad an idea, whilst fighters are not fast as ships, they are not slow shuttles either. That gives the other guy the issue of dealing with both an incoming fighter threat and an incoming fleet. If you plow ahead with your ships then just as the enemy is dealing with them the fighters arrive and blow him away.
Move 8 fighters in ACTA would not be useless, they are slow enough that you can handle them if you are free to do so, and don't have to worry about keeping your distance (i.e. not defending a static/slow target). At the same time they are fast enough that they are useful if used right. Remember that unlike shuttles they will have ranged weaponary, even if it is limited to range 6-8 (like they are in FC) that still gives a range 14"-16" threat radius.
Add to that, I imagine they may well follow the ACTA shuttle in moving after all ships. If they do, that means that you have to move all your ships before you get to see where the fighters are going, so that 14-16 threat range becomes quite nasty if you are having to deal with other ships as well. They prevent opposition closing to short/killzone range, or agile enemies constantly ducking out of your arc.
In FC hydran stingers at speed 16 are one of the best value weapon systems available unless you are playing on an very large map, and in FC going max speed 32 is somewhat easier than in ACTA (where APE takes your 1 special action). There is a good reason they limited how many stingers you coud take in the FC tourney to 8 maximum.
Asguard101 said:
Some are, Fusion ships are capable of carrying plenty of fighters, hellbore ones often not, but in FC even without stingers the fusion ships are brutal, so brutal that they utterly dominate a straight up tourney style game. That is probably just an issue with them being pointed badly though. It would indeed be nice to see them as proper ship + fighter group more often.
Also the FC stingers, even being 'slow' speed 16, are in fact a knacker to deal with if you know how to use them. 4 stingers are capable of killing a cruiser outright up close, but they are in fact very nasty even at maximum range (a fact many FC players don't realise). The best defense to the stinger is to play on a very large map to give you plenty of space to keep out the way.
In my conversion, because all levels of tech on the ships themselves is inclusive of all refits, I've assumed the presence of Warp Booster Packs to double fighter speed. To convert it to ACTA Spd I then halve it back down again.
However the side effect of that is that fighters with WBPs take damage at double the rate of those without, so the Z-2 fighter is 1 hit to destroy but travels at speed 8 instead of speed 4.
However the side effect of that is that fighters with WBPs take damage at double the rate of those without, so the Z-2 fighter is 1 hit to destroy but travels at speed 8 instead of speed 4.
billclo said:3 Stinger-2 fighters close to range 0, fire gatling phasers and fusion beams against a D7...the result:
:shock: :shock: :mrgreen:
That's pretty amusing, but sad to say it is also inaccurate. There woud be a minimum 28 boxes left on the D7, more likely 40-45. So you would probably be borderline crippled.
OK so that is still a good demo of why you don't get close to hydran fighters.
AdmiralGrafSpee
Mongoose
Ben2,
Finally had a chance to go through all the stuff on my commute home. Can't believe how much work you put into it! So some comments:
1) If you haven't already can you combine the "escort rules" into one of the word documents. The last time I saw it it was only in the first post of this thread.
2) ADDs - I certainly like the addition of these to taking on fighters/shuttles. I'm a bit confused as to when they get used though. As it reads you would only use it offensively (i.e. when you activate the ship in the attack phase) and you get max one shot per ADD rating. I guess its something, but not overwhelmingly powerful considering you have to both hit and have the fighter fail its dodge check.
3) In Noble armada ships get to use their gatling lasers against fighters that move within a certain distance of them. Curious as to why something that like is not in your rules? I don't see an overwhelming need for that against drone fighters, but I think it is needed to fend of fighters with strong direct fire weapons (like the stinger 2). I think we need to allow ships to attack any fighter that gets within a certain range (say 4"), just like they get a chance to shoot at any seeking weapons. If this were the case then the ADD against fighters could be done at that time (and that time alone).
4) Escorts are awesome ships. I know it goes against the grain of ACTA, but I think there needs to be some restrictions on fielding these. I think they should only be taken if you have a carrier, and each carrier should have a list of what escorts and how many of each can be taken. I'm sure there is lots of SFU fluff that would support that kind of limitation.
5) The fighters you've done up are really true to SFU. Great adaptation! I'm just not sure if those fighters are good for ACTA or not. They range from not very powerful to extremely powerful. Again, not your fault as you were porting them over from SFB. I think Mongoose and ADB have to sit down (or pick up the phone) and discuss if fighters in ACTASF are going to be true port overs, or if the names and roles get reused, but the stats retooled significantly. I mean a single Ph-G on a fighter is really a very extreme weapon - as are a pair of drones - and the F15's are not easy to take down either. On the other end the weaker fighters look to be next to useless. I think it would be better to do up 2-3 fighter designs for each race that are more moderate and have VERY distinct roles (interceptor, bomber) - but that will all revolve around the expectations of the two companies.
Anyway, if you can update that one file (escort special rules) I'll try to get one of my buddies to try it out as you've written it and hope to give you feedback at some point (i.e. not this weekend!).
Thanks for sharing!
-Tim
Finally had a chance to go through all the stuff on my commute home. Can't believe how much work you put into it! So some comments:
1) If you haven't already can you combine the "escort rules" into one of the word documents. The last time I saw it it was only in the first post of this thread.
2) ADDs - I certainly like the addition of these to taking on fighters/shuttles. I'm a bit confused as to when they get used though. As it reads you would only use it offensively (i.e. when you activate the ship in the attack phase) and you get max one shot per ADD rating. I guess its something, but not overwhelmingly powerful considering you have to both hit and have the fighter fail its dodge check.
3) In Noble armada ships get to use their gatling lasers against fighters that move within a certain distance of them. Curious as to why something that like is not in your rules? I don't see an overwhelming need for that against drone fighters, but I think it is needed to fend of fighters with strong direct fire weapons (like the stinger 2). I think we need to allow ships to attack any fighter that gets within a certain range (say 4"), just like they get a chance to shoot at any seeking weapons. If this were the case then the ADD against fighters could be done at that time (and that time alone).
4) Escorts are awesome ships. I know it goes against the grain of ACTA, but I think there needs to be some restrictions on fielding these. I think they should only be taken if you have a carrier, and each carrier should have a list of what escorts and how many of each can be taken. I'm sure there is lots of SFU fluff that would support that kind of limitation.
5) The fighters you've done up are really true to SFU. Great adaptation! I'm just not sure if those fighters are good for ACTA or not. They range from not very powerful to extremely powerful. Again, not your fault as you were porting them over from SFB. I think Mongoose and ADB have to sit down (or pick up the phone) and discuss if fighters in ACTASF are going to be true port overs, or if the names and roles get reused, but the stats retooled significantly. I mean a single Ph-G on a fighter is really a very extreme weapon - as are a pair of drones - and the F15's are not easy to take down either. On the other end the weaker fighters look to be next to useless. I think it would be better to do up 2-3 fighter designs for each race that are more moderate and have VERY distinct roles (interceptor, bomber) - but that will all revolve around the expectations of the two companies.
Anyway, if you can update that one file (escort special rules) I'll try to get one of my buddies to try it out as you've written it and hope to give you feedback at some point (i.e. not this weekend!).
Thanks for sharing!
-Tim
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Ben this is very good, thanks for the effort involved.
I am massively against this for a number of reasons.
1. It means that any fleet that has trouble facing Drones or fighters is forced to take a carrier just to be allowed to have an escort. This isn't just me speaking as a Gorn, escorts protect ships and fleets and convoys, they should not be limited to carriers.
2. Phasers work very well under these rules, escorts are Phaser boats. So make the points reflect the effectiveness of the ships. Don't make them cheap then bring in extra rules saying you must have this ship or that ship before you can buy one and you are only allowed to buy a certain type of escort under certain circumstances. The points should reflect the capabilities of the ship.
3. The whole point behind carriers is that fighters and carriers are optional, no one should be forced to buy them and the game should never reach the stage where every Fed player brings a fleet that consists of two or three carriers and a few other ships with the few other ship types being unimportant because the 48+ Fed fighters kill everything else on the map. Escorts allow a fleet without a carrier to survive against both Drones and Fighters. You can add a DD or CL sized escort to a fleet and fight as you normally do but with the extra ability to handle an enemy fleet that brings a carrier.
4. Setting limits to which ships you are allowed to field opens the door to the whole SFB thing where you can only field one of that type of ship or two of that one and cannot use this ship unless you have that ship. ACTA-SF is about fielding fleets you chose not spending all evening working out how to include this ship because you also must have that ship and must meet this requirement or that one. Give the players free choice. If they want to include one of, three of or none of a ship that should be up to them.
5. As a Gorn if I want to replace a HDD with a HDE for those handy D racks and extra Phasers for those battles when I expect to face Drones or Fighters I will do so. I don’t want to be put in the situation of having to by a Gorn CV (full of Plasma Fighters which are not so good compared to the Drone side fighters) just so I can add an escort because there are Kzinti with all those Drones or Hydrans with fighters in the tournament or campaign. It should be my choice to accept less Plasma punch in return for more defence, not something dictated by a rule that says I cannot use them Unless I do this, this or this.
You are right,there is a lot of SFB stuff to support the limiting of escorts to being part of carrier groups. It dates from when SFB went from Star trek to US naval carrier groups in space.
To me this was not a good time in SFB. Ships became cannon fodder and half the players switched to FED CVA groups because it was so difficult to stand against 100s of Drone
Modern fleets have air defence ships all over the place, not just glued to carriers. Since they have the (alleged) ability to engage ICBMS and cruise missiles you technically have them escorting entire countries.
So I feel strongly that escorts should be pointed to reflect how capable they are overall and then left to be picked or left on the shelf as the Player wants, not as some arbitrary rule says.
The same applies to Maulers, carriers and any other kind of unusual ship out there.
AdmiralGrafSpee said:
I am massively against this for a number of reasons.
1. It means that any fleet that has trouble facing Drones or fighters is forced to take a carrier just to be allowed to have an escort. This isn't just me speaking as a Gorn, escorts protect ships and fleets and convoys, they should not be limited to carriers.
2. Phasers work very well under these rules, escorts are Phaser boats. So make the points reflect the effectiveness of the ships. Don't make them cheap then bring in extra rules saying you must have this ship or that ship before you can buy one and you are only allowed to buy a certain type of escort under certain circumstances. The points should reflect the capabilities of the ship.
3. The whole point behind carriers is that fighters and carriers are optional, no one should be forced to buy them and the game should never reach the stage where every Fed player brings a fleet that consists of two or three carriers and a few other ships with the few other ship types being unimportant because the 48+ Fed fighters kill everything else on the map. Escorts allow a fleet without a carrier to survive against both Drones and Fighters. You can add a DD or CL sized escort to a fleet and fight as you normally do but with the extra ability to handle an enemy fleet that brings a carrier.
4. Setting limits to which ships you are allowed to field opens the door to the whole SFB thing where you can only field one of that type of ship or two of that one and cannot use this ship unless you have that ship. ACTA-SF is about fielding fleets you chose not spending all evening working out how to include this ship because you also must have that ship and must meet this requirement or that one. Give the players free choice. If they want to include one of, three of or none of a ship that should be up to them.
5. As a Gorn if I want to replace a HDD with a HDE for those handy D racks and extra Phasers for those battles when I expect to face Drones or Fighters I will do so. I don’t want to be put in the situation of having to by a Gorn CV (full of Plasma Fighters which are not so good compared to the Drone side fighters) just so I can add an escort because there are Kzinti with all those Drones or Hydrans with fighters in the tournament or campaign. It should be my choice to accept less Plasma punch in return for more defence, not something dictated by a rule that says I cannot use them Unless I do this, this or this.
You are right,there is a lot of SFB stuff to support the limiting of escorts to being part of carrier groups. It dates from when SFB went from Star trek to US naval carrier groups in space.
To me this was not a good time in SFB. Ships became cannon fodder and half the players switched to FED CVA groups because it was so difficult to stand against 100s of Drone
Modern fleets have air defence ships all over the place, not just glued to carriers. Since they have the (alleged) ability to engage ICBMS and cruise missiles you technically have them escorting entire countries.
So I feel strongly that escorts should be pointed to reflect how capable they are overall and then left to be picked or left on the shelf as the Player wants, not as some arbitrary rule says.
The same applies to Maulers, carriers and any other kind of unusual ship out there.
Asguard101
Mongoose
ACTA:SF has been following the Federation Commander ship list not Star Fleet Battles ship lists (if it was we'd have around 90+ ships per race). In FC there is only one race with fighters, and they do not even have what would be considered a true carrier. If I recall correctly thier Battleship carries 12 fighters and the DNs and BCHs drop to 8, and then it goes down to 6/3/2 from there. The ture carriers would have 36 fighters on board. The point being I don't expect to see Carriers around in the game anytime soon.
Captain Jonah said:You are right,there is a lot of SFB stuff to support the limiting of escorts to being part of carrier groups. It dates from when SFB went from Star trek to US naval carrier groups in space.
To me this was not a good time in SFB. Ships became cannon fodder and half the players switched to FED CVA groups because it was so difficult to stand against 100s of Drone
I Agree entirely, the evolution of carriers in SFB ruined the game IMO. Obvioulsy some feel the opposite. But if I wanted to play carrier warfare I had plenty of other games which did a far better job.
Star trek never had carriers, it was about Kirk and the enterprise facing monsters, klingon cruises and romulan cruisers and the like.
Someone else said earlier that other Sci-fi has plenty of fighters, exactly, that is why I'd prefer that as much as possible this game does not have them, it is part of why it stands out like trek itself in not having the uber fighters which always carry the day.
I accept that they are now apart of the SFU, but SFU is not just SFB, with FC it has made an effort to put the action back with 'normal' ships and away from carriers, so please go with that version of the SFU. Have carrier and fighters, but of the much toned down variety that are very much secondary and may make an interesting scenario style ship but not a must have.
As to the escort thing, I also agree there is no need what so ever to restrict them to carrier groups only. All phaser ships are very good, and even better if they have some form of boosted defensive capability, but that can just be dealt with by pointing them as such.
As I remember SFB, most 'carriers' had 12 fighters, then there were the larger heavy carriers (CVAs) that had 24. Maybe SFB continued the move to a carrier only game after I stopped playing and added yet more fighters to them. But certainly when I played 12/24 was the standard complement, nothing had 36.
AdmiralGrafSpee said:
Couple of things - these are unofficial rules so the priority should be making a good fun set of rules that fit with the SFU. Ben has put a lot of work in here - appreciated.
There seems to be qute a split in the SFB community on fighters - they are either "just" a pain or break the game but no one posting here seems to actually like them at all??
Re anti-fighter - Noble Armada is a more compicated version of 2nd Ed B5 ACTA which had a an excellent antifghter rules set which incorporated the use of escorts to provide defensive firepower for other ships.
I am reasonably against ship rareity rules unless you are going to go the whole hog - singling out one form of ship seems well unfair. As has been suggested work out the points and play from there to adjust.
Lastly I have not had the chance to test any of the rules that Ben kindly provided - has anyone had a go with them yet?
I'll try and do a revision of the fighter rules this afternoon, I've just got to finish a newspaper article first.
I have explicitly stated several times that I don't want a repeat of the issues fighters caused in SFB.
I want a ship fleet with a couple of escorts in to have as good a chance against a carrier fleet as another carrier fleet.
I have explicitly stated several times that I don't want a repeat of the issues fighters caused in SFB.
I want a ship fleet with a couple of escorts in to have as good a chance against a carrier fleet as another carrier fleet.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
I'm not rabidly anti fighter.
Carriers and fighters add another aspect to the game much like civilian ships, bases, etc.
The problem with SFB was that with the late war stuff it became so fighter/carrier centric it was like playing a cold war fleet combat game. Squadrons of fighters and bombers moving, firing, counter firing etc and somewhere at the back you counted how many missiles got through, checked for the close defence stuff and blew up a few ships. Then it was back to the fighters again.
Early war fighters were crap, slow, undergunned and easy to kill. Mid war fighters added a nice tactic element, late war fighters and to an extent PFs just took over till x craft came along.
Thats what I don't want to see here, fighters and carriers can be a nice change to the games, new tactics are needed to deal with fighters. What we don't want and what Ben has said he is working to avoid is the Fed CVA plus CV plus escort fleet situation. Hey my ship can fire 2/3/4 drones a turn, hey my carrier group can fire 60 a turn and I may enven load some scatter packs as well later on :roll:
Carriers and fighters add another aspect to the game much like civilian ships, bases, etc.
The problem with SFB was that with the late war stuff it became so fighter/carrier centric it was like playing a cold war fleet combat game. Squadrons of fighters and bombers moving, firing, counter firing etc and somewhere at the back you counted how many missiles got through, checked for the close defence stuff and blew up a few ships. Then it was back to the fighters again.
Early war fighters were crap, slow, undergunned and easy to kill. Mid war fighters added a nice tactic element, late war fighters and to an extent PFs just took over till x craft came along.
Thats what I don't want to see here, fighters and carriers can be a nice change to the games, new tactics are needed to deal with fighters. What we don't want and what Ben has said he is working to avoid is the Fed CVA plus CV plus escort fleet situation. Hey my ship can fire 2/3/4 drones a turn, hey my carrier group can fire 60 a turn and I may enven load some scatter packs as well later on :roll:
Captain Jonah said:
I'm in agreement as to fighters adding another element but erring on the side of extreme caution should apply. To me, even middle war SFB is a boring mess when fighter and drones are present in numbers. I never want to see ACTASF reach the point were two fleets sit on oppposite edges chucking waves of ordnance or for that matter, the level of minutiae where variant weapon loadouts for specific fighter types are tracked.
ACTASF is a way to play big battles fast and anything that slows it down or worse, adds record keeping more complex than adding a chit or checking a box should be anathema. As Matt keeps pointing out, it is a game of the SFU universe but not intended to be SFB or FC lite.
