Fighter Break-Off move

[Nomad]

Problem; fighters getting shot to pieces before they can fire.

Problems with current solution;
i) Vree
ii) Makes AF weapons and formations U/S
iii) Makes fighters 'too powerful'
iv) Gives fighters an unjustified free shot


Proposed solution; Fighters fire last. BUT if a fighter is hit by fire from a ship while within 4" of an enemy ship (ie during an attack run) roll a dice; on a result of 1 or 2, the flight is destroyed as normal; if the result is 3+ the flight has broken off its attack, and is placed its full move away from the ship it was attacking, by its owner. It may not shoot or participate in a dogfight this turn.

If its final position is within 4" of any enemy ship, or in contact with an enemy fighter, the flight is destroyed; otherwise it is unharmed and acts as normal in the next turn.

Advantages; No bookkeeping; no 'out of sequence' firing for AF weapons; no change to fighter or ship stats; ships AF defence strengths and weaknesses remain unchanged from SFoS, but fighters become more survivable. Having a high-value or highly vulnerable target ringed by escorts becomes a viable defensive formation.

I floated this idea a few weeks ago (it sank); figured it might be worth another spin.

 

[lastbesthope]

Personally I think it's a little complicated, plus if you break off, gaining a whle move distance can effectively double the move a fighter makes that turn.

LBH

 

[Alexb83]

I still reckon simultaneous firing is the way to go - ships move, fighters move, fighters fire. All eligible ships with AF weaponry fire in range and in the appropriate arcs (generally the ship being attacked) fires at the same time. Then ships go on to fire normally after damage is resolved (less any weapons they used as AF).

That way the ships get their full AF fire, and the fighters don't get blown out of the sky before they can attack.

 

[Nomad]

little complicated

It's only one dice roll.

On the point about fighters gaining an extra move - this is true, which is why I specified they cannot move within 4" (attack range for T-Bolts) of any enemy ship, or dogfight enemy fighters. Perhaps I should make clear they also lose their shot for that turn...I'll do that.

However, under the Fleet carrier rule, fighters can already make a 30" move back to their CV in one turn, so the precedent is already there.

 

[Nomad]

blown out of the sky before they can attack.

But they are afterwards? One of my issues with the 'fighters fire first' mechanic is the concept that manned fighters are just expendible rubbish that exist to do a little bit of damage then die unmourned.

In that case, I'd rather fit mine with remote controls, pack their cockpits with explosive and use them as Very Big Missiles.

I want fighters to have a life expectancy greater than that of a gnat in a blastfurnace. EarthForce's hangars are not full of Kamikazes, and I don't think any other races are (well, apart from the Dilgar, maybe).

 

[Farseer]

I think you may have had something up there. How about this:

Move ships
Move fighters
AF weapons fire
Fighters fire
other ships fire.

This makes sense as AF weapons would be designed to shoot down incoming fighters BEFORE they were in range. Also would make you have to make smart choices with your fighters.

Then allow fighters to get a modified doge roll like -2. The ability to shoot first should be the advantage rather than the dodge being eliminated by AF.


Any thoughts?

 

[Nomad]

Farseer - not really. the whole point of the Break-off is to try to avoid weapons firing out of sequence or introducing new factors like a modified dodge roll.

Your AF guns may not want to fire at fighters this turn (higher value targets availible, think Minbari 18" range fusion cannon) or the only guns able to bear on the fighters may not be AF (think of the restricted fire arcs on the Omega, Chronos or Artemis classes). You's have to note down which gung had fired early, and then come back to fire the others later...paperwork...agh, no.

 

[lastbesthope]

However, under the Fleet carrier rule, fighters can already make a 30" move back to their CV in one turn, so the precedent is already there.

Yeah, but I think that's a little much as well :lol:

LBH

 

[Nomad]

Think of it this way...there's no such thing as a 'maximum speed' in space.

(Well, except for the Speed of Light, and no ship or fighter in the B5 universe goes remotely that fast).

The normal move distance for fighters reflects how fast they can move and still stop or change course rapidly, and not burn up too much propellant (if you boost up to very high speed, you then have to burn more fuel slowing down again).

Given enough propellant, a rocket can boost to an arbitrarily high speed; the fighters making a Break Off move are burning a bit more fuel to get out of a very dangerous situation very quickly.

 

[Voronesh]

How about the break off places the fighter 3-5 inches back, in the direction of its attack vector. Or towards players own table side to make things simpler.

Just far enough out of AF firing range. Or rule it break off, places the fighter flight 1 inch out of AF firing range.

Removes the whole fighter gain an extra move problem.

Only problem i see in general with this idea is E-mines. Though then again using fighters against a fleet with emine ships is pretty much suicide anyway. So maybe no breakoff rules against those weapons

BTW, making AF weaponry shoot first, is just going to back to fighters fire last. It is a rare case, that you fire nonAF weaponry against fighters. Sure fighters still would do their damage before the big guys start killing each other, but that was never part of the problem wasnt it?

 

[H]

Sounds ok to me really, I personally hate the fleet carrier rule, but it exists and is a mechanic for extra long fighter movement. Wanna playtest it sometime Nomad? Frazi's and Starfuries, My bad dice rolling Versus your Bad dice rolling, lets see if we can effectively break a playtest ;-), hmmm, Ok, Just remembered I don't have a listed AF weapon. . . Maybe I'll fly Brakiri for a playtest.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

BTW, making AF weaponry shoot first, is just going to back to fighters fire last.

Not entirely. If you fire all A-F weapons first, but allow them to fire at any targets (it's the rapid fire and fast reaction mounts of the weapons that make them so fast, not the targets they fire at), then you have a lot of choices to make. Firing A-F weapons in the normal sequence means you can hold certain ships to the end of the sequence and see if the weapons are needed for anti-ship. You know in advance if any given ship will actualy need protection. Some fighters may be destroyed by normal fire, or even explosions. So, wen firing A-F first, you have to decide WHAT to fire on. You might kill more fighters, but lose the battle because you used up weapons fire that you should have fired anti-ship. You may waste fire on fighters that would have been useless when their target explodes from ship-to-ship fire.

It's not an ideal solution, but it is more even-handed. It allows A-F weapons to actually operate against fighters in the way they should - PREVENTING fighter attacks, instead of "Oops, where did he come from? Well, I'll shot him now, even though he's already destroyed my Scout".

Wulf

 

[Nomad]

Wanna playtest it sometime Nomad?

Sure do. I'm on lates/weekend call next week, but on holiday again (use 'em or lose 'em) the week after.

EF vs Brakiri sounds good.

I don't think we'd learn much flying fighters against Emines!

 

[Nomad]

How about the break off places the fighter 3-5 inches back, in the direction of its attack vector. Or towards players own table side to make things simpler.

How does that make anything simpler? :shock:

Just far enough out of AF firing range

So a different distance for each weapon? 5" for most Particle Beams, 3" for those on the Apollo, 15" for a Sagittarius with AF missiles, and for a Minbari ship with Fusion Beams, is that 4" AF mini beam range or 18" max range?
Bit of a non-improvement improvement there, mate!

Removes the whole fighter gain an extra move problem.

No it doesn't. And why is it a problem?

Seriously, I play a lot of Ancient (DBM) and WW2 (Spearhead, Flames of War) games, and in those games, units can often move several times in a turn.

For example, in FoW a tank platoon may move 12" into assault range in the Movement Phase; move 4" in the Assault Phase; if that assault succeeds, move 4" to assault another enemy unit; and if that assault fails, perform a 12" breakoff move. It all works rather well.

 

[philogara]

Problem I have with this idea is that it sounds like fighters are still going to be ineffectual as chances are still high that they will not get to press home their attack.

Maybe a new flying display maneuver - The Rebounding Starfury :?:

 

[angelus2000]

Personally. I think each AF weapon a fighter flight goes through should have a chance at shooting the fighter. If the fighter survives all the AF and ends up within 1" inch of the target ship, no other weapons can fire at it for the remainder of the turn.
When the target ship moves during the next movement phase, the fighter "tags" along with it, staying within 1" inch and gaining the "You cant shoot me cause I'm too close" bonus. Other fighters may attempt to dogfight it and only the target ship may attempt to shoot it. Kinda like skin-dancing, but not. and at 1" inch, the most you could crowd around a ship would be 6 flights at once.

Makes dodging all that AF on the way worth it, Especially if the fighter flight can sit right next to a ship for a 2-3 turns and keep smacking away without being afraid of some other ships AF weapons from greasing it. If that ship doesnt have an AF weapon, tough titties. Bring more fighters of your own or take ships that do AF weaps. Here this is even simpler

[During fighter movement, if at any point a fighter moves with range of a weapon with the AF trait, that weapon may fire in Reaction to the fighters movement. Any AD used in Reaction fire may not be used for any subsequent target.]
[If at the end of a fighters movement, if the fighter is within 1" inch of enemy ship, no ship except the target ship may attempt to fire at it for the remainder of the turn. During the next movement phase, when the enemy ship the fighter is within 1" of moves, the fighter may immediately move to remain within 1" inch, unless its maximum movement does not allow it to remain within 1"inch (i.e. T-bolts cant keep up with a vorchan or a white star).]

Yes, I know its out of sequence fire and involves some record-keeping. BFD :lol: .

 

[Wulf Corbett]

[During fighter movement, if at any point a fighter moves with range of a weapon with the AF trait, that weapon may fire in Reaction to the fighters movement. Any AD used in Reaction fire may not be used for any subsequent target.]

Yes, I know its out of sequence fire and involves some record-keeping. BFD :lol: .

SOME?

Bloody hell...

Wulf

 

[Right Hand of God]

What about forcing fightrs to form up into squadrons of say 4-6 and having them fire in the same way as other ships. Ok so it is a little clunky, but fighters tend to operate in packs and in the games I have played they seem to gravitate towards each other anyway rather than operating as individual stands.

 

[angelus2000]

Compared to the amount necessary for normal ship-to-ship fire, it's actually not that much, Wulf. Most ships mount at most 2 AF weapons with only 3-6 AD per mount. Once a mounts shot its wad for the turn, its done. Easy enough. I know the boneheads out there are gasping in horror but its not like you didnt have to keep track already of what youve fired at. I do see AF missles being a point to consider though. Does anyone actually use the things?

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Compared to the amount necessary for normal ship-to-ship fire, it's actually not that much, Wulf. Most ships mount at most 2 AF weapons with only 3-6 AD per mount.

Not a Vree player, I take it? And not much for large numbers of ships either...

Tracking individual numbers of AD used, on every individual A-F system on every ship in a fleet, every Turn, would be... well, a game I won't play.

Wulf