Fighter Squadrons

[AnotherDilbert]

All weapons of the same type within a squadron make a single attack roll, gaining DM+1 to the attack roll for every fighter after the first in the squadron, resolve damage as you would for a missile salvo; rolling once for damage, applying any armour and screens, and then multiplying by the effect.

Two problems:

1) If I have a squadron of 12 fighters, 4 with lasers, 4 with fusion guns, and 4 with particle guns, I make 3 attacks but all get DM+11 to attack.

2) Screens can only be used once per round. The damage reduction should not be multiplied by number of hits.

 

[-Daniel-]

1) If I have a squadron of 12 fighters, 4 with lasers, 4 with fusion guns, and 4 with particle guns, I make 3 attacks but all get DM+11 to attack.

Interesting, I would not have read it hat way. I would have taken it to mean every fighter after the first with the same weapon. So in your example the lasers would get a +3 not a +11. But I can see how you are reading it the way you are. I would expect though, the way I took it is the way they mean it to be.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

No, if you have 12 fighters configured as mentioned you have three different "squadrons" that happen to fly together.

You make 3 attack rolls with a DM+3 each (+1 for each of the other 3 fighters in the squadron).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

No, if you have 12 fighters configured as mentioned you have three different "squadrons" that happen to fly together.

You make 3 attack rolls with a DM+3 each (+1 for each of the other 3 fighters in the squadron).

That is not what the rules say:

While most squadrons will comprise the same model of fighter, there is no reason why this need be the case. Indeed, there are stirring tales across the galaxy of ragged bands of rebels gathering every high-performance small craft they could find to form ad hoc squadrons to fight a larger aggressor, and even fully-equipped navies may find it beneficial to form mixed squadrons to achieve specific tasks.

 

[fusor]

No, if you have 12 fighters configured as mentioned you have three different "squadrons" that happen to fly together.

You make 3 attack rolls with a DM+3 each (+1 for each of the other 3 fighters in the squadron).

That is not what the rules say:

While most squadrons will comprise the same model of fighter, there is no reason why this need be the case. Indeed, there are stirring tales across the galaxy of ragged bands of rebels gathering every high-performance small craft they could find to form ad hoc squadrons to fight a larger aggressor, and even fully-equipped navies may find it beneficial to form mixed squadrons to achieve specific tasks.

You just quoted it, dude:

All weapons of the same type within a squadron make a single attack roll, gaining DM+1 to the attack roll for every fighter after the first in the squadron, resolve damage as you would for a missile salvo; rolling once for damage, applying any armour and screens, and then multiplying by the effect.

If you have 4 fighters with lasers, 4 with fusion guns, and 4 with particle weapons then they're not all going to get +11, they're going to get +3 each because there are three groups of 4 fighters with the same weapon type (unless lasers, fusion guns, and particle weapons are somehow "the same weapon type"?). That's why RTT put "squadrons" in quotes - because you'd treat them as three separate squadrons even if they're flying together.

It sounds as if the definition of "squadron" is very fuzzy here though, which appears to be another flaw in the new HG. It seems to me that the intent is that all weapons of the same type in a group of fighters make the single attack roll with the +1 for every fighter after the first in that group that has that weapon type - whether that's truly a "squadron" for organisational purposes doesn't really matter.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It sounds as if the definition of "squadron" is very fuzzy here though, which appears to be another flaw in the new HG.

Not really.
A squadron is whatever fighters I group into a squadron.

A squadron can be created from any number of fighters that are all within Adjacent or Close range with each other (within 10km), are all able to communicate with one another and, of course, are willing to co-operate and be led in a common goal.

They need not be of the same type.

and even fully-equipped navies may find it beneficial to form mixed squadrons to achieve specific tasks.

It seems to me that the intent is that all weapons of the same type in a group of fighters make the single attack roll with the +1 for every fighter after the first in that group that has that weapon type ...

The rule should probably say that; it doesn't. That is why I called it a problem.

 

[fusor]

It seems to me that the intent is that all weapons of the same type in a group of fighters make the single attack roll with the +1 for every fighter after the first in that group that has that weapon type ...

The rule should probably say that; it doesn't. That is why I called it a problem.

Well there's your solution then.
(but yes, it should be fixed in the book)

 

[SSWarlock]

I went through the same thought process as AnotherDilbert and came to the same conclusions. Nicely done.

 

[-Daniel-]

Nice to see we all seem to agree to what it should be, now it just needs to be fixed in the PDF so it will be clear in the printed book.

 

[alex_greene]

So then, if we agree on a rewording, we might as well look at what that rewording should be.

Fighters in a squadron may make one attack roll per weapon type simultaneously when attacking the same target. Squadrons equipped with mixed weapons can be subdivided into smaller units by weapon type, so there is a subunit with beam lasers, a subunit with missiles and so on. Each of those subunits makes its separate attack roll simultaneously in that attack round, with a +1 DM for each weapon after the first within that subunit.

So, squadron of 12, 4 with beam, 4 with pulse, 4 throwing rocks. The whole squad attacks one big target. Three subunits. Three attack rolls, each with its own +3 DM.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Change

All weapons of the same type within a squadron make a single attack roll, gaining DM+1 to the attack roll for every fighter after the first in the squadron, resolve damage as you would for a missile salvo; rolling once for damage, applying any armour and screens, and then multiplying by the effect.

to

All weapons of the same type within a squadron make a single attack roll, gaining DM+1 to the attack roll for every weapon after the first, resolve damage as you would for a missile salvo; rolling once for damage, applying any armour, and then multiplying by the effect.

Note that a fighter can mount more than 1 weapon, and the effect of the attack roll is the number of hits (like with missiles), so fighters with two lasers should produce more hits than fighters with one laser.

 

[arcador]

Since the effect here is like missile salvo, I think the last suggestion is pretty elegant solution.

 

[phavoc]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. A squadron should be comprised of like units, not disparate units. Why would you group missile attack fighters with laser attack fighters?

so the example of 12 fighters in a squadron, they should be 12 missile armed fighters, 12 laser armed fighters, etc. And all mounting similar weapons.

This makes sense because that's how fighters work in the real world. A-10's aren't grouped with F-16's and F-35s, even if they are all doing ground attack. They all have their own flight profiles, their own strengths and weaknesses. That should remain the same in the future because that's the point of building different types of units.

However if taken to an extreme, it will get a bit ridiculous with fighters always hitting. Using your 12 fighters as an example again, they would get a +11 to their DM, right? That makes it so that they can almost never miss (though I haven't run this through as a scenario yet).

I see grouping fighters together as a logical way of handling many small craft. Squadrons would attack and defend on either a barrage basis, or simply acting as a single entity, much like a starship would. X number of damage pts means X numbers of fighters are destroyed or disabled.

 

[-Daniel-]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. A squadron should be comprised of like units, not disparate units. Why would you group missile attack fighters with laser attack fighters?

While I agree with your point if this were an organized fleet vs organized fleet battle. But what if it were an imperial raid on a major pirate base? Would you assume the pirates had squads of matching fighters? Or would you assume they had a mix of various "fighters" they were able to procure over time? Would a merchant convoy always have matching fighters? What about a Space Gypsy fleet?

I would not assume the rules should only cover imperial fleets and their fighter groups. I think we create the run to cover as many possible situations. Cover organized fleets, gypsy fleets, merchant fleets, pirate fleets etc.

 

[rust2]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. A squadron should be comprised of like units, not disparate units.

While this should be so, our real world history has seen many mixed squadrons, for example when new types of aircraft had to be introduced as replacements for destroyed ones.

 

[phavoc]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. A squadron should be comprised of like units, not disparate units. Why would you group missile attack fighters with laser attack fighters?

While I agree with your point if this were an organized fleet vs organized fleet battle. But what if it were an imperial raid on a major pirate base? Would you assume the pirates had squads of matching fighters? Or would you assume they had a mix of various "fighters" they were able to procure over time? Would a merchant convoy always have matching fighters? What about a Space Gypsy fleet?

I would not assume the rules should only cover imperial fleets and their fighter groups. I think we create the run to cover as many possible situations. Cover organized fleets, gypsy fleets, merchant fleets, pirate fleets etc.

To an extent, yes. I would expect anyone using spacecraft in battle to have some basic understanding of how they function. Your question is more reality based, so in that case, I would not expect a rag-tag group of pirates, or rebels or whomever, to operate the same as a military group. Then again I would not expect, in reality, to be restricted from firing lasers, dropping bombs or shooting cannon in the same attack wave (i.e. turn).

But the game isn't reality, so adjustments are needed. So from that perspective it's impossible to come up with a universal ruleset. From a gamers perspective I want rules that make logical sense, are easy to follow, and don't require me to leaf through copious rules. So in that case it makes more sense to group like craft in a squadron. If you have a mixed squadron, the question is why do you have a 12 ship squadron made up of three disparate unit types instead of having three four-ship squadrons made up of like types? As the rules are structured it makes more sense to have the latter than the former.

To address your pirate question, it makes more sense for them to fight individually, since they aren't operating as a pure military unit.

To address your fleet question, it still makes more sense (and since they are military fleets, that's how they would be fighting in the first place).

As it stands its a muddled rule.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. A squadron should be comprised of like units, not disparate units.

While this should be so, our real world history has seen many mixed squadrons, for example when new types of aircraft had to be introduced as replacements for destroyed ones.

For the most part, I would have to disagree with your statement here. Militaries recognize how aircraft work, and how squadrons work. In wartime squadrons flew with fewer aircraft rather than mix say ME-109 with FW-190s (or Spitfires with Hurricanes, or F-4Us with F-6F). While at times they flew in the same airspace and attacked they same targets, they never really operated mixed aircraft as functioning squadrons. Even land units, like say tanks or artillery, worked mostly with their own companies.

But, to your point, there were times when adhoc groups were formed out of desperation. However they were never the rule, just the exception.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

However if taken to an extreme, it will get a bit ridiculous with fighters always hitting. Using your 12 fighters as an example again, they would get a +11 to their DM, right? That makes it so that they can almost never miss (though I haven't run this through as a scenario yet).

Fighters can basically only attack in dogfights, so can expect further DMs to attack. Yes, they will nearly always hit, but their weak weapons will struggle to penetrate armour especially since they cannot add effect to damage.

I'm not a particular fan of using the salvo mechanism for fighters, but that seems to be what we have to work with. It's much better than in the last public beta.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If you have a mixed squadron, the question is why do you have a 12 ship squadron made up of three disparate unit types instead of having three four-ship squadrons made up of like types?

Because the rules makes that a very good exploit? With my changes the exploit disappears, and with it most of the reason for heterodox squadrons.

 

[phavoc]

However if taken to an extreme, it will get a bit ridiculous with fighters always hitting. Using your 12 fighters as an example again, they would get a +11 to their DM, right? That makes it so that they can almost never miss (though I haven't run this through as a scenario yet).

Fighters can basically only attack in dogfights, so can expect further DMs to attack. Yes, they will nearly always hit, but their weak weapons will struggle to penetrate armour especially since they cannot add effect to damage.

I'm not a particular fan of using the salvo mechanism for fighters, but that seems to be what we have to work with. It's much better than in the last public beta.

For dogfights it makes tons more sense (to me at least) TO group like to like fighters, and fight squadron to squadron. That tracks to the normal chaos of a fighter v fighter battle.

As far as attacking ships, that's where the rules go really wonky. All you need to do is keep adding ships to your squadron to get a positive DM so you never miss when attacking a starship.

 

[phavoc]

If you have a mixed squadron, the question is why do you have a 12 ship squadron made up of three disparate unit types instead of having three four-ship squadrons made up of like types?

Because the rules makes that a very good exploit? With my changes the exploit disappears, and with it most of the reason for heterodox squadrons.

I don't understand the reasoning for disparate fighter types in the same squadron. The rules say you can't fire mixed weapons from the same turret in the same round. If that's a rule for turrets, it makes sense that a fighter also have that same restriction.

So what is the logic behind grouping disparate types into the same squadron when you can't do anything about it? And the bonuses fall back to the type of weapon the fighter is equipped with?