Fighter Swarms

Greg Smith

Mongoose
Instead of cluttering up the Armageddon - Wow! thread with the fighter dicussion, I'll start a new one.

Some points:

Greg Smith said:
Del Putani said:
You have NO idea how strange it is to read all of this.

Parking 18 flights of SF's in the side of a bintak was a dead battleship

Let's do the maths:

18 Starfurys: 36 AD twinlinked.
Bin'tak: Hull 6, 85 damage.

Average of 11 hits. Average (roughly) of 2 bulkheads, 7 standard hits, 2 criticals. Of the 85 damage, the Bin'tak is likely to be left with 72.

18 Starfuries would have trouble killing a Maximus.

Park 18 Starfuries next to a G'karith and they would kill it.

But then the whole Hull 6 debate rears its ugly head.

-------------------------------------------

Silvereye said:
As to the giant fleet o' fighters o' doom. I don't think it is likely to be a problem as most scenario games are lost when you no longer have any ships left (fighters are auxillary caft). If you can actually surround a ship with 16 flights of fighters (a Poseidon or 2 Morshin's loadout worth) it is obvious that your opponent did not bring enough to stop it happening.

---------------------------------------------

Davesaint said:
The thing you are missing is the criticals scored by the fighters.
Heck if I send 6-8 flights of fighters(which is 2-3 patrol) at a raid or higher level ship and I get a 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 4-4,4-5, 4-6, or frankly any of the Vital crits they have paid for themselves. Oh I'm sorry Mr. Warlock, did I just eliminate that boresight weapon on you when you had my ship lined up? :roll:

Dave

----------------------------------------------------------
 
Okaaay, does anyone thought about the following then:

Fighters fire first, all fine, but that does mean with a semi decent swarm of say 5-6 bases, most interceptors will already be overloaded, OR is there a change in the interceptor mechanic?
 
Now this debate began with the revalation that in Armageddon, fighters would fire first.

This was a concern because fighters would be able to swoop in from a distance and attack before the ships got a chance to kill them.

Davesaint said:
Except for the Double V and the Sky Serpent, all of these fighters are speed 10 or higher, which means that they will likely be out of most of the ships secondary batteries(a majority of them are range 8 or less).

Dave

I disagree.

Either a few fighters will swoop in and attack a ship, doing a small amount of damage- in which case pre-Armageddon the ship might have been able to shoot down those few fighters.

Or a huge swarm swoops in and fires a mass of weapons - whereas pre-A, the ship would have shot down a few fighters and still been attacked by almost as many AD.

I don't believe fighters are a huge threat because they generally lack the nastier weapon traits: Super AP, double & triple damage, precise. Even huge swarms of fighters with masive numbers of AD are not particularly dangerous to moderately well armoured ships.

I also think the change in sequence in Armageddon gave the fighters a small, but needed, boost, not an excessive one.

Discuss.
 
Damn, had I seen this thread earlier, I would have posted my arguments (in favour of the new rules) here instead of the "Armageddon Wow" thread... but hey, I can always quote myself, right? :wink:

some thoughts on the new fighter rules, and why I DON´T think they´re broken/to powerful/whatever:

- fighters don´t shoot any better than before, there will just be more of them to fire before getting blown up. So they might actually do some damage for a change...

- now, those fighters who have better dogfighting abilities will finally be of some use

- The advanced fighter rules will now actually mean something: dogfighting, protecting ships with fighters, and protecting fighters with fighters against fighters protecting ships will all become important tactical options, instead of just using up space in the rulebooks

- the fighter rules seem to have been thoroughly playtested, and there´s not been a single playtester here who called them unbalanced, broken or anything like that

- carriers (AND fleet carriers!) will now be a worthwhile choice equal to other ships in their respective priority levels

- even IF swarms of fighters were able to drown bigger ships, they would have to get within 4" of their target - one exploding ship later,no more fighters left to worry about...

- the new fighter rules apply to all fighters in the game, so everyone can use them for his own benefit

- WHO ON EARTH would REALLY use ALL (or most) his fleet points JUST ON FIGHTERS? Come on guys, just because it may technically be possible to swarm your opponent with loads and loads of fighter bases, and there might be some people who would use smaller fighter counters to get more flights into range, anybody who is stupid enough to do that will find himself running out of opponents soon - it´s still a game after all, and you always need two sides who are both having fun to play a game!

The same should apply to tournament games - while some may still tend to ignore that just to win, those are people I a) feel extremely sorry for, and b) will never, ever play against.

Why don´t we just wait another month (let´s just hope there won´t be any more delays), until we all can use the rules and give them a fair try before starting to cry over them?

As with any new tactical opion, it might take some getting used to; but instantly whinning about something new, just because it might make a certain change of perspective neccessary, is SO Games Workshop... Mad
 
I have to agree with Greg. While undoubtadly (sp?) we will see more fleets with additional purchased fighters, and/or dedicated carriers. Fighters as a whole will not significantly swing the balance to an all fighter fleet. What we will likley see is a lot more dogfights.

I believe it will be very unlikely to see 18 flights of fighters surrounding a single ship, more likely it will be the same three or four flights that occur now.

As to fighter swarms, you could always bring along a Sag fleet loaded with anti-fighter missiles...
 
The main loosers are Hull 4 ships which can now be eliminated by fighters with impunity. Mutual-defence formations with my Hermes and Olympus class ships are now irrelevant, and interceptors on all other ships can be overloaded by an attacker at will.

Convoy scenarios will be dominated by fighters now - the attacker does not need to take any ships, and there is precious little point in convoy escorts shooting down fighters after they have destroyed the freighters.

Greg, I'm very disturbed by your statement that you had not realised that fighter attacks can now overwhelm interceptors before ship's heavy weapons shoot - was this not noticed in playtesting? Clearly an unintended result, and a rather major one.

As an EA player, I'll certainly be investing in massed fighter swarms now - both defensively, and offensively, partcularly against the Centauri - to take down their interceptors for my missile ships - and against the Vree, who appear to be comprehensively fracked.

In fact, against everyone except the Narns, who must be giggling...

Yes, this change makes fighters more lethal and brings them back into the game. But it does so in a crude and inelegant fashion, in a way which will be open to abuse and exploitation, and I fear will unbalance the game in new and unintentional ways.

To be honest, I wish it'd been left as it was.
 
Quoting Nomad
and against the Vree, who appear to be comprehensively fracked.

Actually, couldn't the Vree just use SM to get all their ships in a nice, small circle limiting the number of fighters that can shoot them? Wouldn't this also mean that the inner ships would essentially lay waste to the fighters even if some of the outer layer go pop?

I mean, even with a starfury using afterburners, the Vree should have enough time to throw a formation like this together. Especially considering the deployment zones are usually greater than 24".
 
Actually, couldn't the Vree just use SM to get all their ships in a nice, small circle

...With hilarious consequences when the first of those little hull 4 scouts blows up, to either fighter or warship fire. Putting fragile ships in a tight formation might be considered...questionable.
 
Look to what Nomad said, wise words.

I am disturbed that people are using statements like 'I just don't believe people will' in a discussion of what is possible. In playtesting you should be grinding out as many possible abuses as possible to see if they are viable.

Some of the comments made above in favor of the new ruling should be addressed.

- the target ship exploding thing - Given each stand fires individually fighter stacks will rarely over kill a ship to the extent it explodes. It is not like a ship firing that can not see how the secondaries did before firing the main gun.

- everyone can use the rules - Actually not really. Some races carry large numbers of fighter on regular fighting ships, these ships have just drastically been increased in power. There is no corrisponding raise for fleets without good carries. Fighters are by no means equal between the races, even when adjusted for pl. buys.

- fighters do not shoot better than before - Sure they do, they shoot at all. Under the current system most fighters attacking a ship anywhere near its own fleet will die before they fire. Now every fighter has at least one quaranteed shot, baring attacks by main guns.

- dogfighter are now useful - well guess it was just my group but we have always found fighters with high dogfight the ones to take. Maybe +1 is not so hot in our book vs 2 extra AD and longer range, but generally we go for dogfighters because if you have the only fighters left you are the only one who can hunt the cripples.

- Thoroughly playtested - I think they have been played, but that is not the same as playtesting. Playtesting is a process of determining the least likely outcomes of your rules not whether it can work as you want it to but will it in a competetive enviornment. We're seeing comments from playtesters here who did not try the sixteen flights vs a single ship, did not consider fighter vs interceptor, stated that fighters average 2 ad when most races have higher AD options as a standard fighter. This is not a playtest that tried to break the rule, as it was broken before, it was one that asked 'is this a problem in the games your already playing'.

- most scenarios will be lost at the point of no ships - there are some scenarios which do not. Do they not need to be balanced? What about tactics involving hiding a ship or two in hard to access places or traits and large number of fighters beyond that. Say a few vaarls hiding in asteriods with tzymms out the tail for the rest?

This is the new paradigm that could be used that I wonder whether the math supports. Unlike a standard fleet, which has alternating use of AD, I can now fire the entirety of my available AD before you go at all. This means I can both swarm ships to kill them early (admitedly hard against hull 6) and pepper every ship in your fleet 'crit fishing'. Only then will your ships get to respond.

Hull 4 and Hull 5 ships with interceptors now have another huge bane. Sixteen T-bolts (not uncommon in Earth fleets now) generate 64 dice, that is 26 hits against a hull 5 ship with interceptors. Say three intercpetors will stop five to eight of those. So 18 hits, nice neat number for a d6 system. Three bulkheads, twelve hits, three crits. What is the likely hood I just did something bad to a Sulust? How about a Xill with no interceptors? That is four bulkheads, eighteen hits , four criticals. Twenty two damage plus the crits damage of say two each. The ship just died. From a fighter complament that is already in play, no pls spent. A ship renowned for its anti-fighter properties.

Nomad was more eloquent than I have been, several others as well. This is a huge swing in firepower, not a little adjustment. Will it break the game, I do not know, but I do not believe the non-chalance of the playtesters is justified given their comments and the history of the game.

Ripple
 
In fact, against everyone except the Narns, who must be giggling...

Narn do not giggle.



We laugh uproarously.



Which by the way we are doing now.



Interestingly, this does make me look once more at the G'Karith. Now that fighters are a threat, it just might be worth taking the ship at lower priority levels even though it's only Hull 4.


Anyways has anyone tried playing with the fighters under the new rules yet? If so, how much have you found that they really impact things? I'm suspecting we'll find that certain races(Vree, Drazi) are hurt horribly by the new fighter set up while other races(EA, Narn) are getting a solid boost from this(EA due to large innate fighter complements, Narn due to E-Mines plus high AD Frazis allowing the most use out of the small amount of fighters they tend to have) but as we haven't heard about any games yet I can't confirm this.
 
Nomad said:
Actually, couldn't the Vree just use SM to get all their ships in a nice, small circle

...With hilarious consequences when the first of those little hull 4 scouts blows up, to either fighter or warship fire. Putting fragile ships in a tight formation might be considered...questionable.

Well, if we are assuming 18 flights to completely surround a ship, and you can't actually surround the ship do to a circle formation only, say, 2/3 of them (just an arbitrary number chosen for no particular reason). This leaves 12 flights left. Half loose to stealth (affective hull 4 with the -1 to stealth from distance) so we have six. With the hull three patrol level ship, you loose another third of your fire so you have four ships shooting clearly (assuming no AP). Admittedly that is more than enough to destroy it for a lot of fighters. But when it blows (IF it blows) that's a measily 5 attack die to his friends. This shouldn't hurt them too terribly much (especially if you aren't only using the patrol level scout) while it is fairly likely to remove all the fighters in the area. Any that are left would most likely be eaten by the remaining Vree.

I just don't think it's going to turn into a giant set of dominos without some freak rolls.

Alternatively, you could form a ring. This should minimize the number of fighters that can be fire as well as the number of ships that are affected by an explosion.

*edited because I start with the word "actually" far too often*
 
I concur with Celisasu.

Im a Narn, ill love these changes. shortcharge on the approach, and then Frazis can actually take out the interceptors so that ship-breakers can actually fire first, without me having to be within secondary weaponry range (not too big a problem, but there is this 2" difference, which the enemy will use....)


And agreed on the dogfighter issue, before this change i only took dogfighters, being the last guy with fighters meant, that you could actually use em. Now i may revert back, simply because i have E-mines.

My Centauri force will remain with the dogfighters, but only because Sentris have crap firepower.......



Everything considered, i dont know if fighters got overpowered. But certainly they got a huge boost. And i still dont think Carriers are worth it. Simply because you can still get more fighters buy just buying individual fighter wings.......Only the Morshin is an exception, but i consider that one broken.....Cause it gets more fighters than buy buying individual fighters, and you get a ship on top, unlike other carriers.
 
If Emines are one-turn loading (which they are), I doubt the shortcharge will exist. You just have shipbreakers, that's it.
 
One turn loading E-mines ?? Where?

Plus unless the shortcharge is killed off, it still exists. Its the Narns way of getting two types of ammo on a G'Quan.......
 
there was a comment on advance emines that are not slow loading. This has not been confirmed or explain completely to my knowledge. I was understanding that the new ships got the advanced lanchers only.

Ripple
 
Ahhh ok.

Yer well new ships is nice and cool, but that still leaves me with 5 ships without fastloading ones. Plus I kinda like having both ship breakers and short-charge ^^.

Otherwise back to fighters please.


(Still laughing maniacally about the new fighter rules.)
 
Nomad said:
The main loosers are Hull 4 ships which can now be eliminated by fighters with impunity. Mutual-defence formations with my Hermes and Olympus class ships are now irrelevant, and interceptors on all other ships can be overloaded by an attacker at will.

I still content that the change in firing sequence does little to affect fighter swarms. Anti-fighter weapons generally have low numbers of attack dice and are often weak. If a Hermes is surrounded by 18 Frazis for example, it is going to kill 5 on average. That still leaves 13 to attack.

Fighter swarms are slightly more effective, but not drasticly so.


Convoy scenarios will be dominated by fighters now - the attacker does not need to take any ships, and there is precious little point in convoy escorts shooting down fighters after they have destroyed the freighters.

As opposed to previously when ships fire first - if a battlewagon destroyed a freighter, there was no point in shooting at that.

Greg, I'm very disturbed by your statement that you had not realised that fighter attacks can now overwhelm interceptors before ship's heavy weapons shoot - was this not noticed in playtesting? Clearly an unintended result, and a rather major one.

If fighters fire first they are subjest to interceptor fire, thereby making fighters slightly weaker but actually helping the rest of the fleet. However if fighters fire last, they have loads of AD to get through depleted interceptors and potentially cause lots of criticals because of the plentiful AD. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

And playtesters aren't perfect - we don't spot every potential problem the designer creates.

Yes, this change makes fighters more lethal and brings them back into the game. But it does so in a crude and inelegant fashion, in a way which will be open to abuse and exploitation, and I fear will unbalance the game in new and unintentional ways.

To be honest, I wish it'd been left as it was.

I disagree. If a swarm of fighters is abuse and exploitation, then it is as likely now as it was before.
 
Ripple said:
- dogfighter are now useful - well guess it was just my group but we have always found fighters with high dogfight the ones to take.

I can't disagree with that - doghfighters have always been the ones to take. Or a least a mix. Fighters are, and have always, been the best anti-fighter defence.





We're seeing comments from playtesters here who did not try the sixteen flights vs a single ship, did not consider fighter vs interceptor, stated that fighters average 2 ad when most races have higher AD options as a standard fighter. This is not a playtest that tried to break the rule, as it was broken before, it was one that asked 'is this a problem in the games your already playing'.

Actually, I have used large quantities of fighters in games (see my battle report in S&P 31). I don't find them hugely effective.

One of the reasons that fighters were weakened in SFoS was because of fighter swarms. Then players complained that fighters were too weak

Hull 4 and Hull 5 ships with interceptors now have another huge bane. Sixteen T-bolts (not uncommon in Earth fleets now) generate 64 dice, that is 26 hits against a hull 5 ship with interceptors. Say three intercpetors will stop five to eight of those. So 18 hits, nice neat number for a d6 system. Three bulkheads, twelve hits, three crits. What is the likely hood I just did something bad to a Sulust? How about a Xill with no interceptors? That is four bulkheads, eighteen hits , four criticals. Twenty two damage plus the crits damage of say two each. The ship just died. From a fighter complament that is already in play, no pls spent. A ship renowned for its anti-fighter properties.

Firstly the EA fighters are a balancing factor in EA ships - compare the Omega with the Primus (the primus has better weapons, is faster and can take more damage but the Omega has more and better fighters). Secondly you shouldn't be able to get 16 fighters around a Xill, since it is on a large base.

I will agree however that the new firing sequence is detrimental to the Vree.

This is a huge swing in firepower, not a little adjustment. Will it break the game, I do not know, but I do not believe the non-chalance of the playtesters is justified given their comments and the history of the game.

Ripple

It is not as big a swing in firepower towards fighters as SFoS and the revised edition was a swing away from fighters. The game wasn't broken then.

Are we nonchalant? I guess I am since I remain calm and continue to post rationally without losing my temper. I am simply defending a change in the game which I have tested out (maybe not to excess) and found to work.
 
Voronesh said:
Everything considered, i dont know if fighters got overpowered. But certainly they got a huge boost. And i still dont think Carriers are worth it. Simply because you can still get more fighters buy just buying individual fighter wings.......Only the Morshin is an exception, but i consider that one broken.....Cause it gets more fighters than buy buying individual fighters, and you get a ship on top, unlike other carriers.

The problem does not lie with the Morshin carrier, but the value of a Nial flight. Its why most Minbari players will take Skirmish or Raid choices to a Patrol level fight. The Morshin is not a particularly powerful ship as an empty hull, certainly no different to an Avenger without it's flights of 'furies.

As to carriers those with the fleet carrier trait will definitely be more valuable, +1 dogfight, and replenish and repair. Carriers also often come with command bonuses. So you may be able to move your fighters before your opponent and engage in the dogfights on your terms. Who knows, the Balvarin might even be Carrier 2 in Armageddon.

And the 18 flights (about 6 Patrol points worth on average, or 18 of Nials/Sky Serpents) of fighters around a ship, besides being able to fire before the ship, is it really any difference in firepower to that of a squadron of 6 Havens[1], or a squadron of 2 Tigara's, with the initiative?

Like I have said before, if you allow your opponent to get 18 flights around a single ship unopposed, you are doing something wrong, and if they want to waste that much firepower on a Patrol or Skirmish choice, then I can happily sacrifice 2 or 3 of them to get the enemy fighters out of the way.

[1] I can't actually remember if you can actually squadron 6 ships up.
 
I mean the Morshin is broken, because it gets more fighters than you could get via just buying fighters.

Its like saying: call now and you get 2 extra flights and this nice carrier on top.

Why does not get the Avenger 24 Thunderbolts? Cause that would be the same extra that the Morshin gets.......
(oh yeah i know, its the problem that you only get a single Nial per patrol point, but i cannot understand MGP, as to why they didnt release a FAQ on certain stuff ages ago, like the Varnics ion torps......)

Actually you can only sqadron 3. And Dilgar up to 6. (But i might be totally wrong, as i dont have my book with me).
 
Back
Top