Fighters

What is your Preference

  • Option 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Option 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Option 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Option 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Option 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Option 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other - Exlpain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Morpheus1975

Mongoose
Vote for your preference

Option 1
No Changes

Option 2 - Fighter get more Hits + Just as easy to kill
Fighters get 2x hits and have Twin-Linked
Those with Twin-Linked get AP or maybe an additional AD
Fighters in contact with ships ignore stealth.

Option 3 - More crits + harder to kill
Fighters W/o Precise get precise
Fighters w/ precise get AP
Fighters fighters with precise and AP get SAP
AF gives -2 to dodge rolls
Fighters in contact with ships ignore stealth.

Option 4 - More hits + harder to kill
Fighters get Twin-linked
AF give -2 to dodge rolls
Fighters in contact with ships ignore stealth.

Option 5 - more damage + harder to kill
Fighters get +1 AD
AF gives -2 to dodge
Fighters in contact with ships ignore stealth.

Option 6 - more but weak crits + harder to kill
Fighters W/o Precise get precise
Fighters w/ precise get AP
Fighters fighters with precise and AP get SAP
AF gives -2 to dodge rolls
Fighters in contact with ships ignore stealth.
Fighters get -2 on all the critical rolls

If I missed a major one let me know and I'll add it to the poll.

All options may include some modification to the deployment rules and/or firing order rules IMO.
 

linus

Mongoose
I would be happy if they left everything the way it is now, but just moved it so that you can pick when the fighters attack, instead of at the end...
 

Achiles

Mongoose
I would have voted for 6 but I think it adds to much. You give them precise and then they get something to counteract it? When it comes to making rulesets I have always been a big fan of KISS. Simply adding 1 AD helps them a good bit. Plus changing AF is good. However I really think they still need more protection. In my games I regularly wipe out fighters with my secondary weapons. In one game I was playing against shadows. He used his fighter dispersal tube to drop 4 flights of fighters in the rear arc of my G'Quan. I split my fire evenly and killed them all. The same thing happens over and over again in our games. The fighters get in secondary weapons range and, dead. Maybe not as dramatically but they don't last long and rarely achieve much while they are around.

I would like to change the fighter damage chart to a 1-2 is nothing and 3-6 is a kill. Even 1 getting through will probably kill the flight but this will protect it from mass fire from secondary weapons. The change could represent the natural disperal of a flight. Like a poster said in another thread even if you fire the Victory's lightning cannon at a flight it is really powerful but will still probably only catch part of the flight.

Maybe their could be an option 7 that adds that but doesn't increase their firepower. One that concentrates soley on making them more survivable to make them more useful.
 

H

Mongoose
to be honest, i'd just like the rules to stay consistent for more than 2 minutes without new stuff coming along. I'm all for moving the system forward, but I stopped playing Games workshop stuff due to constant revisions, and articles in white dwarf changing everything.
for an alternative. I don't care cos I am Narn, and I don't worry about fighters!
 

Morgoth

Mongoose
I voted to keep them the same, the only thing I would say it that it would be better if they got a chance to fire during normal weapons fire instead of at the end, this way they would have a better survival rate and achieve more.
 

E Nicely

Mongoose
Maybe keeping fighters mostly the way they are now. Change for change's sake isn't good. Maybe a manuver requiring a CQ check that adds Precise and SAP for individual attacks.
 

Obsidian

Mongoose
I voted other. I've enumerated my points before and won't bore people by re-iterating it here. Something needs to be done, but these proposed solutions are just too darn complicated.
 

demonllamma

Mongoose
I think that simply treating them as a ship with 2 damage points would work fairly well. Roll for damage as normal, a 6 destroys the flight and AF weapons roll the same as energy mines, with a -1 to damage rolls. Fighters do not need more punch. They really need to be kept largely as they are. Actually have a flight of Tbolts go up against a patrol level ship and just let them shoot. See how much damage is done. On an average spread, 7 hits which translates into 5 damage + 1 critical. Many of the patrol level ships would be severely damaged, and most of the time that would cripple and/or skeleton crew them with a fairly unremarkable crit roll.

I would also not be opposed to placing them in the initiative order for shooting, or even having them go before shooting for the big ships. The whole reason that they get to go last during movement is that they are more manuverable, why not have the same premise for shooting?
 
Morgoth said:
...keep them the same...it would be better if they got a chance to fire during normal weapons fire instead of at the end...
This is the way to go to increase their effectiveness w/o making them too powerful/complex.
 

Obsidian

Mongoose
I would also not be opposed to placing them in the initiative order for shooting, or even having them go before shooting for the big ships. The whole reason that they get to go last during movement is that they are more manuverable, why not have the same premise for shooting?

Having all fighters shoot before the big ships is what got us into this mess in the first place. In case you haven't seen it in the other threads, here's what happenned with the most extreme example, the ISA. 5 War points = 180 Thunderbolt flights. All of which would be nominated and fire at the exact same time in the attack phase. Typically at the start as either the first action if the ISA player won initiative or after the other player fired one of his own ships. We're talking about rolling 360 AD of AP, Precise weapons and 540 AD of Precise weapons in one go. It was a freaking bloodbath for the oppossing team.

Had they been reduced to firing in squadrons interspersed with the ships it would still be scary, but not mind numbingly so. You'd at least feel like you had a chance to defend yourself.
 

Morpheus1975

Mongoose
As noted every version should include a revision on when fighter should fire and possibly deployment but I think that is for another thread, HINT...HINT.. This thread is only concerned with changing the way fighters work. Many think they are too weak and others say they are too easily killed.


As for #6 I know its a little hard to understand.

Why add precise and then weaken it?

Giving precise is way too much because of the possibility of rolling any 5 or 6 crit make any fighter too powerful. If the crit roll has a -2 that means that fighters now can do decent damage because they will get more crits but those crits are not life threatening all by their own.

The rest is pretty self explanatory.

As for changing this AGAIN after SFOS from tournament lists talk it seems to me that this may happen whether we want it to or not.
I'm one of those that only bought SFOS because I found one for $12 on ebay. Otherwise I would have not bought it. I did but EA and Dilgar as well as Supplements 1-3 though.

IF fighters are going to change then I feel that this is the way to go.

My 2 cents
 

E-Mines Hurt

Mongoose
Obsidian said:
I would also not be opposed to placing them in the initiative order for shooting, or even having them go before shooting for the big ships. The whole reason that they get to go last during movement is that they are more manuverable, why not have the same premise for shooting?

Having all fighters shoot before the big ships is what got us into this mess in the first place. In case you haven't seen it in the other threads, here's what happenned with the most extreme example, the ISA. 5 War points = 180 Thunderbolt flights. All of which would be nominated and fire at the exact same time in the attack phase. Typically at the start as either the first action if the ISA player won initiative or after the other player fired one of his own ships. We're talking about rolling 360 AD of AP, Precise weapons and 540 AD of Precise weapons in one go. It was a freaking bloodbath for the oppossing team.

Had they been reduced to firing in squadrons interspersed with the ships it would still be scary, but not mind numbingly so. You'd at least feel like you had a chance to defend yourself.


eh... 3 TBs per patrol, 6 patrol per war, 5 WP = 3*6*5=90 flights... right??
 

Obsidian

Mongoose
eh... 3 TBs per patrol, 6 patrol per war, 5 WP = 3*6*5=90 flights... right??

Your math is correct for the current set of rules. Prior to SFoS however, the ISA got 6 flights per wing. So it was 6 TBs per patrol, 6 patrol per war, 5 WP = 6*6*5 = 180 flights. And as I said before. They all got to fire before the oppossing sides capital ships.
 

Silvereye

Mongoose
Number 7 please. A simple tweak or two, not the mind breaking, massive re-writing the rules the other options seem to impose. If simple tweaks are not available, I would like to keep the status quo.
 

E-Mines Hurt

Mongoose
I think we should actually measure what effect we have here.. now fighter versus fighter works fine. But to see how good/bad fighters are we should do some statistical analysis.

All the analysis is based on shoting against a 6 hull rated target and the fighters survivability is based on being shot at by vanilla AD. What I am going to do is compare how much damage assuming no crits or bulkheads each patrol level of fighters can do and how many vanilla AD are needed to completely destroy the flight. I'll use the best Patrol (in terms of forward firepower) per race (or halved values of best skirmish) and compare it to the best anti ship fighters per race.

S for Survivability, in terms of how many vanilla AD are needed to kill. F for damage done, with no effect from crits. (ignoring precise)

Earth Alliance

Thunderbolt
S 54
F 3

Tethys
S 16
F 1 1/3

For EA 3 Thunderbolts easilly out firepower and out armour the tethys.


Centauri Republic

Sentri
S 36
F 1 1/2

Haven
S 24
F 2 1/3

Corvan
S 48
F 1 1/3

Pretty balanced, more survivability less firepower and vice versa.


Narn Regime

Frazi
S 18
F 2

Sho'Kos
S 36
F 1 1/3

Pretty balanced, but crappier ships than the Centauri.


Minbari Regime

Flyer
S 18
F 2

1/2 Torontha
S 32
F 1

Balanced, but crappier even than the Narn


ISA/Shadows/Vorlons

silly to compare, will skip... :(


Raiders

Double V
S 24
F 8

Delta V
S 54
F 2

Mod Freighter
S 36
F 5/6

OMFG!!! Those Double Vs (provided they can convince nobody to shoot at them) are evil in damage and the Delta Vs are evil in survivability. Maybe I should be the raiders next time...


Vree

Tzymm
S 18
F 1 2/3

Xarr
S 24
F 2 2/3

Pretty crappy fighters, pretty good patrol ships. Other patrol level ships trade firepower for more survivability.


Drazi

Sky Serpent
S 12
F 5 2/3

Star Snake
S 60
F 1 2/3

Sunhawk
S 28
F 2 1/3

Like the raiders, but tending towards the norm.


Abbai

Kotha
S 13
F 1

Ticara
S 38
F 2

Their weakness is super crappy fighters, so not unexpected.


Brakiri

Falkosi
S 36
F 1 1/3

1/2 Ikorta
S 33
F 1 1/3

Very very well balanced




Conclusion: in 6 out of 9 races one of the fighers have equal or more firepower than a patrol level ship. In 5 out of 9 one of the fighers have equal or more survivability than one of the patrols. They are very well balanced. The "weak fighter" races (Abbai, Vree) have crap fighters and good patrol ships. The "strong fighter" race (EA, ISA) have very very good fighters and crap (or none) patrol ships. The rest of the races have either well balanced (brakiri) or a trade off of survivability for firepower (centauri, narn, drazi and raiders)

For the purposes of this analysis I have ignored range and fighter initiative and SM, as well as AF, Weak (allways hits hull 6 anyway) and Precise since those traits seem well distrubuted across all ships. I have of course included dodge, stealth and hull in survivability and AP, SAP, Twin Linked, 2D and 3D in attack dice.

AF and EMine weapons are of course more effective against fighter and Beam and Precise weapons more effective against patrol ships. So they have been discounted as well.

Fighters seem well balanced. A swarm of fighters should not be able to take down a Battle level ship fast, just as two patrol ships should not be able to do the same thing. I know I suggested adding Precise to all fighters. I think that is not nessisary. Based on this analysis I suggest no change. I suggest more aggressive use of fighters followed by shrugs when they blow up.
 
Top