Giving Fighters Teeth

[Morpheus1975]

If so I understand what he's saying but simply change the stats in the new fleet lists and the rest is easy.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

If so I understand what he's saying but simply change the stats in the new fleet lists and the rest is easy.

Roughly translated,

Issue new playtest documents
Go through a process of rebalance
Print up a new book including new misprints
Supply to wholesalers, after persuading them to dump existing stock of SFoS
Suffer dogs' abuse from people pissed off by being expected to buy one new edition after another
Wait 2.25 hours for the first complaint about how they could be done better
Issue a new set of eratta.

Wulf

 

[Morpheus1975]

If so I understand what he's saying but simply change the stats in the new fleet lists and the rest is easy.

Roughly translated,

Issue new playtest documents
Go through a process of rebalance
Print up a new book including new misprints
Supply to wholesalers, after persuading them to dump existing stock of SFoS
Suffer dogs' abuse from people pissed off by being expected to buy one new edition after another
Wait 2.25 hours for the first complaint about how they could be done better
Issue a new set of eratta.

Wulf

Since word is the fleet list may be altered again I don't see this as a big deal.

 

[Obsidian]

I think he's talking more about the first and third options on your list, which would involve re-writing virtually every fighter stat block.

This was exactly what I was talking about without explictly mentioning all the steps that Wulf laid out on this process. The other thing is that all these changes don't address the root cause of the issue. The real problems are the deployment and firing order rules.

Having all your fighters stuck in their hangars is just flat out annoying. More and more I find myself with unlaunched fighters becasue my ships are too busy doing things like CAF! to bother with launching fighters. For a ship like an Omega, it would take 2 - 3 rounds of launching fighters before they were all out of the hangars. Have you ever looked at a battlefield come turns 2 and 3? ships are practically on top of each other and any fighters launching into the middle of that mess will find themselves picked off real quick. If they could be deployed before the start of hostilities then they would become immensely more valuable.

With the firing orders, having all fighters on the board fire first makes them incredibely overpowered. Even in their currently neutered state. Having them all fire last makes them incredibley weak, even if you were to go back to the pre-SFoS stats. This is why I say you should go all the way back to when you could nominate a flight/squadron of Auxiliary craft just like you would a ship. Sometimes you'll be able to pounce on a ship and rip it apart and sometimes the ship will get to fire before the fighters and decimate the squadron. It'll all vary depending on the tactical situation at the time.

 

[Morpheus1975]

oK then let's try this

Add 1 AD to fighters.

Change AF to be a -2 to fighter dodge rolls.

Fighters ignore Stealth if in contact with ship or fighter.



Optional Rules

A. Unless the mission is a surprise attack half or all fighters may start in play as the defender is already aware that the enemy is near. The specific scenario determines if it is all the fighters or half. Defender may elect to have fighters stay in bay. The attacker always begins with all fighters deployed IF he so chooses.

B. This is ONLY if you do not give fighters +1 AD.
Give fighters precise BUT also give all fighters a -2 on the crit roll. This means that ships will get crits more often from fighters but nothing killer!

This represents the fact that fighters are excellent at blowing away outer visible targets on a ship but do not have the penetration of heavy weapons for a ship killing crit.

Fighters with precise get AP and those with AP get SAP.

Fighter missiles are unaffected.

 

[TrueCentauri]

I can live with the suggested AD+1 and the AF -2 to dodge

( in the show Sinclair still has to use all his fighters to kill the raiders, and the stations weapons play a role, but not enough. In severed dreams Ivanova's crew can make several passes alongside an Omega destroyer, without being completely wiped away)

Clearly, the fighters are too vulnerable. However I do not agree with giving fighters precise. Allthough the show depicts fighters doing nearby shootby all the time, even present military wouldn't use fighters like that. So realistically, fighters would fire on ships from as far away as possible. Being small and somewhat limited in sensory equipment, I don't see them close in accurately on vulnerable parts of the ship.

If we take the B5 universe reality of close fighter /ship combat, I don't feel any fighter pilot will have the time to lock and fire accurately on vulnerable parts of the ship while dodging the deadly AF-fire.

Concerning deploying fighters before an attack, this will diminish the carrier trait to nil. What use is it to take a carrier 4 when I can already deploy my fighters before the battle? Better take some guns instead.

If going down that path, give carriers much, much more fighters (say 3 times now), and a carrier rating of 10 or so. Make them far more interesting than now. And dump the fleet carrier trait.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Clearly, the fighters are too vulnerable. However I do not agree with giving fighters precise. Allthough the show depicts fighters doing nearby shootby all the time, even present military wouldn't use fighters like that. So realistically, fighters would fire on ships from as far away as possible.

Personally I find that an utterly unconvincing argument. Realistically, every last little bit of the whole game is utter nonesense, so why off Earth should this one tiny detail be realistic? It's never MEANT to be realistic, it's meant to be a simulation of a fiction, the point is to closely recreate the look, feel, and outcome of space combat in the Babylon 5 TV series. And on that series fighters DID get that close, there's no doubt of that, therefore so should this game.

On the other hand, I don't believe fighters should get Precise for entirely different reasons. Because, on the series, the times when we do see fighters achieve critical hits are few and far between compared to the ammount of firing going on. Sure, we see lots of explosions, of course we do, because explosons are cinematic, they are dramatic, and they are visual. So every one gets screen time, while the thousands of very ordinary strikes do not. Loads of fire being poured out, a few seconds of actual, but colourful, results.

People have compained that fighters are of little use against ships in SFoS. So what? That's what we see on the series the vast majority of the time, so that's what it SHOULD be like in the game. Fighters fight fighters. Why should anyone bother with fighters when they can't kill ships? Simple, because they did on the TV series. If you're looking for anything more realistic, try Air War, you should be able to find a copy on eBay.

Wulf

 

[Silvereye]

I would actually stay away from giving all fighters back precise, but give them +1 on their to hit rolls when firing on ships (the barn door effect). This means that the fighters fire will actually be more likely to hit the target, rather than the weapon system being more potent. Remember Precise also nulifies bulkhead hits, and can utterly cabbage ancients (and damage space stations) with the '7' roll.

I also heartily agree with the 'Point Blank' approach of being in base to base contact ignoring Stealth and Dodge, as it would if in a dogfight.

If you are using the 2 hits, I would also go for a halfing (or doubling if negative) of AD and dogfight to represent the reduced ability of the flight. Also the 2 hits make fleet carriers repair and replenish slightly more useful as the damaged flight can attempt to make its own way back. If you do go for the two hits approach, retain the dogfights loosing flight destroyed, as a fighter intercept would still be the most efficient way of killing fighters (after energy mines).

 

[emperorpenguin]

good idea on the hits Silvereye, it's the instant death of 6 fighters which bothers me the most about fighters.
However rather than +1 to hit I favour twin-linking, no need to add in a +1 from out of nowhere

 

[Target]

Maybe fighters could get more range so they can overload 1 arc more easy and bring more firepower.
Maybe we could get different Crit charts eg Fighters and E-mines get one, Normalish weapons have one and Heavy Weapons have one.
Might bring to much paperwork to the game though and be a bit like rolemaster with its million crit charts except least we could fit it on one page.
Maybe Organic shios can get one as well to get rid of the extra d6 roll on them. We halved their hits and did normal damage to them. Worked a lot better but they still lost. Least they stood a better chance.

On dogfights I think next round the fighters should be able to move away unless they get put into the dogfight again otherwise they become just static when the faster fighter should be able to disenage. They also should be able to shoot at ships if give away the chance to destroy the enemy fighter in the dogfight roll. It would be like the are evading the intercepting fighters so the can get a shot off.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

However rather than +1 to hit I favour twin-linking, no need to add in a +1 from out of nowhere

But there are already fighters with Twin-Linked weapons, this would reduce the variety and speciality of some designs.

Wulf

 

[Wulf Corbett]

On dogfights I think next round the fighters should be able to move away unless they get put into the dogfight again otherwise they become just static when the faster fighter should be able to disenage.

But in that case the slower fighter should get one unopposed shot at the fleeing coward... erm... escaping fighter.

They also should be able to shoot at ships if give away the chance to destroy the enemy fighter in the dogfight roll. It would be like the are evading the intercepting fighters so the can get a shot off.

In which case they should automatically lose the dogfight immediately afterwards. Ignore your enemy, you deserve to die. NOT just lose the chance to win, even that assumes evasive maneouvres and positional advantage you will not have if lining up another target.

Wulf

 

[emperorpenguin]

However rather than +1 to hit I favour twin-linking, no need to add in a +1 from out of nowhere

But there are already fighters with Twin-Linked weapons, this would reduce the variety and speciality of some designs.

Wulf

There's only the Starfury, Tzymm, Sky Serpent, Double V and Thorun :?
OK that's more than I thought when I started typing!

However I remember talking to Matt after "Into the Fire" and he was explaining to me why the Starfury was getting twin-linked, he said "because a starfury is twin-linked!".
Fair enough but if you look at the following, Nials, Tishats, Sentris, Raziks, Rutarians, Frazis, Goriths, Delta Vs (unsure about the league fighters) they are all twin-linked too. It would help with fighter accuracy and an adjustment of AD will sort out any problems.

 

[Balance]

I watched a couple of episodes last night (Ship of Tears being the most relevant) and I have to admit the idea of giving fighters two 'hits' seems attractive. I think it makes them a bit more likely to get at least one attack run on a target, and is easily denoted (Small beads on/behind the base, or flipped markers, etc.) so it's not too confusing.

Note that with this system, a fighter only takes one hit at a time. If you want to kill fighters quickly, it'll take at least two weapon systems firing at them. If you fired a Victory's lightning gun at a flight of fighters, it's going to make a couple of fighters Very, Very dead, but even a weapon like that is unlikely to get the entire flight.

Possible exceptions for the 'one hit' rule could be Anti-fighter weapons (but that makes this idea nearly useless) or dogfighting (which encourages fighter vs. fighter disputes, and allows quicker removal of fighters)

In fact, I think I'd first test with no changes to the fighter's abilities (for simplicity) when on the second hit. It's a simplification, but it means that fighters can't easily be ignored. Perhaps a simple (-1 or -2) dogfight modifier when weakened to encourage fighters in defensive positions.

 

[Morpheus1975]

I watched a couple of episodes last night (Ship of Tears being the most relevant) and I have to admit the idea of giving fighters two 'hits' seems attractive. I think it makes them a bit more likely to get at least one attack run on a target, and is easily denoted (Small beads on/behind the base, or flipped markers, etc.) so it's not too confusing.

Note that with this system, a fighter only takes one hit at a time. If you want to kill fighters quickly, it'll take at least two weapon systems firing at them. If you fired a Victory's lightning gun at a flight of fighters, it's going to make a couple of fighters Very, Very dead, but even a weapon like that is unlikely to get the entire flight.

Possible exceptions for the 'one hit' rule could be Anti-fighter weapons (but that makes this idea nearly useless) or dogfighting (which encourages fighter vs. fighter disputes, and allows quicker removal of fighters)

In fact, I think I'd first test with no changes to the fighter's abilities (for simplicity) when on the second hit. It's a simplification, but it means that fighters can't easily be ignored. Perhaps a simple (-1 or -2) dogfight modifier when weakened to encourage fighters in defensive positions.

Good idea but having 2 hits makes tracking what fighters are crippled or not necessary. Its a lot of work and im my opinion not worth it.

Better to adjust AF weapons and fighters specials or AD.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Its a lot of work and im my opinion not worth it. .

what? one small counter/dice/marker on a base or flipped counter is too much work!?

Keeping track of slow-loading, which turns criticals were applied in, which ships are targeting which etc is hard work! in comparison that idea is a piece of cake!

 

[Morpheus1975]

When you have 20+ fighter bases in play so you have 10 counters or dice on the board above and beyond all the ships then YES its a little much.

Slow loading is rare and easy to remeber. Unless you have very large fleets its not a issue.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

When you have 20+ fighter bases in play so you have 10 counters or dice on the board above and beyond all the ships then YES its a little much.

Lightweight... 50+ for EA...

Wulf

 

[emperorpenguin]

When you have 20+ fighter bases in play so you have 10 counters or dice on the board above and beyond all the ships then YES its a little much.

Slow loading is rare and easy to remeber. Unless you have very large fleets its not a issue.

not when you have slow-loading weapons in different arcs firing in different turns...

my point is allowing fighters to be hit twice isn't any more complex than already existing rules. many fighters when hit will be hit 2 or 3 or even more times as an opponent will roll many dice in order to beat their dodge score, so the entire flight might get removed anyway

 

[texican]

If so I understand what he's saying but simply change the stats in the new fleet lists and the rest is easy.

Roughly translated,

Issue new playtest documents
Go through a process of rebalance
Print up a new book including new misprints
Supply to wholesalers, after persuading them to dump existing stock of SFoS
Suffer dogs' abuse from people pissed off by being expected to buy one new edition after another
Wait 2.25 hours for the first complaint about how they could be done better
Issue a new set of eratta.

Wulf

Since word is the fleet list may be altered again I don't see this as a big deal.

I think that you are looking at this in the wrong light. As a gamer of over 40 years Mongoose is a bright light in a vary dark universe of uncaring and huge corporations. You at Mongoose are willing to acknowledge that your product is not perfect and are willing to listen to us the customers for recommendations on how you could improve things. Rather than think that we the customers expect a perfect product understand that if we had a single source to find what has been updated and improved we would be quite happy. So, if you would keep the stores and customers that you are interested in provide the best product possible and will continue to provide the changes on your web site until the next edition comes out we would be quite happy. Too many time you have products released by companies that are broke and after they have your money they really do not care about your opinion. It is impressive to see a compnay do something different. So thank you very much.