Giving Fighters Teeth

[demonllamma]

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

The mongoose fighter bases are perhaps the easiest thing to have a counter on. A small whatever in the middle of the base would be really easy to keep track of. Even with Wulf's 50+ fighters this is not a lot of "record keeping." That was the whole reason I advocated one extra hit in the first place, was to keep it simple, without having to change any rules. The issue is not the power of the fighters, the ones that are designed to go after ships have plenty of firepower, the issue is thier survivability. this will prevent a single AF weapon from decimating an entire carrier full of fighters. Realistically you would have to put 4+ hits into a fighter in order for it to be.

On the other hand (I just thought of this while typing) why not just halve all AD when shooting at fighters? It would do the same thing but without any changes to the rules.

 

[lastbesthope]

On the other hand (I just thought of this while typing) why not just halve all AD when shooting at fighters? It would do the same thing but without any changes to the rules.

Too complicated IMHO.

LBH

 

[Wolfgod]

If I might post a simple thought:

Allow big carriers and command ships - or perhaps any ship with that carries fighters - to coordinate all fighter activity (or by wings or some such if you wish the added complication). Only one ship may be designated for this function in a given battle, though if it is destroyed the function may be handed off to another vessel.

This fighter command ship can undertake special actions upon the part of all fighters it coordinates. These special actions could add Precise to fighter weapons against a single target, as the command ship coordinates the fighter swarm. Alternately another special action could give the fighters a bonus to dogfighting. (Yes, this would likely replace the current, cumbersome fleet carrier rules). A third would allow either a 'last chance' save versus non-dogfighting kills; or perhaps a roll to recover the remains of the flight and redeploy them. Perhaps a fourth would allow all fighters a bonus versus stealth, or something along those lines.

I should also like a pre-battle CQ check on the part of the fighter control ship to see if early detection has allowed me to launch all/some/at least a few more fighters before the battle begins.

This would give Carriers (espescially the big fleet carriers) a true role in the battle line; coordinating the mass of fighters operating around the fleet, trying to keep them alive through AF or E-Mine fire, and striking at a particularly dangerous opponent. It would give real importance to an Elite Carrier. The enemy command carrier would become a major target in the enemy fleet and so forth.

It think this would be simpler than changing stats, as it would likely not require a complete overhaul of entire fleets or reprints of books.

 

[Obsidian]

Your idea on improving things has merit wolfgod and unfortunately I think a lot of the current problems stem from an attempt to make carriers more worthwhile. Long ago, a recurring question was "Why would I take a Poseidon when I can take 4 Novas and get the same number of fighters and a heck of a lot more firepower?". People were kind of wondering if they had missed something in the rules somewhere.

Carriers now do a lot more than they did then. Command bonuses and the Fleet Carrier rules have gone a long way towards making them a more viable selection, but the price for this was the neutering of their main weapons system. Fighters. I could go for an updating of the Fleet Carrier rules such that they allow special things to happen for fighters. Stuff like what we see on the Scout where they can direct fighters in specific ways. Make a CQ check against a single enemy ship and all fighters gain precise. Make an opossed CQ check and all weapons on the targetted ship lose Anti-Fighter for the turn. Could maybe throw in a few others but those would be the big ones.

 

[Silvereye]

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

The multiple hits per flight was someone elses idea, it just makes more sense that dogfights would be a more efficient way of removing fighters.

The arbitary +1 is kind of like the generic +1 to hit large targets you see in a lot of other wargames. More to represent the fact that a fighter can line his target up over a crosshair painted on the cockpit and score a reasonable amount of hits. It also means that fighter weapons retain their weak/AP/Super-AP traits and are only improvd against the capital ships.

As Wolf says, Twin-Linking everything in sight is likely to detract from the fighters that are already Twin-Linked. What will they get to distinguish them over the rest? Make them Precise and the Precise fighters then suffer and you are onto the re-write of all the fighter rules.

Nice ideas with tweaking the fleet carrier aspect of fighters, especially the early detection bit, though it must be noted that not every race has a fleet carrier so care must be taken not to swing things too far. I like Obsidians touches with the Scout like ability, but again you will go back to the Poseidon/Avenger argument for the EA without some care, linking to a number of uses each turn equal to the command trait would get around this, but might make them a bit too powerful.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

As Wolf says,

Wulf.

An old thought re-emerges in my head (they occasionally do, like in cess pits). 'Dead' flights might be recovered in campaign games in the same manner as Fleet Carrier recovery, but not available until the next campaign turn (and only to whichever side held the battlefield).

It's not much help to Tournament players, but... why should I care, I'm not one of them :lol:

Wulf

 

[Obsidian]

I like Obsidians touches with the Scout like ability, but again you will go back to the Poseidon/Avenger argument for the EA without some care, linking to a number of uses each turn equal to the command trait would get around this, but might make them a bit too powerful.

Thanks, and I like the suggesstion on having these related to the command trait. A Poseidon would allow you to specify 3 targets (Command 3) while an Avenger would only allow you to specify 1 target (Command 1). So even if you took 2 Avengers instead of 1 Poseidon you wouldn't be gaining an advantage for having multiple lower PL ships.

 

[Silvereye]

Wulf

D'oh!

Apologies.

 

[Silvereye]

Thanks, and I like the suggesstion on having these related to the command trait. A Poseidon would allow you to specify 3 targets (Command 3) while an Avenger would only allow you to specify 1 target (Command 1). So even if you took 2 Avengers instead of 1 Poseidon you wouldn't be gaining an advantage for having multiple lower PL ships.

I have been looking, and the only other fleet carriers I can find are the following:-

• Morshin (Command 1) - Minbari
  Balvarix (Command 2) - Cenrauri
  Brokados (Command 1) - Brakiri

There are a lot of carriers with command out there like the Victory Destroyer and the Space Stations, but only the 5 Fleet Carriers. So it might not be too over balanced as most are Battle level choices.

 

[Balance]

I think the idea of making Fleet Carriers more powerful (but the power is wielded via the fighters) is a good one.

 

[Wolfgod]

Drat, I rather liked Obsidian's idea.

 

[TrueCentauri]

Your idea on improving things has merit wolfgod and unfortunately I think a lot of the current problems stem from an attempt to make carriers more worthwhile. Long ago, a recurring question was "Why would I take a Poseidon when I can take 4 Novas and get the same number of fighters and a heck of a lot more firepower?". People were kind of wondering if they had missed something in the rules somewhere.

Carriers now do a lot more than they did then. Command bonuses and the Fleet Carrier rules have gone a long way towards making them a more viable selection, but the price for this was the neutering of their main weapons system. Fighters. I could go for an updating of the Fleet Carrier rules such that they allow special things to happen for fighters. Stuff like what we see on the Scout where they can direct fighters in specific ways. Make a CQ check against a single enemy ship and all fighters gain precise. Make an opossed CQ check and all weapons on the targetted ship lose Anti-Fighter for the turn. Could maybe throw in a few others but those would be the big ones.

Iwould rather give them simply more fighters, and give fighters the ability to stack so they can concentrate in one arc. Then you have a viable carrier. Every extra rule you connect to special fighter ability will only complicate matters. Especially for a newbie.

In my view the fighters on a Nova, Omega etc are meant for defense of such a ship. They are few in number and can only annoy opponents ships or defend against enemy fighters or breaching pods, and for scouting and patrol off course. A carrier is a different cookie. It should be able to destroy a similar PL class warship by carrier strike alone (and at the same time be a relatively vulnerable to attack - without its fighter complements, it wouldn't be hard for a same PL class warship to kill a carrier). Next to that, a carrier should be able to launch its full complement in two, maybe three turns or so, otherwise it isn't able to carrierstrike anything.

Making fighters 2 points instead of one is not exactly, but close to doubling fighters, especially if also the attack strength is increased. Allthough with two sided counters it can easily be done, The guys with mini-fighters can't flip their fighters.

Stacking fighters can easily be done with counters. Advantage is that it can mass attack a single arc of an enemy ship. by adding fighter bases mini's can also used. By increasing the fighterload of a carrier, only a carrier can make a true devastating attack on an enemy fleet. Balancing the number of fighters necessary doing this trick would be a much smaller change on the rules and ship rosters than creating new fighter rules.
:wink:
just my 0,02 euro

 

[Target]

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

The slower fighter has already missed it's chance buy drawing the dogfight and either losing iniative or letting the other fighters move first. Another reason to have afterburners on a starfury.
Destroying the enemy fighter is a little harsh after all they are getting a free shot at destroying the other fighter before it shoots. You could have a bonus to the intercepting fighter in the dogfight but destroying the flight with no chance of survivial i believe would way harsh. Just think of it as the wingman giving his mate enough cover to take the shot.

 

[AndyG]

As Wolf says,

Wulf.

An old thought re-emerges in my head (they occasionally do, like in cess pits). 'Dead' flights might be recovered in campaign games in the same manner as Fleet Carrier recovery, but not available until the next campaign turn (and only to whichever side held the battlefield).

Wulf

Yes I like that idea fighters are much more likley to limp off unknoticed that a ship is. Whould that be in addition to the effect of fleet carriers?

I also liked someone elses idea, to put fighters back into the normal fireing sequence instead of at the end. To balance this all weapons with the anti-fighter trait fire first in the round [at fighters only] before any other weapons.

And as Wulf says give fighter missiles back Precise.

Any

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Yes I like that idea fighters are much more likley to limp off unknoticed that a ship is. Whould that be in addition to the effect of fleet carriers?

Yup, Fleet Carriers get the fighters back there and then.

I also liked someone elses idea, to put fighters back into the normal fireing sequence instead of at the end. To balance this all weapons with the anti-fighter trait fire first in the round [at fighters only] before any other weapons.

That now gets my vote too, seems to me that would solve the problem. But I do not see any need to fire Anti-Fighter first if fighters activate by Wing - if that's the case I want my Boresights to fire first, since I declared them back in the Movement Phase! Choose your sequence and live with it, same as between ships. Not all the fighters will fire before the ships, and vice versa.

On the other hand, I'd vote for allowing Anti-Fighter fire while under CAF!

Wulf

 

[emperorpenguin]

Afterburners! I knew there was another aspect of the game which is difficult to keep track of! Given some people don't like the idea of keeping track of 20 flights of fighters with 2 hits, how do you cope with remembering which starfuries/thoruns have used afterburners? :shock:

Stacking fighters in one arc will mean limited arc AF weapons such as on the Omega will be near useless. Personally I've never liked that and prefer the Victory at Sea all arc anti-fighter fire.

 

[Chernobyl]

I wouldn't ming some fighters getting the scout ability. Think of an E-2C Hawkeye.

 

[B5freak]

emperor penguine wrote:

Stacking fighters in one arc will mean limited arc AF weapons such as on the Omega will be near useless. Personally I've never liked that and prefer the Victory at Sea all arc anti-fighter fire.

There's also the issue that letting people stack the fighter counters will effectively penalize anyone who's gone through the trouble of assembling and painting the actual fighter figs since you can't really stack those.

I like the Brakiri model for A-F, everything has pretty much the same turreted A-F weapon.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

There's also the issue that letting people stack the fighter counters will effectively penalize anyone who's gone through the trouble of assembling and painting the actual fighter figs since you can't really stack those.

'Stacking' is generaly used as a metaphor for 'Lining up all the minis so they are all in the same arc behind one another' rather than actually piling them up.

And you CAN pile up the minis...

Wulf

 

[frobisher]

And you CAN pile up the minis...

The hexagonal fighter stands are very good for that (used to do this the whole time with B5 Wars when we were using minis...).