Interceptors (the dead horse topic)

[l33tpenguin]

The problem you're talking about is a meta-game tactic; the turn sequence is the cause of it. Because you have to use weapon systems one at a time, you can use the light guns to use up the target's interceptors or shields before hitting them with your heavy guns, when the "fluff" is that everything happens simultaneously, that's why you have to declare all firing before rolling anything - if you kill a ship with half your guns, the other half are also considered to fire at it, just wasting themselves in the dying ship.

Allowing interceptors to be selectively used would counter the meta-game effect of the turn sequence, but I worry that it'd be too good. You could then reserve your interceptor dice completely and ignore small ships firing at you to intercept the fire from a war-level unit. Sadly I don't see any other way to solve this issue. I think we might just have to accept that interceptors work well enough and a canny player will burn them out with crappy little guns before using his ship-killers to minimise the defence they provide.

QFT.

It must be the End of Times; I have agreed completely with Lord David on three straight topics. After our long battles on the subject of the Sulust-based beam team in SFoS, this has to be considered A Sign.

Maybe a middle ground should be found. Some way that interceptors handle a certain amount of AD or AD+mods (like DD, TD, etc). So, in effect, they would be just as good against 4AD as they would against 1AD Quad Damage.

HOWEVER-

Even from a 'non meta-gaming' stand point, it is perfectly logical for the commander of a fleet to send in his smaller attack craft in an effort to overwhelm a ship's defenses before bringing the big guns to bear. You KNOW the automated defense systems WILL burn out if enough fire is concentrated on them. Wait for them to run hot then start with the big shots. Its not necessarily meta-gaming. There is evidence in the show of ships capable of telling the status of an enemies interceptors.

Just like when the Alexander destroyed the Clark's Town. Given their desire NOT to destroy the Clark's Town, they had probably been overwhelming the Clark's Town's interceptors with lighter fire to try to knock our her weapon systems or engines; they wanted to disable her. They KNEW the interceptors were down and that any heavy fire from the Alexander's primary batteries would knock her out.

 

[katadder]

true they know the status of enemy ships. they would then know if interceptors are off or not and throw heavy weapons 1st before the grid could come back online
its like the star wars new jedi order era where when fighting the vong they used weak shots to overwhelm the defenses before unleashing a full hit.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Even from a 'non meta-gaming' stand point, it is perfectly logical for the commander of a fleet to send in his smaller attack craft in an effort to overwhelm a ship's defenses before bringing the big guns to bear. You KNOW the automated defense systems WILL burn out if enough fire is concentrated on them. Wait for them to run hot then start with the big shots. Its not necessarily meta-gaming. There is evidence in the show of ships capable of telling the status of an enemies interceptors.

For me thats not really the problem, its the deminishing effect of having multiple interceptors. 2 is arguably just as good as 6, there needs to be more of a difference here.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

He is also right in that if you try to fix everything at the same time you create new issues rather than solve any. Each wheel turning creates new issues as you change it.

Ripple

Yeah, but we don't really call the shots on how the rules change, this is mearly a forum to discuss topics of our choosing. If we want to discuss interceptors we can. Its called freedom of speech. If you don't want to discuss interceptors in a reasonable and polite(for the sake of being curtious) manner then simply don't.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Actually, no -- Third Age. It was 5 Battle, I think -- 3 FAP breaking down into 1 Hyperion, 1 Olympus (Flash or Heavy), and 2 Hermes (Flash) each, 2 FAP breaking down into 1 Hyperion, 1 Oracle (Standard), and 2 Hermes (Flash) each. 2 Starfuries, all others (13, I think) Thunderbolts. All Third Age, all nasty.

with the exception of the T-bolts, seems to be exactly like an early years fleet to me.

 

[Taran]

Different stats on the Hyperion, at least, not sure about the other ships without a book to reference.

The 3rd Age Hyperion is far and away superior to the Early Years.

 

[Omnipotent]

It´s the same stats (hyperion cruiser),

http://digger.damocles-sector.net/

thats a good link, a bit wrong stats here and there...my favorit is the stats on the Milani Who said Abbai was weak :wink:

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Once P&P is released (with any associated stats changes), I may start updating the PDFs if Digger doesn't. Unless of course I can be bothered to put together the scripted version that I've been planning instead :wink:

 

[Ripple]

Hey Joe... I participated in this thread a couple of times and was polite both times. I only pointed out that Chris was right to some degree, in that focusing our attention on fixing one thing at a time might be a good idea. Your issues with interceptors might be solved by changes made elsewhere.

I don't know what your exact issue with interceptors are. The diminished returns for having large numbers, or total effectiveness?

Ripple

 

[Joe_Dracos]

I don't know what your exact issue with interceptors are. The diminished returns for having large numbers, or total effectiveness?

Ripple

Diminishing returns for large numbers of interceptors. You just don't get any effectiveness out of Interceptors 3, 4, 5, or 6.

 

[Davesaint]

Wow, I leave town for a week and still get dragged into a thread. :wink: \

The fleet I flew was at 5 battle

5 hyperions
3 Olympus
2 Oracle
10 Hermes

All of the fighters were T-bolts.


Joe,

You do bring up one fundamental issue with interceptors, however, I am not sure if the suggestions posted here are necessarily the way to go.

Interceptors up to Interceptors 3 are very valid, however much more than that, and you really don't get your moneys worth.

As far as opponents go, I have done just fine using 3rd age EA against the Vree. Just do your best to stay outside of range 10. The problem with the Dilgar is a little more of an issue. I have stated elsewhere that I was very disappointed in the changes to the Dilgar in 2nd Ed. Too many holes in the fleet were filled. They have too many fighters and missles now. I can see how you can consistantly lose to the Dilgar in 2nd ed using any EA. For the most part you tend to be outgunned at all ranges unless you really roll up with your beams. If the dilgar player is smart, he will use his fighters to act as interceptors to reduce the effectiveness of the EA missles. What I find distrubing is that the Dilgar actually out missle the EA.

But that is a different discussion for a different discussion for a different thread.


Dave

 

[Omnipotent]

Wow, I leave town for a week and still get dragged into a thread. :wink: \

The fleet I flew was at 5 battle

5 hyperions
3 Olympus
2 Oracle
10 Hermes

All of the fighters were T-bolts.


Joe,

You do bring up one fundamental issue with interceptors, however, I am not sure if the suggestions posted here are necessarily the way to go.

Interceptors up to Interceptors 3 are very valid, however much more than that, and you really don't get your moneys worth.

As far as opponents go, I have done just fine using 3rd age EA against the Vree. Just do your best to stay outside of range 10.

Dave

U do know alot of there guns are also 15 inc and all they need to do is make sure they stay all ships one side of your ship(s) so u only have one side aimed at the opponent, and EA side arc is only what 8-10 inc, with a few twin-linked weapons

I also belived that EA would have a chance against Vree, but combine SM and JP and it´s darn hard to catch em.