Is Fighters firing first so bad?

[prelude_to_war]

I also like the D3 idea. This idea came up almost a year ago or something. Funny how the circle is now complete. Let's do it again - whoopee!

So, the order of fighter actions is not at issue anymore, but the type and severity of crits they could potentially inflict? Is this OK with the Vree-only players out there?

 

[Ripple]

Do not dismiss the sequence so quickly Prelude. It is not just the Vree who have some problems with this sequence though they are the most clear cut example of a fleet that cannot deal with it.

I have played a number of games under Arm. now and have seen that the Drazi had little chance against a fighter heavy Brakiri fleet.

My non-mine Narn also did poorly against a T-bolt heavy fleet.

I would love to get together and fly some of these combos sometime to see if you have some ideas on evening out what I see as imbalances.

The D3 for the second roll in a crit is wonderful, as are many of the tactical decisions for fighters firing ideas ie they become a choice in some way as to when to fire them or a ship. But again, until I see some more fights in which fighter poor races can deal with the change I am concerned. But who knows that may just be that I invested in a set of mini's to which the decision is relevant.

Ripple

 

[philogara_mk2]

I guess I'm the only person on the forum who likes the idea of simultaneous fire...

Moving last makes sense. They have super initiative, and so can watch the battle unfold and move quickly to where they need to be. Firing first... makes no sense. Firing last... makes no sense (and in Full thrust it seriously hurts fighters and makes them somewhat pointless).

What's in the middle? Simultaneous fire The best of both worlds...

I personally think its a good idea (but I prefer the idea of them being squadroned and treated as ships - i.e. they count as a ship choice for movement and firing sequence), but I can see the complaint will still be made - after all the Vree/Drazi/whoever player will still get his ship gutted. The fact that he may take out the fighters, saving other vessels in the fleet, will be cold comfort.

 

[Locutus9956]

Drazi and Vree are not the fighter fodder people make them out to be! If the drazi find this a problem on a regular basis then I suggest they try taking a couple of guardhawks, sure theyre liable to be the first targets and cant stop the fighters attacking but, as with vree, unless the fighters completely take out the ship in one go it can still fire and wipe them out easily!

And lets not forget that Drazi and Vree both have good fighters available to them anyway! Drazi for example can match that fighter heavy brakiri fleet without too much dificulty!

The sheer inasnity of trying to suggest that fighters are too good because they are effective if you TAKE NO FIGHTER DEFENCES WHATSOEVER is simply jaw-dropping.

If you take no form of fighter defences you are going to have trouble with enemy fighters, this is hardly rocket science!

Vree: Every ship in the fleet has all round antifighter fire sure it wont let you stop fighters hitting you but if you position yourself correctly you can ensure the death of any fighter that does. They will run out before your ships do generally!

Drazi: You have three options, 1 take a few guardhawks to cover your fleet, 2 Buy some wings of Sky Seprents, theyre decent dogfighters and can provide decent fighter cover, 3 simply outrun the enemy fighters! Drazi ships are almost all FASTER than most fighters so can simply stay out of range!

Narns: To hear someone complaining about Narn weakness to fighters almost reduced me to hyserics. "My non emine force is vulnerable was hit quite effectively by T-Bolts" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If your fighting a race like EA that has excellent attack fighters and you voluntarily choose to not even take 1 G'Karith or something with Emines then you deserve exactly what you get and I have no sypmathy whatsoever.

I am heartily sick of people blaming 'broken rules' for tactical mistakes. Your fleet list is not going to win the game for you folks, you have to pick the right tools for the right job and you also have to USE THEM RIGHT.

Now Im not saying there are not things that DO need looking at in the rules/fleet lists but this is simply not one of them. If there was no valid defence against fighter attack because of this rule then there might be a point but this is just not the case.

 

[Burger]

Drazi: You have three options, 1 take a few guardhawks to cover your fleet,

Err no. They are crud. 4" range, 6AD Weak AF weapon, you're gonna need one to cover each capital ship! Just not worth it.

2 Buy some wings of Sky Seprents, theyre decent dogfighters and can provide decent fighter cover,

Even better, Star Snakes. 5 to a wing, sweet!!

3 simply outrun the enemy fighters! Drazi ships are almost all FASTER than most fighters so can simply stay out of range!

Unless you get the speed crits that every Drazi player prays for

Minbari have very few options though, and the silly stealth rules and low hulls mean they are very vulnerable to fighters. Mini-beams yeah if the fighters don't skeleton you or take weapons offline. Morshin yeah if you want to spend 40% of your FAPs on anti-fighter defence. Yes I am a stuck record

 

[Locutus9956]

yes guardhawks may be crud but they DO help discourage fighter attacks on nearby ships. And its hardly as though they cost all that much anyway.

And I meant star snakes in the second point

 

[Burger]

I'd have 5 star snakes over a guardhawk any day!

 

[Davesaint]

yes guardhawks may be crud but they DO help discourage fighter attacks on nearby ships. And its hardly as though they cost all that much anyway.

And I meant star snakes in the second point

Sorry Locutus, a guardhawk or 2 would not keep me from attacking a nearby ship.

And as for the Vree, I could care less if the ship I am attacking has all around Anti-Fighter weapons if the ship is dead after my fighters attack it. The Tzymm, which is a nice fighter, is only 3 per patrol point. Since you have no ship other than the Cylon Basestar that actually fields fighters on it, you have to significantly reduce the firepower of your fleet in order to get enough fighters for a heavy fighter fleet to care about it. When you are facing someone like EA, he says, Thanks, I'll beam you to death now that you are down 20% of your FAP's to protect yourself against my fighters.

As for your Narn comments, yes, in some ways I agree, but it depends on the PL level of the fight to see if you can actually afford to field an e-mine armed ship.

Dave

 

[Burger]

As for your Narn comments, yes, in some ways I agree, but it depends on the PL level of the fight to see if you can actually afford to field an e-mine armed ship.

What about the poor Minbari then. They have to be able to field a Battle level ship to get their only decent fighter defence!

 

[Reaverman]

I am heartily sick of people blaming 'broken rules' for tactical mistakes. Your fleet list is not going to win the game for you folks, you have to pick the right tools for the right job and you also have to USE THEM RIGHT.

Here here

 

[Hash]

Its not about sacrificing firepower for an irrelevant part of the game - its about understanding the damage fighters can do and putting the appropriate defences into play to fight against them.

Some fleets do this considerably easier than others though (you have to be a real moaner to complain about fighters when you can field Nials though...)

I've considered this as a 5pt Vree Raid fleet:

2 Raid Points
Xaak

1 Raid Point
Xixx
Xixx

1 Raid Point
Xixx
Vaarl
Tzymm (3)

1 Raid Point
Xixx
Vaarl
Tzymm (3)

Only 6 fighters but you're not really sacrificing much firepower and you still have some AF weaponry if you do survive

Other option for a more fighter heavy fleet is to swap a couple of Xixx's witha Vaarka and the Vaarl's with another wing of fighters each...12 Tzymms do not suck as a fighter defence and could cause some pretty mean damage to ships too!

 

[Burger]

Its not about sacrificing firepower for an irrelevant part of the game - its about understanding the damage fighters can do and putting the appropriate defences into play to fight against them.

Some fleets do this considerably easier than others though (you have to be a real moaner to complain about fighters when you can field Nials though...)

To get Nials you have to savrifice a LOT of firepower.

 

[Obsidian]

Personally I'm with Phil on this one. Nominate fighters to fire in wings at the same time as capital ships. They don't have to be anywhere near each other, you just nominate X number of them to fire in place of a capital ship. You are then forced to make a tactical decision based upon the situation at hand. In general, it will mean that fighters will fire last since most people will probably choose to fire the big guns rather than the fighters, but by making it a choice people no longer feel cheated by the rules.

It's this all or nothing BS that keeps screwing fighters up. At first, they all fired first and had crazy stats so they were immensely powerful. Then the stats were reduced and they all fired last which made them useless. Now we're back to having them all fire first and surprise surprise, the cries of "they're too strong" have returned.

The one problem I see with the change though is that certain fleets will benefit more than others if the firing is done strictly by wing (i.e. 8 Delta-Vs fire while only 1 Nial gets to fire). To compensate you can come up with some arbitrary number in the middle like 4 and say that is how many fighters you get to fire in lieu of a capital ship.

 

[Enalut]

Burger, with all do respect, as a Minbari Player I do not see what your apparent fear of fighters comes from.

I have lost 1 game and nearly lost 2 others to fighters (out of around 10 played under the new rules). All but 1 of my close games have been because of fighters.

I like that!

Minbari have excellent fighter defence, but they are also uniquely vulnerable to fighters--this gives them good flavor and creates a flaw that goes a long way to blance them.

Like any other fleet it is a question of being able to balance the threats--and the ability fo your opponent to out manouver you--and to limit thier own exposure.

You compalin about the crits that figthters can score--but that is the game. I enjoy that my fleet has a flaw that an opponet try and exploit--it is a question fo coutnerign it.

How different is it if a fighter gets the no weapons my fire crit vs. an opposign capital ship that fired before I activated teh target. Ship activation (when and what to shoot) is a hugely important part of the game: do I fire the ship that is about to be crippled but likely won't cause much damage, or do I fire my squadron of battleships and try to destroy my opponent's battle wagon before it shoots? That is part of the game.

I generaly take fightr light Minbari fleets--in fact my Battle level fleet doesn't field a single fighter at all--it is a risk that I have calculated and am willignt o take.

That beign said: the new fighter rules are an excellent change to the system: fighters now are a vital part of teh tactical environment, and a player ignores them at his own peril, but they are only an one segment--and like any other over relaicne on one aspect of a fleet can leave you veulnerable to another.

Fighters are best used to overwhelm individual ships--if you spread them out they die, that simple. As such, it is a question fo tactics like anythign else. If I have a single ship (of any race) exosed on a flank--I liek the idea of it beign vulerable--it ads a layer of complexity to my strategy.

Thus my general conclusion is that the new rules work quite well--fighter are an effective strike unit, but are best used as an element of a fleet and not as the entirety of a fleet.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[katadder]

yes guardhawks may be crud but they DO help discourage fighter attacks on nearby ships. And its hardly as though they cost all that much anyway.

And I meant star snakes in the second point

Sorry Locutus, a guardhawk or 2 would not keep me from attacking a nearby ship.

And as for the Vree, I could care less if the ship I am attacking has all around Anti-Fighter weapons if the ship is dead after my fighters attack it. The Tzymm, which is a nice fighter, is only 3 per patrol point. Since you have no ship other than the Cylon Basestar that actually fields fighters on it, you have to significantly reduce the firepower of your fleet in order to get enough fighters for a heavy fighter fleet to care about it. When you are facing someone like EA, he says, Thanks, I'll beam you to death now that you are down 20% of your FAP's to protect yourself against my fighters.

As for your Narn comments, yes, in some ways I agree, but it depends on the PL level of the fight to see if you can actually afford to field an e-mine armed ship.

Dave

actually theres a narn skirmish ship e-mines that can fire every turn

 

[emperorpenguin]

Burger, with all do respect, as a Minbari Player I do not see what your apparent fear of fighters comes from..

Probably from my Sentris getting so many "Scanners to Full!" against him at Gaelcon! :twisted:

 

[LordClinto]

Personally I'm with Phil on this one. Nominate fighters to fire in wings at the same time as capital ships. They don't have to be anywhere near each other, you just nominate X number of them to fire in place of a capital ship. You are then forced to make a tactical decision based upon the situation at hand. In general, it will mean that fighters will fire last since most people will probably choose to fire the big guns rather than the fighters, but by making it a choice people no longer feel cheated by the rules.

When you say wings are you saying to "squadron" fighter flights? Because If I use a purchased Wing, those flights go independant, they do not stick to a wing.

And would you suggest applying it to both moving and shooting?

If so look at all of those new initiative sinks!

 

[Obsidian]

When you say wings are you saying to "squadron" fighter flights? Because If I use a purchased Wing, those flights go independant, they do not stick to a wing.

By "Wing" I mean whatever number of fighter flights it takes to make up a wing of fighters for that fleet. So in the case of Raiders I am talking about 8 Flights of Delta-Vs. Doesn't matter if they came off a strike carrier or were purchased independantly, during the firing phase you get to pick any 8 on the board and have them fire. As I said, the flaw with this is that the Minbari suffer because a wing of nials in their list is a single Nial fighter flight. It might be ok though since it fits in with the feel of their fleet. They rely mainly on their big warships and as such the fighters aren't emphasized. Raiders and EA on the other hand rely heavily on fighters and as such factor more into any battle they may have.

And would you suggest applying it to both moving and shooting?

I had thought of saying that and it was how my group played in the first few weeks after the original version was released. It worked out fairly well and would prove a boon for boresight heavy fleets, but I don't know if I want to go that far just yet. For the moment just having them fire during the normal sequence with capital ships would be an improvement and strikes a compromise between the two camps in the debate. Sometimes the fighters will swoop in and deliver a killing blow, sometimes the AF weaponary will cut them to pieces. All depends on the choices the players make.

 

[animus]

Am I missing something with Vree and Drazi? When did they get their own fleets? They're League Worlds - you don't have to take all Vree or all Drazi - take ships from other League races and balance it all out. If you want all saucers, good for you, but there's nothing that says you have to - "you pays your money and takes your chances."

I like the D3 fighter crit table, but honestly never had problems with the new rules. I think they're fine.

 

[Davesaint]

yes guardhawks may be crud but they DO help discourage fighter attacks on nearby ships. And its hardly as though they cost all that much anyway.

And I meant star snakes in the second point

Sorry Locutus, a guardhawk or 2 would not keep me from attacking a nearby ship.

And as for the Vree, I could care less if the ship I am attacking has all around Anti-Fighter weapons if the ship is dead after my fighters attack it. The Tzymm, which is a nice fighter, is only 3 per patrol point. Since you have no ship other than the Cylon Basestar that actually fields fighters on it, you have to significantly reduce the firepower of your fleet in order to get enough fighters for a heavy fighter fleet to care about it. When you are facing someone like EA, he says, Thanks, I'll beam you to death now that you are down 20% of your FAP's to protect yourself against my fighters.

As for your Narn comments, yes, in some ways I agree, but it depends on the PL level of the fight to see if you can actually afford to field an e-mine armed ship.

Dave

actually theres a narn skirmish ship e-mines that can fire every turn

Yes, I know that, but it comes down to how much firepower do you want to give up for it. Plus the range on the pulsar mines are only 20. Since fighters move after you do and fire before you do, it is possible for fighters such as the starfury and the t-bolt to be able to move past you kill zone before you can fire.


Dave