Posseidon Carrier

What do you think of the Posseidon?

  • Looks fine, nothing wrong with it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Too weak, would never take one!!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Along with the fighter, the rest of it's wing, and other fighter anywhere nearby and the sensor capability of most of the other ships on the field......

Personally, I agree with a comment made earlier - if fighters were only availible as transported craft, not independent wings (with a few exceptions like defenders in a planetary assault), carriers would become a whole lot more necessary.

I don't think a massive rules change is needed - just boost the number of attack dice (relatively less for nial windstars/thuds/etc) and for the love of god give them a weapon range longer than the width of their own base.
 
MustEatBrains said:
locarno24 said:
and for the love of god give them a weapon range longer than the width of their own base.
Click to expand...

Like expanding all fighter weapons ranges by 2" (just a suggestion)
Click to expand...

That would solve my single greatest problem with fighters.
 
Just to state the obvious- Armageddon supplements, not replaces, SFoS. Everything in Sky Full of Stars that isn't contradicted by Armageddon is still current. Major change is only going to happen to the Earth, Shadow and Vorlon fleet lists, it seems- maybe the ISA with all the new WS variants. Everyone else's fighters are almost certainly not going to get re- statted.
There probably will be changes to the fighter rules, like their place in the turn sequence, but not to their stats- no increased weapon range, for instance.
I could live with allowing all fighters to fire before all ships; one man in a fighter is almost certainly faster thinking and reacting than the collective mind of a ship's command crew.
 
Depends on the proofreading, really...
I'm probably going to cherrypick a bit, anyway. If there's a rule change or update I really don't like, I might continue using the older version. SA difficulty numbers, for instance; the difficulty values in SFoS give an average crew a less than even chance of success at most of them. I don't find that particularly fun, so for anything less than a full on grudge match, I tend to use the old numbers in the original box set rulebook. I do treat the different versions of the rules as alternatives; maybe it would be better done this way, and maybe that.
 
locarno24 said:
Along with the fighter, the rest of it's wing, and other fighter anywhere nearby and the sensor capability of most of the other ships on the field......

Personally, I agree with a comment made earlier - if fighters were only availible as transported craft, not independent wings (with a few exceptions like defenders in a planetary assault), carriers would become a whole lot more necessary.
I don't think a massive rules change is needed - just boost the number of attack dice (relatively less for nial windstars/thuds/etc) and for the love of god give them a weapon range longer than the width of their own base.
Click to expand...

Then, still why would EA Have need of the posseidon? A nova, Omega and Warlock each carries 4 flights of furies or T-bolts. And I feel the Warlock is a far nicer miniature than the Posseidon (It is my all-time favorite!!!) But the Posseidon needs a place in the B5 Universe, it has a very old-naval carrier feel about it and since the EA still use tactics based on naval warfare it just has to be there!
Flooding the field with Fighters is a tactic just like anny other, that they are a bit harder in the future will make this a good tactic, but not an overpowering one, even for Moshins full of Nials since their stealth will be downgraded annyway. :wink:
PS: In the Fourth season of B5 Fighters do more dammage on the White stars then the Omega's themselves :roll: !!! They are manouverable and so I find no Doge schould work against them, like in a dogfight!!! (Or the doge should be downgraded at least....) T-Bolts with sidewinders!!!! :lol:

Greetz 8)
 
I've used this example before, B-52H in the maritime patrol role. Not exactly last minute tech, right? It's still seventeen times faster than the ships it's hunting for. It has a shorter active sensor range, but- ESM- a longer passive sensor range, and a longer weapon range, with twenty missiles each of which stands a better than even chance of hitting it's target and an even chance of doing disabling damage when it does.
It's closest relative in ACtA is the Apollo Bombardment Cruiser, not the bloody Thunderbolt. The naval warfare analogy sort of breaks down at this point, doesn't it? ACtA fighters simply are not built on the same scale, and are predominantly gun armed anyway, which makes it hard for small things to hurt big things. They have to swarm a target and sting it to death with repeated light attacks, and that makes sense- it's actually a lot easier with EA than some. They can afterburn, which means they can rush forward and flood into the enemy fleet's weak and blind spots. Allowing stacking would at least let them all get in range.
 
SNJ

Not to be bloody minded or anything but wouldnt a Sky Serpent by a closer bet to your B52?
 
B5 fighters move not a vast amount faster than the ships they're attacking, and do so by strafing from close range, well within reach of a ship's main weaponry and usually it's defensive weapons, and need either extraordinary luck or a fragile target to do much damage.
Modern aircraft are so very much more capable against surface craft than B5 fighters are against ships, there's no real equivalence or point of comparison, and it's a very shaky analogy to pursue. Look up exactly hoew much of a mess twenty Block 1D Harpoons could be expected to make of a target, and in far greater safety for the attacker to boot, and watch even Sky Serpent pilots wilt in utter envy.
 
True

Im not sure mongoose would want to bring in stand off bombers tho :lol:

Carriers could be more useful if races had a dedicated strike fighter that had more anti ship teeth than current models altho fighters are in a precarious position.

We also use stacking rules when we aren't playing tourney rules.
 
Standoff bombers probably wouldn't be that much fun on the gaming table; most of the challenge and entertainment to be got from them was playing radar hide-and-seek, and apart from anything else the ACtA system simply isn't set up for that.
As far as new strike fighters go, how to make them usable? Not in terms of coming up with the stats, but in terms of rule- legal viability. Even top- grade fan production like Rich Bax' stuff is still not official. Players can always agree among themselves to use something or not, but that's only a partial answer.
Despite the arguments it could lead to, I'd like to see something like a Mongoose of Approval (well, it could be a seal if you really want) which could be applied, or not, to made up stuff like that. I suppose appearing in Signs and Portents is the equivalent, but the boards tend to invent faster than S&P comes out.
 
In my rather n00b-ish opinion, fighters only need a small boost to be useful. Extend all weapons ranges by 2" and give some fighters more AD on their weapons. I refuse to believe that six Raziks, even though they are light fighters meant for dogfighting, can only muster 2 AD between them, and with the Weak trait to boot.
 
Slightly Norse John said:
B5 fighters move not a vast amount faster than the ships they're attacking, and do so by strafing from close range, well within reach of a ship's main weaponry and usually it's defensive weapons, and need either extraordinary luck or a fragile target to do much damage.
Modern aircraft are so very much more capable against surface craft than B5 fighters are against ships, there's no real equivalence or point of comparison, and it's a very shaky analogy to pursue. Look up exactly hoew much of a mess twenty Block 1D Harpoons could be expected to make of a target, and in far greater safety for the attacker to boot, and watch even Sky Serpent pilots wilt in utter envy.
Click to expand...

However, over the years we have seen the effectiveness of fighters against surface ships diminish, with the advent of new rader and defensive systems, indeed, most modern surface fleets have dedicated anti aircraft ships, in the next 300 years, then it is quite realistic to think that capital ships will be a lot more impervious to fighters, especially as they are in their own domain, indeed, at the moment a surface ship moves at 30 knots for a decent warship, as it is prop driven through a liquid, as opposed to mach 2 in air. ALL B 5 ships work in the vacuum of space, Fighters are bound to be a lot less effective when suddenly their target is in the same element, with Much bigger engines, and a lot less limited in temrs of armour and weapon loads, as it won't become to heavy and sink ;-)
 
hiffano said:
a lot less limited in temrs of armour and weapon loads, as it won't become to heavy and sink ;-)
Click to expand...
No it'll just crumple in on itself like a tin can, in the cruel vacuum of space... or, bits will fall of as it passed through the violent eddies in hyperspace...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top