Sure, but they still come in large numbers. Anytime you choose to engage a dogfight, you'll win only marginally less frequently than a Starfury would. Anytime you are engaged, you'll still only be losing 1 fighter out of every 3 (against the big dogfighters like Nials). And in every case where you aren't in a dogfight, you simply have a better, tougher, deadlier fighter.
Rutarians
- Thread starter katadder
- Start date
No, they aren't right. For a start, if you swap them, you should only get 1 for every 2 Sentris/Raziks that you're swapping - same as the relative costs for the independent wings. Even then, I think the Rutarian is simply better... it has marginally lower dodge compared to the Sentri, and marginally lower dogfight compare to the Razik, but better hull than either, the same speed, and stealth to boot, plus it has more firepower than either.
I would say it needs more than just a 1 point reduction in dogfight, as well as the 1 for 2 exchange.
I would say it needs more than just a 1 point reduction in dogfight, as well as the 1 for 2 exchange.
I would argue that they should, yes. Possibly 2 for 3 exchange, or a standard loadout which reflects this sort of mix.
But then I think that the Tbolt is overpowered in its current incarnation and needs a bit of a downgrade, as does the Rutarian (for the purposes of straight swaps - The standalone wing is twice as good, but you get half as many).
But then I think that the Tbolt is overpowered in its current incarnation and needs a bit of a downgrade, as does the Rutarian (for the purposes of straight swaps - The standalone wing is twice as good, but you get half as many).
I would agree with the principle that flights should be swappable for free and I would much, much prefer flights to be distinctive in role rather than UBER and therefore it was a choice between different types of fighter - i.e. Do I take all space superiority fighters? Or maybe some bombers? How about a specialist or multi-role craft?
Whatever you decide - I think every fighter, within a fleet, should *roughly& be equivalent so you can freely swap loadout between them...then things like the rutarian would get more use. For the record I have 6 flights of rutarians and they are gorgeous fighter models...but I wouldn't use them unless fielding the Adira, the cost for "upgrading" is a little steep when I can get other ships for that!
Or alternatively...why not modify all carriers to carry wings instead of flights? (obviously balance issues to get it right and maybe rebalancing how many you get with some wings). It would make it easier to replace wing with wing and have "better" fighters but still have "even" swaps for free.
Just a thought...
Whatever you decide - I think every fighter, within a fleet, should *roughly& be equivalent so you can freely swap loadout between them...then things like the rutarian would get more use. For the record I have 6 flights of rutarians and they are gorgeous fighter models...but I wouldn't use them unless fielding the Adira, the cost for "upgrading" is a little steep when I can get other ships for that!
Or alternatively...why not modify all carriers to carry wings instead of flights? (obviously balance issues to get it right and maybe rebalancing how many you get with some wings). It would make it easier to replace wing with wing and have "better" fighters but still have "even" swaps for free.
Just a thought...
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Could someone check my math on this one?
*Stealth is probably closer to 2+ since when the Rutarian get's within effective range it's stealth is going to be lowered.
So let's take a good flat 100AD weapon to get a hit percentage.
R-Stealth reduces incoming fire to 83.33
Against the Hull values the R-Hull will reduce it to 41.67 and the Sentri would have 66.67 hits
After the dodge, the Rutarian is down to 13.89 and the Sentri is down to 11.11
Unless I made a mistake it looks like the Sentri would be the more survivable craft. Not by much, only a 2.8% difference but that means that the only real difference between the Rutarians and the Sentri is that Ion Bolt.
Note: I didn't take into account the myriad of special weapon traits that would skew the results like the W,AP,SAP, etc. It was only a quick look.
*Stealth is probably closer to 2+ since when the Rutarian get's within effective range it's stealth is going to be lowered.
So let's take a good flat 100AD weapon to get a hit percentage.
R-Stealth reduces incoming fire to 83.33
Against the Hull values the R-Hull will reduce it to 41.67 and the Sentri would have 66.67 hits
After the dodge, the Rutarian is down to 13.89 and the Sentri is down to 11.11
Unless I made a mistake it looks like the Sentri would be the more survivable craft. Not by much, only a 2.8% difference but that means that the only real difference between the Rutarians and the Sentri is that Ion Bolt.
Note: I didn't take into account the myriad of special weapon traits that would skew the results like the W,AP,SAP, etc. It was only a quick look.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Simply put I would argue strongly against having pay for T-Bolt swaps. Seriously try PLAYING with a fighter heavy EA force sometime and look at what difference swapping the two out makes, generally not actually alot, an all T-Bolt force tends to fare slightly better against forces like Vree and Vorlons and Narns with good anti fighter mechanisms whereas Furies fare better against Minbari and Centauri with their better dogfighters.
Tbolts are only slightly better than furies if you gang up on an opponent but thats just stupid reasoning imho. Thats like saying a neutron laser is only SLIGHTLY better than a heavy laser. It may be true but that doesnt make it insignifigant!
Secondly, EA fighters are very good yes, but you need to stop and consider them as part of the fleets assests. Sure 4 T-Bolts an Omega can launch are much nastier than 2 Sentris carried by a Primus but then again, the Omega doesnt have a 6AD forward firing beam now does it? EA have good fighters, thats just one of their 'things'.
Thirdly, if you dropped the Rutarians dogfight to +1 then frankly, yes I would consider it a fair swap. You're far to quick to brush aside just how massively important a dogfight rating can be to a fighters surviveability in ACTA! Sure 3 Tbolts can gang up and take out a Razik but you seem to be overlooking the fact that that one Razik is nonethless tying up 12 AD worth of TBolts for at least 1 turn in that instance and it still has a even chance of WINNING the dogfight!
Tbolts are only slightly better than furies if you gang up on an opponent but thats just stupid reasoning imho. Thats like saying a neutron laser is only SLIGHTLY better than a heavy laser. It may be true but that doesnt make it insignifigant!
Secondly, EA fighters are very good yes, but you need to stop and consider them as part of the fleets assests. Sure 4 T-Bolts an Omega can launch are much nastier than 2 Sentris carried by a Primus but then again, the Omega doesnt have a 6AD forward firing beam now does it? EA have good fighters, thats just one of their 'things'.
Thirdly, if you dropped the Rutarians dogfight to +1 then frankly, yes I would consider it a fair swap. You're far to quick to brush aside just how massively important a dogfight rating can be to a fighters surviveability in ACTA! Sure 3 Tbolts can gang up and take out a Razik but you seem to be overlooking the fact that that one Razik is nonethless tying up 12 AD worth of TBolts for at least 1 turn in that instance and it still has a even chance of WINNING the dogfight!
Been usuing Centauri against Earforce, Vorlons and ISA
Only use Raziks against ISA if they are not free as little point in anything else unless you haev large superioty in number.
Rutarins are Ok but wouldn't buyy them at present - in fact would prefer in most of my games to swap them out the other way to try and protect my ships from WS fighters.
Course Antifighter if used in 2nd Ed will probably change everything if it is like the Star wars rule. Does stealth work against Anti fighter?
Only use Raziks against ISA if they are not free as little point in anything else unless you haev large superioty in number.
Rutarins are Ok but wouldn't buyy them at present - in fact would prefer in most of my games to swap them out the other way to try and protect my ships from WS fighters.
Course Antifighter if used in 2nd Ed will probably change everything if it is like the Star wars rule. Does stealth work against Anti fighter?
Locutus - the Neutron laser is only slightly better, and to top it off, generally it comes at shorter range and with fewer AD than an enemy ship at the same PL. As much cannot be said for Tbolts vs. Furies - it's a straight swap!
As for playing with EA, I come from the other side - I've played against them, and experienced just how overpowered the Thunderbolt swarm is.
As for playing with EA, I come from the other side - I've played against them, and experienced just how overpowered the Thunderbolt swarm is.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
But have you been on the recieving end of a Starfury Swarm? Im not debating whether or not the TBolt is too good in itself or not Im merely saying theyre not that much nastier than starfuries.
ps. Love the signature Burger :lol:
ps. Love the signature Burger :lol:
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Burger said:
I think the question here was aimed specifically at the 'anti fighter' trait in 2nd Ed, which I believe WILL be affected by stealth (at leat it better be or Nials just became utterly naff)
Used Rutarians a few of times, wished some of more modern ships carried them in a set amount eg Dargan & Balvarix . Those to ships were built after the Rutarian was invented. They aren't worth the extra patrol point but maybe if they a 2AD normal, 2 AD DD,Precise or even the raising of the stealth, or combination I would pay the extra patrol pt. Sentri's hardly ever get used when you can take a Razik for the same job. Maybe if the Sentri was 2AD normal people would take them, that would show that they are a medium fighter. Maybe even 2AD or 3AD Twinlinked,Weak.
The biggest change at the moment would be the Thunderbolt going to Dodge 3+! Given AF being much more reliable in 2nd ed. (covers all arcs, ignores Dodge and Stealth), high Hull values such as seen on the Thunderbolt become very valuable on anti-capital ship fighters. This means there is an attempt to have the Thunderbolt more clearly defined as a medium-bomber with some dogfighting capability rather than a joint strike fighter (like the Aurora Starfury) with better all-round abilities. Both fighters will be worth the same per wing too.Alexb83 said:
Bear in mind this is by no means final but is what we are playing with at the moment. Also because there are so many ships with subtle or gross changes it is often hard to place specific changes/thoughts in a suitable context for everyone to understand.
(how was that for a titbit of 2nd ed. testing along with trying to show a design philosophy addressing a question and some of the problems?)
Celisasu
Mongoose
Well everyone is assuming we're going to see it in the next six months or so(whether that's a valid assumption or not remains an open question) so I guess it's reasonable that they're no longer interested in rule or stat changes in 1st as they'd only be applicable for a short period of time. Too busy trying to make sure that their fleet doesn't get nerfed by the changes.Burger said:Oh yeah my mistake, I forgot nobody talks about 1e any more do theyLocutus9956 said:
Celisasu hit it on the nose....get your comments in now while they are still in the design phase. Wait until its out and any changes become a 'flip flop' affair...and then everybody gets not so happy.
Triggy...thank a ton! That actually sounds great that they are looking at the two respective fighters as choice of trade off of in game capability rather than just an ISD restricted set of upgrades. All for 'true to show' accuracy and timeline stuff, but it also has to be reflected in stats that balance on the fixed pl system. If T-bolts and Aurora are to considered the same 'pl cost' they have to trade not just upgrade.
Ripple
Triggy...thank a ton! That actually sounds great that they are looking at the two respective fighters as choice of trade off of in game capability rather than just an ISD restricted set of upgrades. All for 'true to show' accuracy and timeline stuff, but it also has to be reflected in stats that balance on the fixed pl system. If T-bolts and Aurora are to considered the same 'pl cost' they have to trade not just upgrade.
Ripple
