Shadow Fighters - Just why
- Thread starter Da Boss
- Start date
Some great stuff in this thread from both the designers and the fans.
One question is canon - vorlons get advanced anti-fighter, yet in the show we see star furies flying low along the hull of a Vorlon heavy cruiser with no ill effects. As a vorlon player happy to have it, but it doesn't fit the fluff of the one good scene we have a a vorlon capitol ship facing off with a fighter.
It was a needed kit bash in the 1ed as vorlon fighters were incapable of shielding a vorlon from fighter swarms, but with the advent of fighter bases AF the vorlons do not need it enough to void canon.
Second canon issue is we see vorlon fighters appear with virtually every non-transport vessel. To me this would indicate they have some support function that might be represented by the carrier trait, give them one flight, which would obviously always start deployed.
This relates to the shadow discussion only slightly, Matt had commented that the vorlon fighters seemed to have avioded attention, in that Vorlon fighters do a sufficient job and have no nearly useless stats.
Shadow fighters currently do no job well enough to justify their cost. A game balance issue. We can argue fluff all day, but in the end if something isn't balanced it will be a constant source of unhappiness in a product that is supposed to entertain.
Lastly since Matt brought up the old SFB 'cookie cutter' issue. Go back an look over some of that argument back on that games pages. The issue was not that each race had something to fill each role, it was that the ships themselves ended up with near identical power curves, backup systems, etc. The issue was not role of the ship, but lack of originality in pursuing that role.
Claiming that leaving an obvious void in a fleet is adding 'character' is stupid. Your saying that these great races that obviously thought about smaller vessels, and would have needed defenses against such things, never develope them...even when they see the answers all around them. That would be like a modern earth power think automatic weapons are simply an fad.
Ripple
One question is canon - vorlons get advanced anti-fighter, yet in the show we see star furies flying low along the hull of a Vorlon heavy cruiser with no ill effects. As a vorlon player happy to have it, but it doesn't fit the fluff of the one good scene we have a a vorlon capitol ship facing off with a fighter.
It was a needed kit bash in the 1ed as vorlon fighters were incapable of shielding a vorlon from fighter swarms, but with the advent of fighter bases AF the vorlons do not need it enough to void canon.
Second canon issue is we see vorlon fighters appear with virtually every non-transport vessel. To me this would indicate they have some support function that might be represented by the carrier trait, give them one flight, which would obviously always start deployed.
This relates to the shadow discussion only slightly, Matt had commented that the vorlon fighters seemed to have avioded attention, in that Vorlon fighters do a sufficient job and have no nearly useless stats.
Shadow fighters currently do no job well enough to justify their cost. A game balance issue. We can argue fluff all day, but in the end if something isn't balanced it will be a constant source of unhappiness in a product that is supposed to entertain.
Lastly since Matt brought up the old SFB 'cookie cutter' issue. Go back an look over some of that argument back on that games pages. The issue was not that each race had something to fill each role, it was that the ships themselves ended up with near identical power curves, backup systems, etc. The issue was not role of the ship, but lack of originality in pursuing that role.
Claiming that leaving an obvious void in a fleet is adding 'character' is stupid. Your saying that these great races that obviously thought about smaller vessels, and would have needed defenses against such things, never develope them...even when they see the answers all around them. That would be like a modern earth power think automatic weapons are simply an fad.
Ripple
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Point of reference - the younger races are able to get the ancients attention. Sheridan mines the area around Coriana VI with nukes and "gets their attention"
And having just watched "Into the Fire" the Shadows and Vorlons have fighters and have a lot of them. Also - it seems the Ancients leave because the younger races are willing to die rather then chose sides. Between that and the presence of Lorien, the Ancients chose to leave.
And having just watched "Into the Fire" the Shadows and Vorlons have fighters and have a lot of them. Also - it seems the Ancients leave because the younger races are willing to die rather then chose sides. Between that and the presence of Lorien, the Ancients chose to leave.
Ripple is right, the Vorlon fighters are seen everywhere in the show. Even if they're drones, which I think is a cool idea, I think we can believe that they came from the heavier ships around them. A carrier trait seems suggested (fleet carriers more so).
As for the current Vorlon fighters, I haven't played them, but they look fine. The shadow fighters however.... well, as I've said "not so much." Game wise they look to be yuch. In campaigns they're a real burden since they cost so much which adds insult to injury. I don't care if they are good dogfighters or not -I kinda like that they're not - but they should useful.
As for the current Vorlon fighters, I haven't played them, but they look fine. The shadow fighters however.... well, as I've said "not so much." Game wise they look to be yuch. In campaigns they're a real burden since they cost so much which adds insult to injury. I don't care if they are good dogfighters or not -I kinda like that they're not - but they should useful.
its obvious that the Vorlon fighters were not thought to be up to the job - consequently were dramtically improved and made cheaper - excellent 
as it should be -
question is, why were the shadow fighters not - despite being almost the same in terms of playability. :?:
IMHO They need to be 4 flights per wing and give the Shadow Ships Carrier and/or fleet carrier (this would fit in much mroe with your view of them as swarms of drones than as they are now)
or change the stats to make them worth 2 flights per wing........... :lol:
as it should be - question is, why were the shadow fighters not - despite being almost the same in terms of playability. :?:
IMHO They need to be 4 flights per wing and give the Shadow Ships Carrier and/or fleet carrier (this would fit in much mroe with your view of them as swarms of drones than as they are now)
or change the stats to make them worth 2 flights per wing........... :lol:
No not having laugh and I note Triggy at the start of this thread considered they were worth 5 a wing - are you still seriously contending that they are worth 2 and also still saying they are the same value as the other 2 per flight fighters. :roll:
there is ample reasons why that is not the case - all over this thread............
they have to brave anti fighter and other fighters and they still cost double to replace. If its AAF its 50/50 chance of instant death.
there is ample reasons why that is not the case - all over this thread............
they have to brave anti fighter and other fighters and they still cost double to replace. If its AAF its 50/50 chance of instant death.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
How about if the Shadow Fighters were evolved after the last Shadow War to cover the observed weakness vs Minbari fighters? That way they could be given a respectable dogfight score, along with decent weapons for ship killing, and justified by saying the Shadows evolved along with everyone else and copied the Minbari Nial to a degree.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
You did, and I liked it...
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
...and fools seldom differ. :wink:
am sure triggy never said they worth 5 per wing at all. and lets consider nials, also a 2 per wing fighter. ok it wins in a dogfight versus shadow fighter but the shadow fighter is better at antishipping as it has better weapons and a higher hull. the nials stealth is only useful against long range shooting, much like the shadow fighters hull.
give the shadow fighter dogfight if you like but then make the nials weapons DD
give the shadow fighter dogfight if you like but then make the nials weapons DD
read the first page of this thread!katadder said:
Triggy said:
katadder said:
The Nial is an interceptor - thats what it does - its great at it - the Shadow fighter is a bomber - its not great at it!!! The other bombers all have long range to avoid AF! Pretty much all of them have either hull 5 or 6 - so why do they need the range then?
Even then the Nial has a mini beam so cant be intercepted, has about the same to hit vs armour - better aginst hull 6, same against Hull 5, worse against hull 4. Oh and of course teh Nial has 2+ dodge not 3+ - Shields stop one hit - Stealth can stop an entire ship firing at you (Yeah I know or not
and at reasonable range (given the Nials superior speed) its likely to be 5+ to even see it!Shadows cost twice as much to replace, can't get fleet carrier bonus, can't get repalced for free in campiagns by carrier trait.
still not convincing me!
We tried a game Centauri Vs Shadows yesterday evening at 5 points Raid. The shadow player took 2 Raid points in fighters and they fared very well against ships with no or few Anti-Fighter weapons. As soons as the enemy has decent dogfighters Shadow Fighters become easy targets, as their shields do not protect them in a dogfight.
More fighters or a slightly improved dogfight score would make them more useful.
More fighters or a slightly improved dogfight score would make them more useful.
well shows the sort of fantasy world triggy lives in and the ideas we have to put up with, lol 5 per wing would be stupid
nova starfury comes at 5 per wing, shadow fighter is miles better than that fighter. frazis also come at 5 per wing, bet narn players would love DD weapons on their ships and to be that little bit faster.
delta V2s are another 5 per wing slot, again quite a poor fighter. which the shadow figter isnt.
the shadow fighter is only matched in fighter firepower by the WS fighter which admittedly is a better dogfighter.
best i would say for shadows is 3 per wing. the 2 per wing was when their shields worked in dogfights and against AF.
nova starfury comes at 5 per wing, shadow fighter is miles better than that fighter. frazis also come at 5 per wing, bet narn players would love DD weapons on their ships and to be that little bit faster.
delta V2s are another 5 per wing slot, again quite a poor fighter. which the shadow figter isnt.
the shadow fighter is only matched in fighter firepower by the WS fighter which admittedly is a better dogfighter.
best i would say for shadows is 3 per wing. the 2 per wing was when their shields worked in dogfights and against AF.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
So why weren't the numbers changed, then, oh playtester?
Well thats not true at allkatadder said:
Firebolt (2 AP DD, P, 2 flights),
Thorun Torp (1AP DD, 4 flights),
Rutarian (2 DD P, 2 flights),
all of these are equal in firepower and better otherwise - at least same hull
and better range,
and better dogfight
and cheaper,
and other guns,
and 1/2 price to replace..............
without going into all the other superheeavy fighters and their multiple dice many of which come three per flight or the Vree 7 dice fighters etc etc -
so thats not really a good argument is it?
none of the ships you listed have 3AD AP DD.
thoruns make up 4AD total over 4 flights versus the 6 the shadows have the rest only have 4AD compared to 6. ok the rutarian has precise but no AP to get the hits in the 1st place. firebolts i never liked anyway but they still have less AD compared to the shadow fighter combo.
not all ships have AF, and hull 5 is actually quite a good protection against it anyway.
as for why things were not changed, who knows, perhaps it was changed to the way it was after we last saw it, perhaps other playtesters think differantly (as they do) like on other subjects.
its all very well pointing out fighters at same cost do this much in this fleet but then you can do that throughout fleet lists comparing ships that cost the same. am sure EA players would love their delphi to have self repair, dodge and shields on top of its stealth, as well as be SM with 6AD of SAP DD weapons. but they dont as they are in a differant fleet.
thoruns make up 4AD total over 4 flights versus the 6 the shadows have the rest only have 4AD compared to 6. ok the rutarian has precise but no AP to get the hits in the 1st place. firebolts i never liked anyway but they still have less AD compared to the shadow fighter combo.
not all ships have AF, and hull 5 is actually quite a good protection against it anyway.
as for why things were not changed, who knows, perhaps it was changed to the way it was after we last saw it, perhaps other playtesters think differantly (as they do) like on other subjects.
its all very well pointing out fighters at same cost do this much in this fleet but then you can do that throughout fleet lists comparing ships that cost the same. am sure EA players would love their delphi to have self repair, dodge and shields on top of its stealth, as well as be SM with 6AD of SAP DD weapons. but they dont as they are in a differant fleet.
