Shadow Fighters - Just why
- Thread starter Da Boss
- Start date
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Would you really?inq101 said:
Don't like the shields in dogfights...but maybe give them a +1 so they can at least scare equal numbers of frazi like they do in the show.
Do like the shields working vs anti-fighter. Should be little or no book keeping here as you fire this lot all at once really.
Do think you should not have to pay double in a campaign as they don't benefit from the self repair trait that is the basis of the increased cost for ships.
Do think that a boost of one extra per wing is warranted if they don't get at least a couple of the above or their equivalents.
Reasons...whole thread full of em...
Ripple
Do like the shields working vs anti-fighter. Should be little or no book keeping here as you fire this lot all at once really.
Do think you should not have to pay double in a campaign as they don't benefit from the self repair trait that is the basis of the increased cost for ships.
Do think that a boost of one extra per wing is warranted if they don't get at least a couple of the above or their equivalents.
Reasons...whole thread full of em...
Ripple
After re-reading Matt answer from page 3 of this thread, I agree that making shadow fighters 3 per wing is the best way out. It is easy to write in FAQ, doesn't change any rule and fits what designers wanted shadow fighters to be. As Burger wrote somewhere earlier, it is not a matter of fluff, it's a matter of balance. 3 per wing doesn't change what they are, it simply fixes the balance problem.
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
I took that as a reality check. If some people start equating a proposed "fix" with obvious sarcasm then it might be a moment to reflect on how big of a change is being suggested. (Given the conditions of a Shadow fleet I'm not sure 4/wing would cause problems, I'd just start with moving it to 3/wing first and iterating it so it's not shooting past a good power curve.)
EDIT: but then I'm suggesting 3/wing + S-vs-AF + 'Pilot Drone' for the fleet, not just taking it as is and moving it to 4/wing. For all I know 4/w might equal all my changes.
EDIT: but then I'm suggesting 3/wing + S-vs-AF + 'Pilot Drone' for the fleet, not just taking it as is and moving it to 4/wing. For all I know 4/w might equal all my changes.
It might be more helpful if Inq101 said if it was too much for any improvement at all or if he considered Triggys specific idea too much?
there might be a good reason that 2 flights per wing at the present stats is a perfectly adequate number given all the various points raised in the thread - if so I have overloooked it.
I did think it was a moot point but the decsison on jump points (entering on same turn as creation) was pretty rapidly changed recently................
there might be a good reason that 2 flights per wing at the present stats is a perfectly adequate number given all the various points raised in the thread - if so I have overloooked it.
I did think it was a moot point but the decsison on jump points (entering on same turn as creation) was pretty rapidly changed recently................
Locutus9956
Mongoose
However, shadows dont use jump points.... I'll have to check the wording though, not sure if they phase in the turn they declare theyre doing so or not....
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
... did I miss it switching back?Da Boss said:no I just meant that for a brief few days ships were able to exit the jump point on turn it was created - but that was soon corrected despite at first being said to be right by the powers that be
Been an issue for a while.
It's hard to say what Mongoose will defend as 'intended' (see rear AF lasers) vs what they will say is a mistake.
I'm glad they are responsive to the community, but it is problematic that you almost have to check the FAQ daily. To refer to one of Matt's own examples, SFB, needing the latest web post led to no real confidence in the system. Worse it lead to arguments at the table.
Ripple
It's hard to say what Mongoose will defend as 'intended' (see rear AF lasers) vs what they will say is a mistake.
I'm glad they are responsive to the community, but it is problematic that you almost have to check the FAQ daily. To refer to one of Matt's own examples, SFB, needing the latest web post led to no real confidence in the system. Worse it lead to arguments at the table.
Ripple
Yer now we have the Gaim raid lvl queen ship. Sortshighted Photon bombs on that one.
Back on track, i prefer the 3/wing idea. Its easy and acceptable. Lets try that one out first, because it doesnt need too much work.
And for campaigns remove the double cost OR give Shadow ships the carrier1 trait.
If that isnt enough, we could try out extra upgrades.
And the fact that Vorlon fighters can ignore AF dice is a HUGE difference. If my Frazis could do that, i would marry em........
Back on track, i prefer the 3/wing idea. Its easy and acceptable. Lets try that one out first, because it doesnt need too much work.
And for campaigns remove the double cost OR give Shadow ships the carrier1 trait.
If that isnt enough, we could try out extra upgrades.
And the fact that Vorlon fighters can ignore AF dice is a HUGE difference. If my Frazis could do that, i would marry em........
Believer in G'Lan
Mongoose
Wrote a couple of pages of analysis, decided I was overdoing it, saved it off and starting over a bit more simply.
So, lets see if I have this right.
[1] Shadowfighters lose dogfights, because they are almost always severely outnumbered or outfought, or both.
[2] Shadowfighters survive normal fire a little better than most other elite fighters, though a little worse than cheap fighters and lose horribly to anti-fighter fire.
[3] Shadowfighters have straight firepower which is about as good as it gets, which makes them quite nasty and definetely up to par if they can avoid the above two problems.
[4] Shadow players have minimal choice at low PL's, leading to situations in which they will have to face problems [1] or [2] fairly often.
I think, increasing numbers per wing to 3 with no other changes, while the easiest change, runs a high risk of not significantly solving problems [1] and [2] and does nothing about [4], while it does notably effect [3], which effectively penalizes oponents who don't have good anti-fighter/fighter capabilities of there own.
Increasing the flights per wing to 3 whilst decreasing the AD from 3 to 2 (and keeping the specials) might help [1] and [2] whilst leaving [3] untouched and would be a very safe option, but still isn't getting to the heart of the problem.
Allowing shields to work vs anti-fighter fire would help [2] somewhat and I think combined with the above suggestion would get as close to solving the given problem as possible without significantly changing the character of the fighters as laid out by Mr Sprange above.
Though at the end of the day I can't help but think that [4] is the true problem and isn't one we can solve with changes to the fighters themselves - It seems to me what the shadows could use most would be simply another option somewhere, either at patrol or skirmish so they aren't forced to take either a horde of what are essentially bombers or a small number of raid level ships and thus easing the overall problem.
So, lets see if I have this right.
[1] Shadowfighters lose dogfights, because they are almost always severely outnumbered or outfought, or both.
[2] Shadowfighters survive normal fire a little better than most other elite fighters, though a little worse than cheap fighters and lose horribly to anti-fighter fire.
[3] Shadowfighters have straight firepower which is about as good as it gets, which makes them quite nasty and definetely up to par if they can avoid the above two problems.
[4] Shadow players have minimal choice at low PL's, leading to situations in which they will have to face problems [1] or [2] fairly often.
I think, increasing numbers per wing to 3 with no other changes, while the easiest change, runs a high risk of not significantly solving problems [1] and [2] and does nothing about [4], while it does notably effect [3], which effectively penalizes oponents who don't have good anti-fighter/fighter capabilities of there own.
Increasing the flights per wing to 3 whilst decreasing the AD from 3 to 2 (and keeping the specials) might help [1] and [2] whilst leaving [3] untouched and would be a very safe option, but still isn't getting to the heart of the problem.
Allowing shields to work vs anti-fighter fire would help [2] somewhat and I think combined with the above suggestion would get as close to solving the given problem as possible without significantly changing the character of the fighters as laid out by Mr Sprange above.
Though at the end of the day I can't help but think that [4] is the true problem and isn't one we can solve with changes to the fighters themselves - It seems to me what the shadows could use most would be simply another option somewhere, either at patrol or skirmish so they aren't forced to take either a horde of what are essentially bombers or a small number of raid level ships and thus easing the overall problem.
I think the best suggestion so far is to make them ships not fighters whould fit the shadows don't dogfight fluff which the obviously passed on to the drahk
if the fighters are not dog fighters just for attacking capital ships there is no way they are a match for a haven which are also 2 for 1 patrol
if the fighters are not dog fighters just for attacking capital ships there is no way they are a match for a haven which are also 2 for 1 patrol
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Making them ships opens up another venue for thought but also opens up a lot of new problems. They would effectively need total revision of damage scores and probably alteration of the dodge values. In addition to a bit of re-balancing then for the Shadow Ships which carry those now-LCVs as auxiliary craft. The Drakh were built from the ground up to utilize the Huge Hangars, the Shadows weren't - you'd be introducing 6 initiative sinks (plus any purchased) for the Ancient Shadow Ship. I had asked Mr. Matt about pushing them to the "LCV" status and while I didn't hear back - I've since realized that doing it would require a complete re-balancing of the Shadow fleet and it's special rules.greenboy said:
--+--
Truthfully the mark for firepower is probably the Drazi Sky Serpent. It's about on par with the S/Fighter on 1-1 versus all the hull types, though the Drazi has more potential for more damage & avoiding AF (longer range but equal dogfight per wing). By upping the S/Fighters to 3/wing without changing firepower it still is under the DSS on the anti-ship power-curve and slightly over the DSS on the anti-fighter power-curve.
Since there really is a difficulty with only having the single patrol selection - ramping up the S/Fighter to the higher end of the anti-ship and mitigating the losses from anti-fighter could mean that it's threat remains even if the opponent knows what to counter. Keeping the weapon range at 2" but using Shields vs AF means that the opponent still gets the opportunity to defend themselves and the S/Fighter has more survival even if the opponent uses the Escort+AF-through-Fighters. No one would definitively get an [I WIN]. The S/F would be not be as big of a concern to capital ships since it has to get in so close and IIRC still doesn't threaten as many criticals or as much damage. It would still be more able to defend themselves versus all the AF techniques due to the racial traits, better dogfight and speed. Since it's all alone in the night - it needs to have the numbers and capability to split the difference between Anti-ship and Anti-Fighter - where the W/S Fighter tends to focus more on Anti-Fighter (backed by it's fleet, including Fleet Carriers), as does the Vorlon fighter, the Shadow Fighter would focus more on the Anti-Ship. Same coin - different side.
Right now I guess I'm still in a little more favor of the 'Pilot Drone' or fully recouping all flights lost from ships after a game rather then Carrier 1 on Shadow Ships - shadow fighters still cost double when you buy them individually - which you'd need to do. But it means they are far more useful off the Ships since you're not risking as much. IMO it's the 1/2 step between current and adding Carrier 1 to the Ships (which would completely mitigate campaign costs since, to reiterate, you could just field flights from the Ships and still regenerate flights).
