Maybe but I still think that over the millions of years everything would have been tried and tested, it would be more a case of - "oh yeah fighters, vaugely recall them - we tried them out for a bit - got bored moved on - however out back I am sure we still have some old designs of them / deal with them"................
Shadowfighters: should shields work against AF?
- Thread starter MustEatBrains
- Start date
Ah, from my reading of the playtest material, it seems dogfights were 'automatic' and not voluntary. That does indeed change things a bit, but I could still see several variations that would be interesting.
Anti-fighter could remove the shield prior to a dogfight. Only two fighters have inherent anti-fighter but escorts can now loan anti-fighter to flights so still a way to do it. Not ideal but interesting.
The only real objection I have to the shield trait being 'part of the dogfight score' is that the dogfight score is abysmal for a fighter that realistically cannot be escorted.
Ripple
Anti-fighter could remove the shield prior to a dogfight. Only two fighters have inherent anti-fighter but escorts can now loan anti-fighter to flights so still a way to do it. Not ideal but interesting.
The only real objection I have to the shield trait being 'part of the dogfight score' is that the dogfight score is abysmal for a fighter that realistically cannot be escorted.
Ripple
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
That really is a terrible reason to want the shield trait split out from the dogfight score though. Why not insist that dodge is split out whilst you're at it?
If the dogfight is too low, fix the dogfight score itself.
If the dogfight is too low, fix the dogfight score itself.
I would like to point out that the vorlon fighters come in threes with beams and a 3" range and AFF.
this does kind of nullify the argument put forward that the first ones don't concentrate on fighters.
a 3" range on the shadow fighters and them coming in threes would balance this out.
That or re-wording the rule a little to allow shields Vs AF fire. As this is the only fighter to have a shield, would it break the game?
but something needs to be done.
this does kind of nullify the argument put forward that the first ones don't concentrate on fighters.
a 3" range on the shadow fighters and them coming in threes would balance this out.
That or re-wording the rule a little to allow shields Vs AF fire. As this is the only fighter to have a shield, would it break the game?
but something needs to be done.
I disagree Neko,
One thing I want in the game is there to be lots of options. The more stuff you bundle together the few options there are for making interesting things. This came up with Advanced Jump Point in first ed. It really did three different things, allowed accurate jump placement, gave jump distortion resistance and allowed formation of jump points. By splitting them up into three traits you could have designed ships that were jump distortion resistant but did not have their own jump points. Or accurate placement but no resistance.
Same thing with fighters, they are defined by a few traits, dogfight, dodge, speed, hull and weapons. I could easily envision a fighter that had great dodge and weapons but a poor dogfight due to needed a good 'lock' on the target, harder to get in a wild dogfight.
Last, if shields work vs anti-fighter, they may or may not be present when a dogfight happens. If that was to be the case I would like that to be reflected in some way if the idea is that the shield is part of the dogfight score. Say a +1 or +2 that is only active if the shield is up.
Ripple
One thing I want in the game is there to be lots of options. The more stuff you bundle together the few options there are for making interesting things. This came up with Advanced Jump Point in first ed. It really did three different things, allowed accurate jump placement, gave jump distortion resistance and allowed formation of jump points. By splitting them up into three traits you could have designed ships that were jump distortion resistant but did not have their own jump points. Or accurate placement but no resistance.
Same thing with fighters, they are defined by a few traits, dogfight, dodge, speed, hull and weapons. I could easily envision a fighter that had great dodge and weapons but a poor dogfight due to needed a good 'lock' on the target, harder to get in a wild dogfight.
Last, if shields work vs anti-fighter, they may or may not be present when a dogfight happens. If that was to be the case I would like that to be reflected in some way if the idea is that the shield is part of the dogfight score. Say a +1 or +2 that is only active if the shield is up.
Ripple
Iain McGhee
Mongoose
My take on the "no shields in dogfights or against AF" issue is that with fighter and AF fire you are getting multiple hits with rapid fire weapons which might overwhelm the shield, as opposed to a warship's main guns only scoring the odd single hit which could be absorbed or deflected.
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Erm... what? You think that should get to fire your weapon AD against the enemy's hull? And that you should get dodge saves when you get killed in a dogfight too? Somehow I get the feeling that how you want dogfights to be micromanaged isn't quite in line with the writer's intent for them to be kept quick.Ripple said:
The possibility that the fighters will already have taken a hit when they start dogfighting is something to consider. I very much expect that it will be the exception rather than the rule however, so either give a -1 dogfight penalty to dogfight when the shields are down, or keep things simple by always letting the fighter keep its full dogfight score regardless.
Oh, and with that last paragraph you seem to be contradicting yourself. You say you want the effect of shields to be taken into account in the dogfight score, despite the fact that your very first line of the post was to disagree with that idea...
Admiral Phlop
Mongoose
I voted that the shields should work against all weapons. It doesn't make any sense to me that you have a shield and it won't work against a lighter weapon that is meant for anti-fighter but you can stop some damage from a heavy weapon.
No Neko, go back and read again.
Three separate paragraphs, three separates ideas.
1 - general game design goal.
Jump point is an example of something that had a number of options that could be separated realistically as they had separate effects on the game that had nothing to do with each other. Not the case in all things, but you said that dodge, shield etc was all part of the dogfight rateing already. I thought this was incorrect as a design idea as there were other factors to look at.
2 - I was not saying micro manage dogfights, I was saying dogfight is an independant stat. I highly maneuverable but structurally weak fighter with only a slow heavy missile for weapons would stat wise have a weak hull, great dodge, great weapon sucky dogfight. By your argument I should be on the boards raving that because it has great dodge and weapons it should have a better dogfight score. I would be incorrect from the fluff perspective, and possibly from the balance perspective if the weapon was cool enough.
3 - This was what I ment from the first paragraph, just being specific to the shadow fighter. Why doesn't the Vorlon fighter simply have a great dogfight rating, rather than a separate AF trait. Because it has a different type of affect from dogfight. It's only good vs one enemy fighter and is then used up, if you just upped th dogfight it would be too strong. Shields are similar, it could be up or down when a dogfight happens, so could add or not. This is completely different from dodge or hull or anything else, in that it can be expended. The traits you listed (dodge and hull) will be the same vs all dogfights, and therefor bundling them under dogfight to reduce rolls makes sense.
Again...I wish to separate things that have segarate effect, and durabilities under the game. I am not trying to add complexity that is does not add to design option in ship stats, or better reflect the actual play of systems in the game when being reduced to save die rolls.
As to you argument that we should just make the shadow fighter weaker a portion of the time helps clarify he issue for me.
Ripple
Three separate paragraphs, three separates ideas.
1 - general game design goal.
Jump point is an example of something that had a number of options that could be separated realistically as they had separate effects on the game that had nothing to do with each other. Not the case in all things, but you said that dodge, shield etc was all part of the dogfight rateing already. I thought this was incorrect as a design idea as there were other factors to look at.
2 - I was not saying micro manage dogfights, I was saying dogfight is an independant stat. I highly maneuverable but structurally weak fighter with only a slow heavy missile for weapons would stat wise have a weak hull, great dodge, great weapon sucky dogfight. By your argument I should be on the boards raving that because it has great dodge and weapons it should have a better dogfight score. I would be incorrect from the fluff perspective, and possibly from the balance perspective if the weapon was cool enough.
3 - This was what I ment from the first paragraph, just being specific to the shadow fighter. Why doesn't the Vorlon fighter simply have a great dogfight rating, rather than a separate AF trait. Because it has a different type of affect from dogfight. It's only good vs one enemy fighter and is then used up, if you just upped th dogfight it would be too strong. Shields are similar, it could be up or down when a dogfight happens, so could add or not. This is completely different from dodge or hull or anything else, in that it can be expended. The traits you listed (dodge and hull) will be the same vs all dogfights, and therefor bundling them under dogfight to reduce rolls makes sense.
Again...I wish to separate things that have segarate effect, and durabilities under the game. I am not trying to add complexity that is does not add to design option in ship stats, or better reflect the actual play of systems in the game when being reduced to save die rolls.
As to you argument that we should just make the shadow fighter weaker a portion of the time helps clarify he issue for me.
Ripple
My argument against the above is simple.
Vorlon fighters have advanced anti-fighter and come in flights of three right?
Shadows have shields and come in flights of two, right?
AAF can be used in dogfights by removing the opposing fighter before the dogfight begins.
Shadow shields are useful against... well, they can't be used in dogfights (and I would never dare to argue that point), nor can they be used against AF fire.
And therein lies the problem. Vorlon fighters are superior to Shadow fighters, but you get more of them
If the shields could be used against AF fire, then balance is restored, as the shadow fighters can now initiate bombing runs Vs ships, and could potentially defeat their old enemies in a dogfight.
Vorlon fighters have advanced anti-fighter and come in flights of three right?
Shadows have shields and come in flights of two, right?
AAF can be used in dogfights by removing the opposing fighter before the dogfight begins.
Shadow shields are useful against... well, they can't be used in dogfights (and I would never dare to argue that point), nor can they be used against AF fire.
And therein lies the problem. Vorlon fighters are superior to Shadow fighters, but you get more of them
If the shields could be used against AF fire, then balance is restored, as the shadow fighters can now initiate bombing runs Vs ships, and could potentially defeat their old enemies in a dogfight.
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Oh, I see Ripple... basically you're trying to set up a strawman :roll:
I'm arguing that dogfight is a summary stat of everything that plays a role in dogfighting, including some aspects of the fighter that just aren't shown in the other stats. By my argument, there's nothing wrong with having a high hull, dodge, stealth, great weapons, etc, and still be piss poor in dogfighting, because the aspects that aren't already stated could really be crippling in a dogfight.
More specifically to the Shadow fighter, I see no reason why it must be better at dogfighting because of the shields, when it can quite easily be a -1 dogfighter before you take the shields into account.
The only other part of your post which actually seemed to not be an attempt at distraction was the idea that the shields can be taken down before the dogfight. In effect our suggestions are the same on this one for if it is decided that the situation is common enough to worry about, with a minor difference: I'm suggesting that the bonus should be added as standard, and then removed in the less likely event that the shields are down, whilst you're suggesting that the player should have to manually add the shields themselves in the common event that the shields are up.
Note that both suggestions are basically what I've been arguing for all along - that the effects on dogfight should be dealt with in the dogfighting score rather than than by using the shield mechanic of ignoring the first hit.
As a side note on AF and dogfights, it's made quite clear that AF can't be used in dogfights at all. It is used before a dogfight starts (and then, only fighters can manage to do so). If a dogfight lasts past the first turn, the AF is unusable.
I'm arguing that dogfight is a summary stat of everything that plays a role in dogfighting, including some aspects of the fighter that just aren't shown in the other stats. By my argument, there's nothing wrong with having a high hull, dodge, stealth, great weapons, etc, and still be piss poor in dogfighting, because the aspects that aren't already stated could really be crippling in a dogfight.
More specifically to the Shadow fighter, I see no reason why it must be better at dogfighting because of the shields, when it can quite easily be a -1 dogfighter before you take the shields into account.
The only other part of your post which actually seemed to not be an attempt at distraction was the idea that the shields can be taken down before the dogfight. In effect our suggestions are the same on this one for if it is decided that the situation is common enough to worry about, with a minor difference: I'm suggesting that the bonus should be added as standard, and then removed in the less likely event that the shields are down, whilst you're suggesting that the player should have to manually add the shields themselves in the common event that the shields are up.
Note that both suggestions are basically what I've been arguing for all along - that the effects on dogfight should be dealt with in the dogfighting score rather than than by using the shield mechanic of ignoring the first hit.
As a side note on AF and dogfights, it's made quite clear that AF can't be used in dogfights at all. It is used before a dogfight starts (and then, only fighters can manage to do so). If a dogfight lasts past the first turn, the AF is unusable.
Methos5000
Mongoose
I think making an exception for shields against AF guns creates more problems then it solves. Shields can stop AF fire but a fighter with stealth can be shot down despite the fact the ship didn't make a stealth check to see if the AF guns could lock onto it?
I think they made the AF guns ignore the fighter traits for simplicity. If you go starting making exceptions you may as well just make the AF trait only ignore dodge like it was for AF guns in 1st Ed.
Personally I think they should either give more shadow fighters per wing or give it the AAF trait like the Vorlon fighter.
I think they made the AF guns ignore the fighter traits for simplicity. If you go starting making exceptions you may as well just make the AF trait only ignore dodge like it was for AF guns in 1st Ed.
Personally I think they should either give more shadow fighters per wing or give it the AAF trait like the Vorlon fighter.
Shields block hits, not damage. So you'd have to change AF to deal a hit, not 1 damage.greenboy said:
One hit automatically kills a fighter. So you'd have to change this to have an exception for Shields...
There has to be an exception somewhere!
3 or 4 per wing is by far the neater, simpler solution so by Occam's Razor it wins.
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Not necessarily (I'm back tracking since this was the change I most supported). As Ripple pointed out adding more might just be adding more VP for the opponent, a la Kotha.Burger said:
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Interweaving house rules is tricky though, especially when one relies on another to operate as expected.
