Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Well if each fighter has a number of hits then a stand of three would have x3 hits and one with two on a stand would have x2 hits. Easy :lol:
Shuttles in ACTA:SF
- Thread starter Iron Domokun
- Start date
Like I recommended early you will probably come out a head using pairs of fighters instead of trios. The SFB Dogfight Rules were written for pairs if I remember correctly. Also if you go with groups of threes it plays havoc with intergrating heavy fighters. Just thinking keep it simple, 1 F101 = 2 Hornets. And of course regardless how they are handled you will still have odd ducks the Warhawk with 5 Gladiators.
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
Rambler, yes the SFB dogfight rules were written for pairs but there's no reason for ACTA to be bound by any decision that SFB made. ACTA already has dogfight rules.
As for heavy fighters: Firstly, no guarantee we'd ever see the superabundance of fighter types in ACTA we see in SFB, so we may never see F101s, F111s, or bombers.
Secondly, no reason for ACTA to be bound by a decision that F&E made, either.
Mongoose may base their fighter solution on Bab 5, NA, or come up with an entirely new one. If they treat them the same way as NA, you'd have one fighter per stand and each has a stat line like a little ship. So maybe you will see a couple of fighter types for each empire. Fed F-18 and F-14, for example, or Klingon Z-1 Zoran and Z-D Zerdon.
As for heavy fighters: Firstly, no guarantee we'd ever see the superabundance of fighter types in ACTA we see in SFB, so we may never see F101s, F111s, or bombers.
Secondly, no reason for ACTA to be bound by a decision that F&E made, either.
Mongoose may base their fighter solution on Bab 5, NA, or come up with an entirely new one. If they treat them the same way as NA, you'd have one fighter per stand and each has a stat line like a little ship. So maybe you will see a couple of fighter types for each empire. Fed F-18 and F-14, for example, or Klingon Z-1 Zoran and Z-D Zerdon.
Da Boss
I don't know Mongoose, but just based on what I've seen so far on this board, it appears that they too welcome player inputs. I say: write it up and send it in to them. Maybe they'll use it. I'd ask first what their submission policy is, of course, to make sure to get name-credit. (I learned that lesson the hard way with another game company.)
By chance, have you ever been over to the ADB boards? I'm sorry if I gave you a negative impression before. Yes, they have rules they must live by, but on the flip side I don't know of any company that has more player inputs. I've never asked the quesiton, but I would suspect that 10% to 15% of all SFB ships were designed by a player, and probably 25% to 40% more had major player inputs. Heck, I know one player invented an entire empire with history backdrop and everything.
I don't know Mongoose, but just based on what I've seen so far on this board, it appears that they too welcome player inputs. I say: write it up and send it in to them. Maybe they'll use it. I'd ask first what their submission policy is, of course, to make sure to get name-credit. (I learned that lesson the hard way with another game company.)
In SFB, ships can move 30 hexes per turn (but just barely, if they're not re-arming weapons at the time), but shuttles only go 6 hexes. Fighters are faster, and late-war fighters are as fast as starships.
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
To reiterate what Garth said above, ADB does rely on outside submissions for a lot of its material. Rules tends to be done in-house. Scenarios, tactical guides for all the systems they publish, fiction, submissions for the RPG, are all very welcome (and they have a constant need for more).
andypalmer
Mongoose
3 per stand fits the standard carrier configurations.
CVE - 6 fighters
CVL - 9 fighters
CV - 12 fighters
CVA - 24 fighters
(there's another carrier type that has 18, IIRC a CV with extra bays replacing weapons, but I don't recall the designation)
There are of course ships with "non-standard" fighter groups, but I would recommend fudging those. i.e., Hydran Lancer (4 fighters) gets one stand, Romulan WarHawk (5 fighters) gets two stands, etc.
CVE - 6 fighters
CVL - 9 fighters
CV - 12 fighters
CVA - 24 fighters
(there's another carrier type that has 18, IIRC a CV with extra bays replacing weapons, but I don't recall the designation)
There are of course ships with "non-standard" fighter groups, but I would recommend fudging those. i.e., Hydran Lancer (4 fighters) gets one stand, Romulan WarHawk (5 fighters) gets two stands, etc.
Asguard101
Mongoose
Per fighter would bog the system down once you got up to a Carrier Battle Group. You'd be talking 48 - 72 fighters, and 96 -144 fighters if both sides fielded a Battle Group. Even with 3 per stand thats still a large number.
3 per stand would be 24 stands for a CBG - thats eminently playable in ACtA. I have used as many with 2nd game rookies and its played fine.
The B5 ACtA standard was 6 per stand - and to be honest you could readily do that in SF ACtA and simply lower attack and damage ratings on the 3 fighter Stinger Groups, the weird 5 fighter groups etc. At that stage a full CBG per side of 144 fighters would fall to 24 stands - again entirely manageable in ACtA even in a game with relatively inexperienced players.
The difficulty in doing fighters in ACtA:SF will be deciding on damage. With 6+ hit boxes and in some cases 10-12 a single fighter can absorb quite a lot of phasers in SFB - which is much higher than the 1 damage point for 6 fighters of B5 ACtA. A simple decision would be to just downrate fighters to match ACtA scale, the more complex is to make them multihit units to keep the relative power level. I lean towards suggesting the first option myself - as it allows for sensible fighter level - especially if you settle for 3 fighters per stand but 1 hit only - they'll be somewhere between the two power levels then.
The B5 ACtA standard was 6 per stand - and to be honest you could readily do that in SF ACtA and simply lower attack and damage ratings on the 3 fighter Stinger Groups, the weird 5 fighter groups etc. At that stage a full CBG per side of 144 fighters would fall to 24 stands - again entirely manageable in ACtA even in a game with relatively inexperienced players.
The difficulty in doing fighters in ACtA:SF will be deciding on damage. With 6+ hit boxes and in some cases 10-12 a single fighter can absorb quite a lot of phasers in SFB - which is much higher than the 1 damage point for 6 fighters of B5 ACtA. A simple decision would be to just downrate fighters to match ACtA scale, the more complex is to make them multihit units to keep the relative power level. I lean towards suggesting the first option myself - as it allows for sensible fighter level - especially if you settle for 3 fighters per stand but 1 hit only - they'll be somewhere between the two power levels then.
or do what ACTA did previously just call it a flight of fighters and don't define the exact numbers this included - so it was nominally 6 per counter / stand but you could have whatever you want on the base / depicted.
The carriers listed would have: (*ACTA requires a certain amount of abstraction to allow for speed and fun
)
CVE - 1 flight
CVL - 2 flights
CV - 2 flights
CVA - 4 flights
IMO you certainly want to avoid tracking anything on the actual fighters - its just slows everything down for this style of game - same reason that no counters for seeking weapons - thank god
The carriers listed would have: (*ACTA requires a certain amount of abstraction to allow for speed and fun
)CVE - 1 flight
CVL - 2 flights
CV - 2 flights
CVA - 4 flights
IMO you certainly want to avoid tracking anything on the actual fighters - its just slows everything down for this style of game - same reason that no counters for seeking weapons - thank god
andypalmer
Mongoose
I agree that tracking the fighters separately is far too much. Heck, I play Hydrans and will often see over 100 fighters in full fleet battles. 30-35 stands is one thing; 100+ is something else entirely.
Indeed - its workable in ACTA - the Gaim have around that many - but it does get a bit boring waiting for the layer to move the swarms!
Big games tend to have 15-20 flights/counters (so approx 120 fighters) a side at most and that usually works well IMO
Myrms ideas would work well.
Of course one of the things that made ACTA fighters work was the dodge trait - which has gone
same mechanism is now Stealth. Guess you could use it for the ST fighters to give them survivability without having to track anything......
Big games tend to have 15-20 flights/counters (so approx 120 fighters) a side at most and that usually works well IMO
Myrms ideas would work well.
Of course one of the things that made ACTA fighters work was the dodge trait - which has gone
same mechanism is now Stealth. Guess you could use it for the ST fighters to give them survivability without having to track anything......I was suggesting using a stand to represent any number of fighters up to the entire fighter complement of the carrier. You could use a 1 point of damage per fighter model then use a die on the base to represent the number of fighters in that group. If not a die the any counter with a number on it. Litko does some nice counters.
http://www.litko.net/
http://www.litko.net/
Actually I was going to suggest something very similar. Stat out fighters individually and make some kind of flight rule for groups of like 2 3 6 whatever. Give some kind of bonus for flights like a common defense bonus and people will use them like squadrons for capital. Ships. There is a huge difference in the speed of play between ACTA and even FC so I wouldn't worry about slowing the games lot when you add fighters especially since all seek weapons are now quasi direct fire.
Andy you forgot what was probably the most common carrier the DWV or Mobile. Carrier with 8 fighters..o
If shuttle's have only one hit point then strike fighters would probable have 2 or 3 and be crippled with just one hit.
EDIT: Stupid Android. Spell correct.
Andy you forgot what was probably the most common carrier the DWV or Mobile. Carrier with 8 fighters..o
If shuttle's have only one hit point then strike fighters would probable have 2 or 3 and be crippled with just one hit.
EDIT: Stupid Android. Spell correct.
Interesting..................
It would restrict your options if your have a base representing between 1 and 24 fighters - you would also have to have something to represent the declining capabilities of the mass of fighters (both in firepower and dogfighting) as they are shot down.
Its easy with a represntative flight - they just get removed when they are shot (and don't dodge, take the hit)
Thats not to say it won't not work...................just I can see issues?
@ Rambler - I see what you are saying but if (and its a big if) they follow the ACTA normal way of doing it - fighters move, dogfight and fire in a seperate phase - you do all of them and then get on with the ship to ship action.
Multi hit fighters means tracking the damage which personally am not sure adds to the game enough to make it worth the while?
It would restrict your options if your have a base representing between 1 and 24 fighters - you would also have to have something to represent the declining capabilities of the mass of fighters (both in firepower and dogfighting) as they are shot down.
Its easy with a represntative flight - they just get removed when they are shot (and don't dodge, take the hit)
Thats not to say it won't not work...................just I can see issues?
@ Rambler - I see what you are saying but if (and its a big if) they follow the ACTA normal way of doing it - fighters move, dogfight and fire in a seperate phase - you do all of them and then get on with the ship to ship action.
Multi hit fighters means tracking the damage which personally am not sure adds to the game enough to make it worth the while?
If you do strike fighter that way, to keep down record keeping, you would have to allocate damage to a single fighter at a time so the casualties are removed. That way you would, at most, have 1 extra die or counter on the base to note the damage level of the single damaged fighter.
You could limit players as to the break-down of a ship's fighter group. Say the smallest fighter grouping is 2 unless there is only one fighter left. This could lead to players breaking up all of their fighters into groups of 2 to divide an opponents defenses. There will have to be some extensive playtesting on fighter rules.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Edit responding to the stuff before 15:00 not all the people who sneaked it while I was typing :shock:
Individual stats possibly but firepower should be based on squadrons. Death by drones is a very real threat when they are in ACTA and your fighter group fires 6 or 12 a round without scouts, mines, wild weasels and being able to avoid them by moving. A CVA group can smash a ship a turn just from its fighter group hanging back and droning something to death.
Unless the fighters are slow and people have fighter hunting groups of small fast ships (DD/DW etc)
Maybe make them unlimited rounds but cap the nuber a stand can fire per turn. So a stand of 6 fighters may have 18 hits and 6 phaser 3s but fires only 2 drones per turn. Then after it has lost a few fighters it drops to one drone a turn and so on. The same for photon, disruptor and plasma armed ones.
A group of 6 A10s fires two photons, when they fall to 4 they fire one but retain as many P3s as they have fighters left in the group.
Actual stats etc will wait for the rules and playtesting to balance fighter out, my numbers above are purely examples. I suspect there will be a lot of games going on in january and by early Feb we should have a good idea about the game and can start playing fighters.
Individual stats possibly but firepower should be based on squadrons. Death by drones is a very real threat when they are in ACTA and your fighter group fires 6 or 12 a round without scouts, mines, wild weasels and being able to avoid them by moving. A CVA group can smash a ship a turn just from its fighter group hanging back and droning something to death.
Unless the fighters are slow and people have fighter hunting groups of small fast ships (DD/DW etc)
Maybe make them unlimited rounds but cap the nuber a stand can fire per turn. So a stand of 6 fighters may have 18 hits and 6 phaser 3s but fires only 2 drones per turn. Then after it has lost a few fighters it drops to one drone a turn and so on. The same for photon, disruptor and plasma armed ones.
A group of 6 A10s fires two photons, when they fall to 4 they fire one but retain as many P3s as they have fighters left in the group.
Actual stats etc will wait for the rules and playtesting to balance fighter out, my numbers above are purely examples. I suspect there will be a lot of games going on in january and by early Feb we should have a good idea about the game and can start playing fighters.
