Squadrons and Centauri

[David Anla Shok']

Ah, so you are just stirring the proverbial pot then?! Got ya.

I suppose that this was directed towards me. No. No pot stirring. Just making factual observations. When several people tell you that your poll is biased you are likely to take it personally. I was just trying to smooth that out before it happened.

 

[Taran]

You only have to e within 6" of one single other ship to be in a squadron. At long ranges where arc positioning isn't of great worry, it's very easy to keep this spacing -- at least, it is for the Demos.

If the Vorchans don't feel like they all have to pick on the same target(s), it isn't overly difficult, either.

In any event, the explosion of a Vorchan will do approximately 3 damage (8 dice, looking for 5's to hit.... I'm actually overestimating a bit) each, so if you get 3, that's 9 extra damage ..... that, well, you could have directly put into the other Vorchans because of the amount of overkill that you wasted in the exploding Vorchan. There's zero profit to this; you're just hoping the explosion corrects for your misallocation of firepower.

Ah, but hitting the center ship has an added bonus: You just broke the squadron, if you managed to kill it. A squadron of 4 Vorchans in the usual line abreast formation 6" apart, would suddenly become a squadron of 2Vorchans and a single additional Vorchan off on its lonesome...

 

[David Anla Shok']

You only have to e within 6" of one single other ship to be in a squadron. At long ranges where arc positioning isn't of great worry, it's very easy to keep this spacing -- at least, it is for the Demos.

If the Vorchans don't feel like they all have to pick on the same target(s), it isn't overly difficult, either.

In any event, the explosion of a Vorchan will do approximately 3 damage (8 dice, looking for 5's to hit.... I'm actually overestimating a bit) each, so if you get 3, that's 9 extra damage ..... that, well, you could have directly put into the other Vorchans because of the amount of overkill that you wasted in the exploding Vorchan. There's zero profit to this; you're just hoping the explosion corrects for your misallocation of firepower.

Ah, but hitting the center ship has an added bonus: You just broke the squadron, if you managed to kill it. A squadron of 4 Vorchans in the usual line abreast formation 6" apart, would suddenly become a squadron of 2Vorchans and a single additional Vorchan off on its lonesome...

As far as I know, you cannot "break" a squadron like that. You've merely compelled them to restore the distance by the end of next turn.

 

[Omnipotent]

Dunno if it was already said, but you can break a ship from a squadron "simply by declaring so"...at least that is the text I find in the rulebook. You do not need to move it 6 inces away. It is just another way of "declaring" according to the rulebook...

This is logical cause u most be able to adapt to situations. I still think dropping the squad/pentagon size by one would help a lot.

 

[David Anla Shok']

Dunno if it was already said, but you can break a ship from a squadron "simply by declaring so"...at least that is the text I find in the rulebook. You do not need to move it 6 inces away. It is just another way of "declaring" according to the rulebook...

This is logical cause u most be able to adapt to situations. I still think dropping the squad/pentagon size by one would help a lot.

True enough. Though, it would be nice to be able to squadron up during the course of a game...say make a crew quality check for it?

 

[Omnipotent]

True enough. Though, it would be nice to be able to squadron up during the course of a game...say make a crew quality check for it?

Yeah, but then again, who would benefit? The same races that benefit from squads atm :roll:

If the ini sink problem is solved then I would love see that option being available cause it would definitely give you more tactical options, which would be great!

 

[David Anla Shok']

True enough. Though, it would be nice to be able to squadron up during the course of a game...say make a crew quality check for it?

Yeah, but then again, who would benefit? The same races that benefit from squads atm :roll:

If the ini sink problem is solved then I would love see that option being available cause it would definitely give you more tactical options, which would be great!

The same races that benefit from squadroning now? Pretty much everyone with a selection of ships... ...trying not to envision Vorlon CAs in squadrons..

 

[Taran]

It would certainly be nice for the ISA...

Special Action: Form Squadron
CQ:9
All ships attempting to form the squadron must be activated together and must be moved to within 6 inches of each other before attempting to form a squadron. Each ship that fails the CQ check does not join the squadron, while those that succeed, do. If only 1 ship succeeds, no squadron is formed (I am a squadron of 1!)

 

[Da Boss]

we (Gregs Crew) came up with this one on the way back from the ECW tourney

"Co-ordinate Fire", Crew Quality Check 8

In the heat of battle a senior officer can sometimes see beyond the individual engagements and understand the big picture. They order the nearby ships to follow their lead and target a vital target in the enemy fleet.

Effect: If a Ship with the Command trait successfully makes the CQ check for this Special Action, they order all ships within 6" to act as a Squadron for the purposes of firing. The ship executing the order and All friendly ships within 6" of the command ship must fire at the designated target fighter, ship or station and may not fire at any other target this turn. If the Ship loses the Command trait, or is skeleton crewed or destroyed, the effects of this Special Order are immediately lost.

 

[Ripple]

bias comments - all polls are biased by the definitions your using, but this one did include an option for current rules being fine. The fact that you wanted a different phrase for that is why you can add a post, but the option you were looking for in rules statements was there.

squadron disadvantages - a disadvantage that is easily compensated for is not a disadvantage. You do not give up initiative or maneuver if you have purchased down for other ships, unless your opponent has also purchased down, at which point you simply unsquadron to restore. It's not like buying up where you are stuck.

Squadroning SA - I actually like this idea quite a bit. Shouldn't be too easy, but as another option it would be great.

Ripple

 

[David Anla Shok']

I was thinking that each ship would have to move within range during a turn. Roll their CQ (each ship) on the next turn prior to movement. It surely would reflect the actions of White Stars on the screen, moving together, breaking apart, coming together like a school of fish.

 

[David Anla Shok']

bias comments - all polls are biased by the definitions your using, but this one did include an option for current rules being fine. The fact that you wanted a different phrase for that is why you can add a post, but the option you were looking for in rules statements was there.

Ripple

The option "Leave it alone, its fine as is"? Didn't see that one. Both of the leave it alone options had qualifiers. So no, "my phrase" wasn't there.
I submitted that it is difficult to craft a poll with neutral questions. This can be done innocently or deliberately. I noted this so that the "complaints" about the poll wouldn't fall on the creator, that the word "bias" that most of us were using would not be construed by him as being pejorative.

 

[Target]

I always thought ships with command should get acess to more SA's.
Thought a SA that acts a little like the Dilgar pentagon rule with delaying your move would be good.

 

[Taran]

Well, giving more benefits to the command trait would certainly make more fleets competitive against the ISA. At least, when playing games too low to bring a War or Armaggeddon level ship, since those are the only 2 ships the ISA has with the Command trait...

 

[David Anla Shok']

I always thought ships with command should get acess to more SA's.
Thought a SA that acts a little like the Dilgar pentagon rule with delaying your move would be good.

Or at least get a bonus when forming new squadrons during the game

 

[Silvereye]

There is another benefit to being in a squadron though this is more likely to be of use in a campaign setting - All ships in the squadron test at the highest crew quality score on the squadrons ships.

Weirdest squadron I used was three Omega Destroyers. Against Minbari.

Currently I think the squadron rules are pretty even. You trade initiative in the movement phase for initiative in the firing phase. This tends to distort the offensive impact of the squadron's ships.

 

[Ripple]

I guess I disagree on the loss of initiative in the movement sequence because it is not compulsory. You buy your fleet, squadron up, then in the first turn if you count up what you need for initiative sinks and break that many ships off the squadrons. We often see 50% or more of a fleets total AD fired in the first activation during the fire phase, which seems to defeat the purpose of the alternating system, with fleets that are not down a single sink vs their opponents.

Mind you that is only when we are feeling competitive, but friendly games rarely need rules adjustments. If you friends really hate something your not likely to do it. Goes back to the issue of do you play games where folks hide initiative sinks in corners or not.

Any way I'll drop the thread now, I think I made my point to anyone who wants to hear it. I wasn't trying to badger, just didn't feel I was really being clear about the idea of 10 ships in a fleet but 50-75% of the AD firing that turn being in the four ships firing together as the first firing activation.

Ripple

 

[CratZ]

I think Squads are overpowered currently since the only drawback can be overcome

"simply by declaring so"

(I actually never understood the balance with fleets with good ini and good front arc weapons that dont need ini sinks. I think squadrons are currently a no-brainer for any fleet with good manouver and powerful weapons that are not B. )

How about something like passing a CQ in order to break ships from a squad. (not sure if someone already had this idea)
And you could break them only in end phase. Now there would be a decent drawback with squadrons since you cant be sure you get those much needed sinks when you need them.

I also like the idea of reducing squads to max 3 ships. Reduces the huge amount of firepower that the INI winner is able to unleash before you get to shoot back.

I mean think about all that "effort" to get that boreside weapon targeted to something and then some squadron just shoots it down before it gets to fire.

just some random thoughts...

 

[CZuschlag]

CratZ:

Spot on, wholeheartedly agree. When we played 1st Ed., we decided the as-released Dilgar were overpowered. Aside from blaming the Targrath as overgunned (very reasonable), we identified one other thing as overpowered: the Pentacon.

Originally we thought, "that not having to move thing is overpowered." But, we quickly realized that wasn't it --- it was being able to squadron together 4 and 5 ships that was too much. We ended up temporarily banning the Pentacon not because of the initiative sink, but because of the firepower concentration. The straw that broke the camel's back? 4 Targraths in a Pentacon all CAFing a Bin'Tak and causing it not to just die, but explode in one fire activation from full health; I only rolled about 8 points over average damage.

So we enforced a hard maximum of 3 ships per squadron for everyone.

I think it lasted a month before Armageddon came out. The solution there was to give everyone the ability. True, it couldn't be fair for only the Dilgar to do this; but we thought it was right that no one should be able to do it.

 

[Target]

Maybe another way to limit squadrons power is too restrict them to 1pt in games that are 5 or less & 2 that are 10 or less .
5pt raid game would mean you could only squadron 2 skirmish, 1 Skirmish & 2 patrol points.