Starfury weapons too weak?

[Anonymous]

Hi all,
Just a quick question. Are the weapons on a standard starfury supposed to be so light based on what we see in the show? As they are currently statted, a starfury's heaviest weapon (avg 16.5 points) will normally not be able to penetrate the DR of most larger ships (DR 20+). That's fine if one assumes that fighters are simply ineffective against capital ships, but I thought that I had seen in the show instances of starfury weapons impacting and at least lightly damaging even large ships like the Nova or Omega. Can someone confirm this? Or am I imagining things? Thanks for the help.
JD

 

[slingbld]

You are not imagining things. THe Starfuries have had an impact in the battles involving the larger vessals. There are specific shots where they are seen taking out the turreted weapons & even some minor explosions on the surface of the capitol class ships they are firing on. Now that could be from them rolling high (20-30 points)

 

[Tegman]

I will handle fighters like this:
Since they can come very close to a large ship when they attack, they ignore the DR bonus provided by Interceptors in matrixmode. Furthermore, the defending vessel halve it's DR from incoming fighterfire since they can run in close and attack weak spots.

This will make fighters a little better, but not ubergood. Battleships will still have a fairly good DR vs most fighters.

Note: This is only if they go really close/are in the same square etc, depending on how you handle movement.

Let me know what you think.

 

[August]

Oddly, this is a lot like how I am handling fighters in the Combat Game coming up. Nice job.

-August

 

[Dag'Nabbit]

I will handle fighters like this:
Since they can come very close to a large ship when they attack, they ignore the DR bonus provided by Interceptors in matrixmode. Furthermore, the defending vessel halve it's DR from incoming fighterfire since they can run in close and attack weak spots.

This will make fighters a little better, but not ubergood. Battleships will still have a fairly good DR vs most fighters.

Note: This is only if they go really close/are in the same square etc, depending on how you handle movement.

Let me know what you think.

That's a good idea, I hadn't thought about halving the DR though I do ignore the shielding affects if fighters are in the same hex as their target.

Oddly, this is a lot like how I am handling fighters in the Combat Game coming up. Nice job.

-August

Drooling......Every time you mention the upcoming combat system for B5 I gotta reach for my bib. That's all right though, I can handle it until you guys release the system.

 

[Tegman]

Oddly, this is a lot like how I am handling fighters in the Combat Game coming up. Nice job.

-August

Hmm...maybe I should become a fortune teller

 

[slingbld]

I will handle fighters like this:
Since they can come very close to a large ship when they attack, they ignore the DR bonus provided by Interceptors in matrixmode. Furthermore, the defending vessel halve it's DR from incoming fighterfire since they can run in close and attack weak spots.

I like the idea of ignoring the DR bonus for the Interceptors in Matrix Mode. I can't see halving the DR as much as possibly increasing the possibility of a fighter scoring a crit by one (ie: a crit range of 20 becomes 19-20. one that's 19-20, becomes 18-20).

But that's me

Slingbld

 

[Dag'Nabbit]

Increasing the threat range for a critical isn't a bad idea. Another one that I just came up with, is allowing the fighters to target specific systems on a vessel at only half penalty. Help to simulate their ability to pick apart systems on a ship.

 

[Tegman]

Can fighters target specific areas on ships? Where have you read this?

I don't have the EF-book, so I my guess is that you have read it there
Unless I have missed it in the corebook

 

[E Nicely]

Oddly, this is a lot like how I am handling fighters in the Combat Game coming up. Nice job.

-August

Any other tidbits about the combat game you want to throw at us? This is not an attempted hijacking.

 

[Anonymous]

I just got the EF sourcebook and noticed something else odd about Starfury weapons. The regular Aurora mounts Twin-linked unipulse cannons which do max 32 points damage. The Thunderbolt mounts a single gatling cannon which does a max 40 points. Because of the way linking works damage from twin-linked weapons is rolled seperately on a single successful attack roll. So the weapons on an Aurora can deal up to 64 points of damage to the Thunderbolt's 40. It doesn't make any sense that a newer model of starfury would do less damage. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps some special rules for gatling weapons were left out of the book. Or else I just couldn't find them. In which case I would be grateful if someone pointed them out to me.
JD

 

[Tegman]

I'll just make it rapid fire, unless someone else has a better idea?

 

[psyclonejack]

I feel that making DR halved vs. fighters makes a starfighter an UBER SHIP. Standard DR rules dictate that you always take 1 point of damage no matter the DR. Thus one Starfury would be able (rolling minimum) to do 8 points of damage per round. Take a flight of 8 starfuries. That is 48 points of damage in 1 combat round. Thus one flight could (under current rules) take out large ships in 3-4 rounds (9-12 seconds). Imagine 3 or four flights focusing on a destoyer. Dead in one round. Now you add the fact that DR is halved vs starfighters . . . OUCH. One Carrier filled with fighters using swarm tatics could take out how many battleships?

Just my thoughts,
Psyjack

 

[Anonymous]

Psyjack,
I must have missed the rule about taking 1 point regardless of DR. Where's that rule located? I'm assuming from your numbers that you take 1 point per die of damage dealt? So the Aurora gets 1 point for each of it's 4 d8's of damage, doubled because of the twin linkage to 8? That would make fighters powerful enough in my opinion. I thought previously that they simply couldn't damage the bigger ships except on very high damage rolls.

That said, anybody got any idea about the Aurora vs Thunderbolt damage issue? I watched the 4th season DVD and at the Coriana battle, the Thunderbolts didn't really seem to be spitting fire as rapidly as the "gatling" description would seem to suggest. They seemed to be single-firing some large bluish globes. Anyway, just food for thought.
JD

 

[Stardrake]

About the Aurora/Thunderbolt question--Remember, the Thunderbolt is more of an attack ship with some fighter capability (think Tornado GR1) while the Aurora is a pure space superiority fighter (think F22 Raptor or Eurofighter Typhoon). So the Aurora would have more space combat capability, but the Thunderbolt has both atmosphere capability and bombing capability (remember, the first time we saw Thunderbolts was when Clark's forces bombed Mars in SEVERED DREAMS).

At least, that seems logical to me....

 

[Sundog]

Also consider that the DR of linked weapons would be applied to EACH shot. So the Aurora does more total damage,but in a mode that actually lets LESS damage leak through, especially against larger ships.

 

[psyclonejack]

I must have missed the rule about taking 1 point regardless of DR. Where's that rule located? I'm assuming from your numbers that you take 1 point per die of damage dealt? So the Aurora gets 1 point for each of it's 4 d8's of damage, doubled because of the twin linkage to 8? That would make fighters powerful enough in my opinion. I thought previously that they simply couldn't damage the bigger ships except on very high damage rolls.

The 1 point regardless of DR is a standard D20 Rule found in the Monster Manual when addressing DR. Since I found no rule countering this in the B5 factbook, I figure it applied. Thus a SA-23 Mitchhell Hyundyne Starfury as listed in the main book would do a minimum of 8. Twin linked uni pulse Cannon (Damage rolled seprately each barrel, Thus Minimum 2) and a Twin linked light uni pulse cannon, with rapid fire. (Damage rolled seprately, 3 shots each barrel, thus Minimum 6) 6+2=8 total damage rolls, thus at least 1 point per damage roll would be dealt, possibly more if you rolled high. But we are talking minimums. You would have to make 8 attack rolls, but come on shooting something bigger than the broad side of a barn is easy.

A Sharlin Warcruiser has 725 hp. If 4 Wings of 8 Starfurys focus on it. In the first round alone minimum damage would be 256 points. The Sharlin would get 22 attacks against the fighters, Figuring all hit it would thin the ranks to 10 fighters. They would then deliver another 80 points of damage, leaving the Sharlin with 389 hp, before they are all destroyed the next round. The Sharlin now limps home, half of it destroyed. And the whole combat was 6 seconds.

Had it been a Vree War Saucer, the Saucer would be dead and only 5 fighters would be lost.

Had it been a Nova Dreadnought it would have gone from 650hp to 282 before winning the battle in 2 rounds.

Starfighters can tip the battle already, lets not make them deadlier by halving the DR of a capital ship. Just add a capital ship on the side of the fighters, and that side wins. Its only when both sides employ fighters that things get intresting.

Just enjoying the crunch goodness of Math,
PsyJack

 

[Dag'Nabbit]

About the Aurora/Thunderbolt question--Remember, the Thunderbolt is more of an attack ship with some fighter capability (think Tornado GR1) while the Aurora is a pure space superiority fighter (think F22 Raptor or Eurofighter Typhoon). So the Aurora would have more space combat capability, but the Thunderbolt has both atmosphere capability and bombing capability (remember, the first time we saw Thunderbolts was when Clark's forces bombed Mars in SEVERED DREAMS).

At least, that seems logical to me....

I disagree with your comparison of the thunderbolt to the aurora. The Thunderbolt is meant to replace the Aurora and the Badger models. It does so by combining the best aspects of both and then improving on them. The Thunderbolt incorporates the Badger's Navigator and missile capability as well as improving the basic dogfighting capabilities found in the Aurora model. The DV is higher, DR is increased by 25%, it is atmospheric capable, ACC increased by 20%, DEC by 33%, handling remains the same, while Sensor capability is increased by 50%. The weapon system in increased vs larger combat vessels though slightly degraded against smaller targets.

Let's do some damage comparisons:
with average damage the Aurora scores 18x2(linked weapons)=36
the Thunderbolt scores 22 with its single cannon ( I wish it had 2)

The Aurora has the damage lead until it goes against DR of 14 or higher.
If you used the max damage comparisons it looks like the Aurora has the lead as it is better until DR 24. However, the odds of the Aurora rolling max damage is 1 in 16,777,216. It is only 1 in 10,000 for the Thunderbolt to get max damage. So every time the Aurora gets max damage the Thunderbolt will have done it 1, 677 times.

And this doesn't even look at the possibility of the Thunderbolt's missile load.

Because of all these things the Thunderbolt is the next generation fighter for the EA. It should be given how much better it is.

 

[August]

Dag is dead on here. This is a very good example of how something can seem superior until you sit and analyze the stats on it comparitively.

-A

 

[Tegman]

It states in the rules that the Aurora can only fire one of it's systems each round (either rapid fire the weaker ones or fire the heavy weapons as usually), so it wont do 6+2 damage each round, instead 6 or 2, but the 'minimum 1p of damage' make the heavier weapons useless against bigger ships since you would want to rapid fire and do a minimum of 6p of damage. But the heavier are supposed to be used against heavily armed ships.

Therefore, I don't use the rule 'minimum 1p of damage' I think it's irrelevant in a spacefight (well, I don't use it anywhere) and it makes the pilot (player) use the heavy guns against larger ships, as they should (that's why they are there).