Too many fleets with interceptors?

[sidewinder]

the EA are supposedly the ones who invented(or found) interceptors. So why do so many fleets have them, and sometimes more of them? Even the Gaim have them now. I already dont like how you only cancel 1 hit no matter how many interceptor dice you roll. And interceptors are all the same. In B5 Wars, they have MK1 through Mk4's. Earth ships were the only ones with anything past Mk2 I think. You might see races with there own versions of them, like the Centari with their Gaurdian arrays. but I think mongoose needs to come up with different defenses for different races. They finally did with those shields for the Abbai, but interceptors still seem to be the universal defense.

If each interceptor die negated a hit, ships with interceptors would be a lot more scary, to a point. You'd have to concentrate more on one ship but you'd still wear them out pretty quickly, and only the largest ships would get more then a couple INT dice. Maybe make a rule where EA ships INT's shoot down a shot for each die where other races imitations work how they do now, and maybe even then it would only apply to the EA ships that have the Mk4 interceptors. The only problem I'd see would be fighters as INT's, but you cant have more then 4 fighters escorting, right? And any 1's rolled would kill a fighter, and 1's seem to come far to often anyway.

 

[locarno24]

Not exactly universal....

Interceptor-equipped fleets:
EA (And Psi-corps, and Raiders, and the Victory-class - same thing, really)
Centauri
Gaim
Abbai
One (newest) Narn ship

Nor exactly a difficult concept to invent - it's a CIWS-style defensive gun. Any race which has used missiles in warfare is likely to have developed something similar, whether based of ppg technology or not.

Equally, interceptors are just one of several forms of 'active defence' - stealth, dodge, adaptive armour, self-repair ability, shields, redundant systems, gravetic energy grid.....not to mention plenty of fleets that have a shedload of hit points and just tank incoming fire.

Interceptors work ok - the diminishing returns for additional interceptors makes sense. As to the different marks of interceptor; that's why different ships have different interceptor ratings (the number representing both the quality and quantity of interceptors) and why EA tend to have amongst the best (specifically the poseidon and victory, who have nearly the same interceptor power as your average space station...)

 

[H]

the EA are supposedly the ones who invented(or found) interceptors. So why do so many fleets have them, and sometimes more of them? Even the Gaim have them now. I already dont like how you only cancel 1 hit no matter how many interceptor dice you roll. And interceptors are all the same. In B5 Wars, they have MK1 through Mk4's. Earth ships were the only ones with anything past Mk2 I think. You might see races with there own versions of them, like the Centari with their Gaurdian arrays. but I think mongoose needs to come up with different defenses for different races. They finally did with those shields for the Abbai, but interceptors still seem to be the universal defense.

If each interceptor die negated a hit, ships with interceptors would be a lot more scary, to a point. You'd have to concentrate more on one ship but you'd still wear them out pretty quickly, and only the largest ships would get more then a couple INT dice. Maybe make a rule where EA ships INT's shoot down a shot for each die where other races imitations work how they do now, and maybe even then it would only apply to the EA ships that have the Mk4 interceptors. The only problem I'd see would be fighters as INT's, but you cant have more then 4 fighters escorting, right? And any 1's rolled would kill a fighter, and 1's seem to come far to often anyway.

Well, it's not hard to think up the idea of interceptors, the theory has been used on naval vessels for about what? 50 years. ok, probably a bit less, but sticking a gun on a ship to shoot down an incoming missile sounds like a good idea, and then more advanced, sticking missiles to shoot down other missiles, and no doubt, based upon US work, big ole microwave dishes to melt incoming missiles etc. If we, a poxy race of humans, several hundred years of technology behind can come up with a simple idea, I'm sure other races could think it up too. And even if they don't, they see a fight with EA ships and think, ooh, thats a good idea, lets develop some of them..
as it stands, Interceptors aren't exactly on "most fleets"
EA
Psi Corp (so um, dirty EA)
Raiders (usually nicked earthtech)
Abbai, ok the big ole pacifistic fish, probably don't need em cos of shields, but it IS a good defence system, and the Abbai are almost as advanced as Minbari)
Gaim, relative newcomers to space, probably just took the idea from the EA
Narn G'Vrahn, designed with shared tech from the ISA
Centauri, really have their own system, but same rules plus a bit of cool extra
Brakiri, get it on what? 2 ships probably just abbai tech

thing is, with fighters now supporting, pretty much anyone can get interceptors of a kind, and the wad of fighters most ea fleets get means on this as well, they are still tops

 

[angelus2000]

After reading the OP, I read between the lines and realized that the main gripe wasn't so much the commonality of interceptors amongst various fleets, but rather interceptors overall effectiveness and the mechanics of them.

I'll be the first to say that the current interceptor mechanic does a poor job diffentiating between one equipped ship to another. Interceptors 4 is little better than Interceptors 1, the diminishing returns vice the increased interceptor score has been hashed out over innumerable threads.

But the current mechanic DOES work in the end. That first volley is often reduced to nothing, it stops 1/6 of every shot that turn, and adds a LOT to a ships survivability (see the numerous Vorchan/Demos threads going at the moment). If Joeboo is benevolent (All Hail Joeboo!!), I've had ships still in fighting trim after receiving fire that would have crippled if not outright destroyed a non-equipped ship. Theres not a whole lot of variety for varieties sake, but it does work.

If I had my druthers, I'd make the following changes to Interceptors

1) Fighter fire doesn't get intercepted within 2". Frankly, small quick fighters overloading an anti-ship defense system is kinda implausible. The current rules for interceptor vs fighters is untentional byproduct, I'mm sure it wasn't designed exculsively that way.

2) Treat interceptor dice in the same way the AF dice is allocated. By this I mean that for each volley of fire from an individual weapons system (squadron fire would be treated as single weaposn system as long as all ships fire the exact same type i.e. a Demos squadron firing torpedoes), X amount of interceptor dice could be rolled per AD declared, with the target number for each AD being +X (I'd suggest +3 for vanilla AD, +4 for AP, +5 for SAP, an additional +1 for DD, +1 for TL and +2 for TD). These allocated dice could be used ONLY against that volley and is rolled BEFORE the AD, in essence reducing the amount of AD that is rolled againts the ship.

*EDIT* Once an interceptor dice is allocated to an attack, its done for the entire round. You allocate all interceptors to neutralize an attack, every attack after that has a clear shot because the interceptors are busy elsewhere

A quick walkthough. An Octurion fire its F Matter Cannon (12 AD, AP, DD) at an Omega (Hull 6, Interceptors 3). After a quick look at the battle, the Omega player decides to allocate 2 ID (inteceptor dice). After some quick figuring, the Omega player needs a +5 ( +4 AP, plus an additional +1 for DD). So the 2 ID are rolled for EACH incoming AD, needing a +6 to get rid of (intercepting) one of those AD. With those ID, the Omega player manages to get 7 +5's (I used Vassal, hitting the 2d6 button 12 times, results were 5'1, 6'1, 6'2, 6'1, 2'3, 2'2, 2'4, 2'3, 3'5, 6'6, 2'1, and 3'5). So the Octurion player has 5AD to roll against the Omega per normal attack rules (beat Hull, roll damage, score crits etc). The Omega now has 1 ID that can be allocated against any attack after that.

The following method has advantages over the current system

1) Makes interceptors more situational dependent. No more goofy things like firing secondaries before primaries in order to burn out interceptors as the player can now choose which attack to intercept

2) Roughly the same complexity. Interceptor rules currently are hard to figure out at first, it took me several games before I got the hang of them. Theres been several threads asking how they work too. No more variable target number per set of AD ( if its +5 when you start rolling ID, it will stay +5 the entire time).

3) Gets rid of diminishing returns. Right now the actual interceptor score is fairly superflous, simply having them is the important part. With each ID being allocatable and single use per round of firing, how many ID a ship has becomes mroe important.

Disadvantages

1)Bookeeping. Keeping track of how many ID a ship has used, remembering to use them at all will become mroe difficult. This difficulty would most likely increasewith the size of the battle ( More ships to keep track of)

2)Not automatic. Right now, interceptors require little consious thought to use and is reflex after a certain point, like checking stealth to shoot at Minbari.

3)Rebalancing. Probably a total pain to rebalance, as every ship with interceptors now would have to have the Interceptor score rebalanced under this new system, especially in the higher PL's


I think its a workable change. The OP's original suggestions were a good starting point, just not though all the way through. This rule mechanic already exists in the form of AF dice (which now must be allocated to a flight of fighters) and the Centauri Guardian Arrays (the Centauri must choose to allocate the ID to another ship in response to an attack). This new interceptor mechanic simply continues this already existing allocation process with its own twist.

 

[H]

I'd have to disagree with choosing to allocate interceptors, they are seemingly an automatic system, and the computer can't think, hang on, those are only secondary weapons, I'll not intercept, all fire can be equally as damaging, no matter what fires, a secondary can get the 6-6 crit, while the primary might only get a 1-1 crit. all that allocating will do is remove tactical advantages for enemies with more batteries, and hand the control of a situation to the defending ship. Althoguh in fairnes,s, yo do mention balance with this change, so you are at least aware of it
i don't know, it's a simple mechanic once you get sued to it, and can make a huge difference througout a game, I just think "situational" interceptors would be annoying as hell to keep track of, to manage, and wcould skew games quite dramatically

 

[Voronesh]

Now your system certainly sounds very interesting. And i like the fact that you removed the diminishing returns.

After a quick readtrhough im going to test the system using current stats with a few of the existing ships in small scale battles.

I do foresee one problem though. Large AD batteries as opposed to small specialist fire. Kinda an "Anti GEG" effect. Now if that is an actual problem, or a special feature i dont know. It would certainly add character, but thinking about a Bimith or Nova, they would lose all their teeth.

Wll the keeoing track part is not really different from current methods, currently you have to remebre the number and die roll for them. (i concede that in most cases after a single salvo its often a sindle die at 6+). But secondaries are fired how often befor ethe primary weapon system? And only against certain enemies?

 

[Locutus9956]

How about this for simple idea to make interceptors less 'samey' regardless of numbers: Each interceptor DICE that 'fails' still gets to roll needing a 6+. So for example a ship with interceptors 3 will always get at least 3 dice needing 6+ to block a shot?

 

[angelus2000]

I do foresee one problem though. Large AD batteries as opposed to small specialist fire. Kinda an "Anti GEG" effect. Now if that is an actual problem, or a special feature i dont know. It would certainly add character, but thinking about a Bimith or Nova, they would lose all their teeth.

Yes/no. Gunships like Bimith and Nova were my one point I dont have an answer for, as under this system their fire is easily interceptable. although I do get what your saying. Current interceptor rules are weaker against buckets of vanilla AD than they would be using this new system simply due to the sheer amount burning out interceptors halfway through the volley.

TBH, I think is more of a problem with gunships and how they are rated and balanced, rather than how the new system would work. The Bimith basically got smacked right in the face with nerf bat in 2e (there was a thread about this a month ago) and I've always regarded Novas as weak offensively in 1e, and I think they are worse now in 2e. Bucketloads of vanilla AD stink as a primary weapons system, I've yet to hear anyone saying otherwise. This new mechanic just serves to highlight this issue.

/*EDIT* Voronesh, possibly include an additonal +1 if the AD is over 10. Would migitate the Gunships weakness and would provide incentive to squadron ships/

/*EDIT* In additonal quirk to consider is giving interceptors a minimum range of 4 inches to either intercept at all or giving an additional +1 to target. Using one of those 2 ideas, it would be concievable for a Nova to get within 4 inches and have hardly any or none of its fire intercepted, simply due to overload and response time factors (+3 vanilla, +1 TL, +1 within 4, +1 for over 10AD, giving a +6 total)

But secondaries are fired how often befor ethe primary weapon system? And only against certain enemies?

Guily as charged. I've done this myself on occasion when the situation warrants. One game I fired Hyperion Pulse cannons at a Primus to burn out its interceptor before shooting a Nova at that same primus. Using fighters and secondaries is mentioned a lot in tactics threads to reduce the impact they have on more damaging attacks later on.

 

[angelus2000]

How about this for simple idea to make interceptors less 'samey' regardless of numbers: Each interceptor DICE that 'fails' still gets to roll needing a 6+. So for example a ship with interceptors 3 will always get at least 3 dice needing 6+ to block a shot?

2 problems with this I think

1) the initial roll would be a nightmare. 3 dice needing 2+'s, 3 dice needing 3+s one fails, now 2 dice need 4+s and another need 6, 1 dice needs 5+s and 2 need 6+, 3 dice need 6+s for every AD from then on.

2)Interceptor dice would need to be reduced. Having 3 dice instead of one doens't quite translate into 3x time more powerful, but its close. Interceptors would have to be reduced depending on the ship, and there's not enough granularity to really balance out this mechanic with only 1, 2, or 3, as any ship with 4 or more would be near impervious to anything without Beam or MB traits. If you wanted to rebalance Damage/Crew/Hull to meet this interceptor mechanic, some ships would find themselves having far less defense against Beams/MB as a result.

 

[angelus2000]

I'd have to disagree with choosing to allocate interceptors, they are seemingly an automatic system, and the computer can't think, hang on, those are only secondary weapons, I'll not intercept, all fire can be equally as damaging, no matter what fires, a secondary can get the 6-6 crit, while the primary might only get a 1-1 crit. all that allocating will do is remove tactical advantages for enemies with more batteries, and hand the control of a situation to the defending ship.

Yes and No. It is an automatic system insofar that once the interceptors start firing, its completly under computer control, no arguement there. There is a delay, no matter how small, from a weapon being fired from when it impacts its target. Light-speed weapons have no appreciable delay (the current mechanic reflects this, as Beams/MB are non-intereptable), but everything else in the B5 universe does, and this dealy is what lets things like interceptors be possible in the first place. My main reason for thinking interceptors should be allocatable lies within this delay as well

Active defense are of finite nature, you can only stick so many launchers/cannons (read interceptors) on any given ship, they can't be everywhere at once. In order to maximize these defenses, a prioritzation sytem should be in place, wether its a "man in the loop" physically pushing a button in response to incoming weapons fire, a sensor and cmputer scheme that detects weapons buildup before they actually fire, or a telepath reading the other guys mind to figure out which ship is going at shoot what first.

Think of this way. Your the Captain of an Omega and a Primus, a Demos, and a Maximus are within range and have you weapons locked. You most likely have a fair idea of what those ships are armed with, and know which of those weapons has the most potential to severly damage your ship. You have no idea if they will actually fire those weapons, but in all probablity they will so you decide to devote your finite defense against those weapons, and hope for the best when it comes to the weaker batteries, as the other, stronger weapons cannot be ignored

As for tactical advantages, I don't see it so much as removing as shifting those advantages and rewarding the more tactically mind player and opening new tactics and methods in a battle for little cost in additional bookeeping and complexity. Since it would no longer matter in what order weapons are fired as the defending player could intercept at his discretion, it would become a matter of getting the right ships in range and at the same time to overcome interceptors, remembering that those interceptors can longer intercept everything like that can under current rules. Manuever and ship placement are emphasized over "how do I shoot my weapons"

i don't know, it's a simple mechanic once you get sued to it, and can make a huge difference througout a game, I just think "situational" interceptors would be annoying as hell to keep track of, to manage, and wcould skew games quite dramatically

Trust me, Im not advocating a complete, offical redo of interceptors. At best, merely a set of alternate, advanced rules for those who favor more complexity in their games. Although, as for keeping track, use poker chips. Every time you use a ships interceptor, stick a poker chip for each ID used or vice versa in the reverse order next to the fig.

Would it skew games? I haven't a clue really. It could prove to be just as weird as Beams are now, with the Bell curve getting flatter compared to older rules. It might be just the opposite once people get used to the rules.

 

[Silvereye]

the EA are supposedly the ones who invented(or found) interceptors. So why do so many fleets have them, and sometimes more of them? Even the Gaim have them now. I already dont like how you only cancel 1 hit no matter how many interceptor dice you roll. And interceptors are all the same. In B5 Wars, they have MK1 through Mk4's. Earth ships were the only ones with anything past Mk2 I think. You might see races with there own versions of them, like the Centari with their Gaurdian arrays. but I think mongoose needs to come up with different defenses for different races. They finally did with those shields for the Abbai, but interceptors still seem to be the universal defense.

Just a point of note about B5W, EA, Centauri and Abbai were really the only ones with dedicated defensive interceptor batteries, however pretty much every other secondary weapon could be used in an 'interceptor' type roll. This included things like particle guns, twin/quad arrays, fusion cannon, pulse cannons, phasing pulse cannons.... Looking at the ACTA fleets, they have used the Interceptor trait nicely. Its simply a dedicated active defence against incoming fire, used by the fleets that like this kind of protection.

As to being able to assign AD from a pool to a specific attack, this mechanic did exist in 1e (SFOS) for how a space stations interceptors worked (don't have my rule book with me so I can't check if it is the same in 2e). And at one point it was toyed with allowing the Abbai to do the same (1e Abbai had loads of interceptors) as they had more interceptors then really necessary (the diminishing returns for additional dice over Interceptors 3). The main issue that came up with this was the large amount of book keeping required to keep track of up to 8 (now it caps at 6) separate interceptor dice on each ship.

Currently the Interceptor mechanics are really simple to use, and work well, they do not slow the game down (if you want the really high detail levels of simulation, play B5W). Until someone comes up with a better mechanic for them, without slowing the game down or adding unnecessary levels of book keeping then they are better left as is.

 

[Locutus9956]

Overall I agree, the current intreceptor rules are nice and simple and do actually give the impression of being gradually overwhelmed. Oh and 3 interceptors is currently WAY better than 1 its reallly only when you go on into 4+ interceptors that it starts geting very samey.

As said, if you want a detailed ship battle game for a few highly detailed ships with individual systems, play B5Wars as its frankly way better than ACTA for that no matter how much you tweak and houserule. If you want a fast playing fleet battle game though play ACTA If you want a sort of middle ground as I understand it (though I never actually played it) play 'Fleet Action'

 

[Voronesh]

How about this for simple idea to make interceptors less 'samey' regardless of numbers: Each interceptor DICE that 'fails' still gets to roll needing a 6+. So for example a ship with interceptors 3 will always get at least 3 dice needing 6+ to block a shot?

I really like this idea, as i just had this one myself on the busride home. When we do NOT want to change the current system too much, this system simply removes the diminishing returns problem, i even went further to simplify rolls, that dice that fail to intercept are simply not lost. Int5 would be horrendously efficient, but that is where a little rebalancing would come in.



on angelus2000s new int idea

I also very much appreciate your ideas, especially in regard to gunships, (Not only them but also Ships like the Adira and others who have 15+AD batteries). I also like to steal from Battletech (the books not the actual rulesystem). They had a piece of tech called Antimissile system. Sure sounds easy, we all know what its supposed to do, what does it have to do with our problem?
In one book they had mentioned that the enemy had chosed to fire half of its missile in arced mode and half in direct fire, forcing our heroes (also called targets from now on,^^) to choose which salvoes to intercept.^Now in ACTA this would mean, that when an enemy ship fires, to does so in rapid succession, and probably not with its secondaries first ("fire those pulsar battery and THEN half a second later the bolters....").
Now a captain of might have decided to save his int fire for incoming bolters, and decide not to defend against pulsar batteries. O fcourse this only works when a computer can decide between the two, but i honestly think that a computer can save a set of parameters that define incoming weapons fire as more or less damaging. Potentially giving Missiles the greatest priority.

This leads me to the typical trun based game problem. Reality doesnt work like that. In the B5 universe an Omega captain might get a warning by his sensor officer about incoming missile fire, and directs his (defense? im not good with this) officer to direct the shipsinterceptors against this very dangerous threat, and ignore those pulsars or pulse cannons for a while. Within the turn sequence one might declare missile fire as the last shot to be fired, so that interceptors will probably not be used against him (fluff reason as follows: ). Simply because the superior tactical skill and acumen have enabled him to wait those few precious seconds to make the Omega captain belive the missiles are reloading, direct his interceptor fire against something else and then empty his missile tubes.


Why all of this. Simply to prove that fluff reasons can be argued in nearly (in about 90% (danger only believe a statistic falsified by yourself, or this is a made up number!) of the cases) in both or rather any direction. In the end the only thing that matters is, how playable is a rule, how much fun is it, and how balanced is it actually.

Current interceptor rules make them a nice gift, but beyond the first die, there is little improvement, sometimes none. Int3 is really nicer than int1, but int5 isnt too interesting anymore.

 

[Silvereye]

If you want a sort of middle ground as I understand it (though I never actually played it) play 'Fleet Action'

No, Fleet Action was for games bigger then ACTA. And to be fair, ACTA does it way better then Fleet Action.

 

[Locutus9956]

If you want a sort of middle ground as I understand it (though I never actually played it) play 'Fleet Action'

No, Fleet Action was for games bigger then ACTA. And to be fair, ACTA does it way better then Fleet Action.

Ah fair enough, like I said, I never actually played it and had heard it wasnt very good anyway so never bothered looking into it much...

 

[No. 1 Bear]

I think this would work and it is really really simple. 3 interceptors roll 3 less AD. Thats in total from a whole turns firing. Alternitavley it could be from each ships firing i havn't thought about that.

 

[scorpioni]

a ship with up to 3AD weapon batteries is F***** so to speak then

 

[Da Boss]

for what its worth - I like them as they are

 

[lastbesthope]

Yeah, I think the way they work is fine, and consistent with the show.

Now that's a different issue with how many fleets should have them, but I think the basic mechanic is fine.

LBH

 

[Taran]

I'd have to disagree with choosing to allocate interceptors, they are seemingly an automatic system, and the computer can't think, hang on, those are only secondary weapons, I'll not intercept, all fire can be equally as damaging, no matter what fires, a secondary can get the 6-6 crit, while the primary might only get a 1-1 crit. all that allocating will do is remove tactical advantages for enemies with more batteries, and hand the control of a situation to the defending ship. Althoguh in fairnes,s, yo do mention balance with this change, so you are at least aware of it
i don't know, it's a simple mechanic once you get sued to it, and can make a huge difference througout a game, I just think "situational" interceptors would be annoying as hell to keep track of, to manage, and wcould skew games quite dramatically

Actually, they are not an automatic defense. In the show, you will see several times that the firing of interceptors is ordered. This suggests that they would not fire withough instructions and that their targets could be selected by the bridge-crew.
That's the difference between an Active defense, like Interceptors and a Passive defense like Shields or GEG.
The express purpose of an Active defense is to put the defending ship more in control of the engagement.