When Do I Want to Use Fighter Squadrons?

[AnotherDilbert]

When Do I Want to Use Fighter Squadrons?

Mostly squadrons make my fighters more vulnerable, so they take more losses.
Mostly squadrons make my fighters do less damage.

See calculations around here: http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=907427#p907427

 

[alex_greene]

You could use fighter squadrons to repulse the other guy's fighter squadrons.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The problem is that 10 individual fighters will easily defeat the same 10 fighters organised into a squadron.

My point is: Why would I want to organise my fighters into squadrons when they are stronger individually?

 

[Condottiere]

Maybe they can disorganize themselves back as individualists, after they crushed the defending screens.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Maybe they can disorganize themselves back as individualists, after they crushed the defending screens.

Yes, they can always organise into squadrons or dissolve the squadrons at will.

Why would my fighters organise into squadrons, so they are weaker, when fighting enemy screens?

 

[wbnc]

Grouping up fighter into squadrons is basically a paperwork and dice roll reduction method for the players.instead of dozens of individual rolls you make one. Otherwise, a fight between two squadrons on the perimeter of a fleet takes more time/rolls than the engagement between the main fleets.If you are in a scenario where only a handful of fighters are involved using squadrons is not a good idea. However, if there are hundreds of fighters involved then yu have a few choices, use squadrons, develop carpal tunnel from all the rolls, or find some software to do the individual rolls and display the results.

Historically fighters seldom fought each other in large cohesive units. They would travel in groups o provide more eyes to spot the enemy, and mutual support for individual fighters if intercepted occurred. But once the fighting began they quickly scattered into small groups or individuals taking on other individuals.They only concentrated when attacking large slow moving, or stationary targets, such as ships or troop concentrations/fortifications. Even then each pilot or small group would make individual attack runs. with a wingman, or another flight maneuvering to protect the attacking fighters from defensive fighters, or to distract and disrupt anti-aircraft fire.

 

[Condottiere]

Separate skirmishes, that sometimes gravitate into a furball.

 

[alex_greene]

Separate skirmishes, that sometimes gravitate into a furball.

The constant roll of dice as five hundred individual fighters engage one another.

"Wait, which one's in front of you?"
"Tango Leader."
"No, you idiot, I iced Tango Leader two turns back! Who's in that ship?"
"I thought I was fighting Tango Leader!"
"Wait - I thought I was fighting Tango Leader!"
"Who just killed my ship then?"
"Echo Foxtrot Six Niner Seven."
"Which team's he from?"
"Aw, no ... he's one of yours. He's on your side."

"Right, so that's seven hundred pairs of dice rolled. Anyone missed out? Good. Now we all move our pieces one hex on the board. Round two."

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Grouping up fighter into squadrons is basically a paperwork and dice roll reduction method for the players.instead of dozens of individual rolls you make one. Otherwise, a fight between two squadrons on the perimeter of a fleet takes more time/rolls than the engagement between the main fleets.If you are in a scenario where only a handful of fighters are involved using squadrons is not a good idea.

I'm perhaps a munchkin, but if the die roll reduction mechanism makes my fighters much weaker, I will take the die rolls.

However, if there are hundreds of fighters involved then yu have a few choices, use squadrons, develop carpal tunnel from all the rolls, or find some software to do the individual rolls and display the results.

If I have that many fighters and presumably a roughly equal enemy force of fighters or ships, I would look at the Capital Combat system.


I'll try to rephrase my question: Is the Fighter Squadron system a good system if it only makes fighters weaker?

Or is there a situation where the Fighter Squadron system is beneficial?

 

[Condottiere]

 

[AnotherDilbert]

 

[Condottiere]

 

[AnotherDilbert]

 

[Condottiere]

 

[AnotherDilbert]

OK, I lose. I fail to see what Schrödinger or Heisenberg has to do with it.

Anyone has an opinion on the Fighter Squadron system?

 

[wbnc]

Grouping up fighter into squadrons is basically a paperwork and dice roll reduction method for the players.instead of dozens of individual rolls you make one. Otherwise, a fight between two squadrons on the perimeter of a fleet takes more time/rolls than the engagement between the main fleets.If you are in a scenario where only a handful of fighters are involved using squadrons is not a good idea.

I'm perhaps a munchkin, but if the die roll reduction mechanism makes my fighters much weaker, I will take the die rolls.

However, if there are hundreds of fighters involved then yu have a few choices, use squadrons, develop carpal tunnel from all the rolls, or find some software to do the individual rolls and display the results.

If I have that many fighters and presumably a roughly equal enemy force of fighters or ships, I would look at the Capital Combat system.


I'll try to rephrase my question: Is the Fighter Squadron system a good system if it only makes fighters weaker?

Or is there a situation where the Fighter Squadron system is beneficial?

It is a good system for saving dice rolls,that about it...that's basically it's only purpose. As for increasing the firepower of fighters against larger ships I can't really say I haven't had a chance to test that angle yet.for PC on NPC small scale fights not much of an advantage.I'd recommend you Use it only when needed.

 

[Sigtrygg]

OK, I lose. I fail to see what Schrödinger or Heisenberg has to do with it.

Anyone has an opinion on the Fighter Squadron system?

Yes - dogfighting is ridiculous under Newtonian movement and granting artificial bonuses is a cop out.
Great for cinematic Star Wars, but in the 'reality' of the setting it is preposterous.

 

[wbnc]

OK, I lose. I fail to see what Schrödinger or Heisenberg has to do with it.

Anyone has an opinion on the Fighter Squadron system?

Yes - dogfighting is ridiculous under Newtonian movement and granting artificial bonuses is a cop out.
Great for cinematic Star Wars, but in the 'reality' of the setting it is preposterous.

f you look a dogfighting as turn bank dive and swoop Yeah...but if you consider it tactical close quarters combat at short ranges it hs a place. In a spaceborne version of a dogfight the idea isn't to outmaneuver the opposing fighter, you are maneuvering against the pilots reflexes and experience. Three Dee movement is not instinctive/automatic so it is possible out outmaneuver/outthink the pilot.

In general if yu assume that automated engagement systems never miss and there is no way to evade their fire then combat should be boiled down to who gets the first shot off...'cause after that its just a process of reducing hull points until one ship goes boom.

You could play that way I suppose. But if an encounter boils down to a mathematical formula the ref plugs in and tells the player..Umm after three round your ship explodes, wanna start a new character?...then it's not very much fun.to make games interesting to the majority of players there has to be some way they can affect the outcome. if no allowances for pilot skill, experience, and tactical moves are allowed then it's not going to appeal to very many people.

 

[-Daniel-]

Great for cinematic Star Wars, but in the 'reality' of the setting it is preposterous.

And thus one of the sad realities of a game. I am not playing to mirror real life, I play for the cinematic fun moment the rebels pull off the preposterous. :wink:

:mrgreen:

 

[Condottiere]

Screens are meant to be expendable; but you have yo attrition them to the point that you can breakthrough, as compared to individual craft or ships who have the freedom to take the most advantageous positions, but can't hold the wall.