When Do I Want to Use Fighter Squadrons?

[alex_greene]

I'm gonna need two of those.

 

[rust2]

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

Not your fighters, squadrons are for enemy fighters only. 8)

 

[Nerhesi]

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

Not your fighters, squadrons are for enemy fighters only. 8)

Lol - I love, approve and endorse this

I personally use either single fighter accounting, or the hybrid naval combat system.

Sam W.

 

[Condottiere]

There's a reason for formation flying, it's so your wingman has your back, and finger four is to cover all angles of approach.

Perhaps this has to be revised, as compared to a more suicidal formation:

 

[arcador]

Bringing back this from the '16, I have devised a simple rule which brings back the squadron damage in line with the regular fighter.

Currently, the normal fighter achieves a good effect in each attack, allowing it to penetrate heavy armour. Since squadrons don't apply effect in the same way, they can't penetrate with the same effect. The only advantage they have is that they can amount to a good attack bonus. But lacking a sufficient attack score has hardly been a problem for fighters before.

The (house) rule I propose is:

1. Pick a number of ships in the squadron with the same weapons, who attack.
2. Make a single attack as normal (with effect+).
3. Multiply the result by the number of fighters which attacked; = dmg

Still the same number of rolls. Still, they can divide their attack power.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

One attack roll and one damage roll is convenient. The system will give the same average damage, but not the same distribution as single fighters.

It's certainly better than RAW.

 

[baithammer]

Which isn't needed in the small scale fighter squadron rules as essentially the same sequence is used.

All weapons of the same type within a squadron make
a single attack roll, gaining DM+1 to the attack roll for
Bryan Robertson (Order #11539971)
every fighter after the first in the squadron

resolve damage
as you would for a missile salvo; rolling once for damage,
applying any armour and screens and then multiplying by
the effect.

 

[arcador]

It's not the sequence that is different but the preservation of Effect to the damage of each individual attack, which is otherwise lost in the squadron attack.

 

[baithammer]

The problem is there are two separate squadron rule sets, one of them applies to fighters only and up to a suggested 12 max fighters and the other is capital combat squadron rules which apply to any grouping of ships.

The first one has flat armour rating that affects each weapon. the second one the armour is a percentage which allows for even the smallest ship to score damage on a larger one.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This thread is clearly about Fighter Squadrons as defined in the Fighter chapter. It's even in the title.

The proposed house-rule is very different from RAW.

Example: A squadron of 10 fighters with tachyon barbettes running Fire Control/3. Dogfight effects disregarded.

RAW:
Squadron: +6[gunner] +9[squadron] +3[FireCont] +1[aid] -5[dodge] = +14. Auto-Crit.
With 2D +14 -8[difficulty], max 10, we achieve an average of ~9.8 hits.
Each hit do 2D (AP10, No effect) or average 2.3 damage, for a total damage of 9.8 × 2.3 ≈ 22.5 damage and 1 crit.

Proposed:
Squadron: +6[gunner] +3[FireCont] +1[aid] -5[dodge] = +4, hit on 4+ (92%).
Damage: 2D (AP10) at +4 gives average damage 4.98 and 17% chance of a crit, so 10 fighters do average 10 × 4.98 ≈ 49,8 damage and 0.17 crit.

Ten individual fighters:
Fighter: +6[gunner] +3[FireCont] +1[aid] -5[dodge] = +4, hit on 4+ (92%).
Damage: 2D (AP10) at +4 gives average damage 4.98 and 17% chance of a crit, so 10 fighters do average 10 × 4.98 ≈ 49,8 damage and 1.7 crits.

 

[baithammer]

Slight mistake on the RAW, the fighters are treated as a salvo not separate attacks, with each fighter after the first increase the dm +1.

All weapons of the same type within a squadron make
a single attack roll, gaining DM+1 to the attack roll for
every fighter after the first in the squadron, resolve damage
as you would for a missile salvo; rolling once for damage,
applying any armour and screens, and then multiplying by
the effect.

So given the parameters.

Ave roll 21 - 8 diff = 13, ave damage roll 2d6 = 7 - ( 15 armour -10 AP) 5 = 2x13 = 26 with Auto crit ( As 7+ is the lowest effort possible) + sustained damage possible if hull less than 650 dt.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The average of 2D-5 is ~2.28:

The median roll is 2, but as long as the distribution is not symmetric, that is not the average.

I assume, as with missile salvoes, that no more fighter can hit than fighters in the squadron. So, when a 10 fighter squadron fires, no more than 10 hits can be produced.

2D +14 -8 (max 10) = 2D +6 (max 10) has an average of ~9,89.

So we produce an average of 9.89 hits of 2.28 each ≈ 22.5 damage.

 

[phavoc]

If 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.

Even under computer-controlled combat, where you lock in your programs and everything fires based on sensor data, it's still entirely possible to miss your target due to evasion, countermeasures, etc. Assuming they never miss is not realistic either.

I agree that it's a very boring way to play a game. Some of the older games (like SFB, or the SFB game that was automated by SSI) had you, as the player, determining in which turn your ship was going to fire on your opponent. So in a given turn you had to plan ahead on what you thought where the opposing ship was going to be. It was supposed to simulate actions where you could not call out when to fire to simulate real-time combat. Many a turn had a ship firing at less than optimum range to ensure you had a chance to get a shot off.