STICKY: CB Wishlist & Ideas

[admiralgrafspee]

Nov 7, 2010 16:15:21 GMT -5 TheDreadnought said:

Actually, that's a great idea. Insted of the whole defining single fighter squadrons thing I currently do in the book, I can just create a new fighter role 'gunship' that covers all that.

Sounds very cool. Basically "big" customizable fighters (instead of 6 you might have 1 or 2).

Another thing that would be neat are fighters that aren't associated with any carrier - say like X-wings that have hyperspaced into the battle on their own. I realize that doesn't work very well with the current concept of fighters getting their power from the carrier - but hey, I'll give it a shot.

-Tim

[toaster]

I've been working on the idea of Star Wars fighters myself and I was thinking along the lines of making Hyperspace capable fighters the Rebellion Faction Advantage, It allows all fighters to begin the game already deployed within a certain range of there carrier, perhaps 6 or as much as 12 hexes.

Oh and another vote for Gunship fighters ( although I've already used the term gunship in my FT background as an alternative to RDF destroyers, less thrust but more armour)

Robert

[valthonis]

I'm all for LCV(Light Combat Vessel)/Super Heavy Fighters/Gunboats!

[valthonis]

I'd also like the idea of non-enveloping shields. IE 'Deflector' shields versus 'Bubble' shields.
Basically you can pay a reduced shield cost to have partial shield coverage. Maybe you can only cover 50% of your ship at once. In some cases you wouldn't notice the lack of full coverage, but if you're caught with your hull exposed you'd pay the price.

Also I'd like to see special electronic warfare vessels that have the ability to loan their Firing Controls to other ships in their fleet. Generally poorly armed, but high FC ratings.

[napalmbackflip]

I'm brand new here, having just purchased the rules to get a friend and I into some starship gaming. I've been hearing some rumblings on this board and on the Star Ranger forum about a book of campaign rules... add that to the top of my wishlist for sure!

[warchariot]

Welcome napalmbackflip! Hope you find lots to your liking here.

[fastgit]

Dec 1, 2010 1:05:43 GMT -5 warchariot said:

napalmbackflip!

Heh. Great name.

[adrick]

Like to see a list of faction qualities. I don't mind making them up with friends its been fun so far.
But with strangers or tournaments a stock list would be nice.

I assume something like this will be in the campaign book when it gets here?

Still having fun with whats there now but on down the line second more guns and options.
expanded tech trees.
spinal lasers.
also a death star type ship would be cool. Blocks line of sight, scary guns,
and to go along with that
planetary based weapons. (currently we've toyed with building them as small single battery ships. no engines, one facing, with armor and shields for that area(hex) as normal)

[warchariot]

There are more supplements planned. Many of the items on your wishlist we show up in these. Or we can hope they will.

[fastgit]

Starfire has a level of ECM that allows a ship to mask its tonnage... I think a couple of classes. At least until sensors could burn through the ECM. That way BCs could appear as CLs... or DDs as CAs... etc. Might be an interesting mod.

I'd like to see an ECM/ECCM component added to CB.

[regan555]

I'd like to see some optional ramming rules.

[TheDreadnought]

Apr 13, 2011 5:09:48 GMT -5 regan555 said:

I'd like to see some optional ramming rules.

The problem with ramming rules is that they make the game into just a bunch of kamikaze actions. As soon as somebody has a heavily damaged ship, they'll immediately attempt to ram.

Any kind of quasi-realistic ramming rules would involve the total destrcution of both ships on a successful attempt. So if you're going to be able to take out a battleship with a destroyer by ramming, why would anybody ever build a battleship anymore? It undermines the whole foundation of mixed fleets of ships that are something other than basically just guided missiles.

Personally, I like the game to be a little more realistic in terms of the tactics used. So I'm sorry to say that I will probably never include the option to ram in any supplement.

However, if you're really all about ramming, I'd encourage you to write something up and post it in the house rules section. I'm sure there are others that would enjoy it.

[regan555]

Thanks for the reply, Harry. Personally, I'm not all about ramming but people in my potential gaming group are. I'm doing some conversions for my brother's Battlefleet Gothic Ork fleet and one of the ships he really enjoys using are the Brute Ramships. In order to entice him into playing a better system than BFG, I want to retain as much of the flavor of the BFG Orks as possible, that's all.

I agree with your points, but there are a lot of instances in Sci-Fi space combat where ships ram one another so I thought it would be nice to have something official which people could choose to use or not. As I'm new to the game I don't yet feel confident enough to try my hand at it, but if I do I'll post some ideas on the boards.

[fastgit]

I'm not familiar with the examples of ramming you're speaking of... so I can't comment directly on that matter. As far as the Orks are concerned, however, would boarding missiles work? A headlong rush to deposit Orks marines via guided missiles seems to be comfortably within genre.

[captainquirk]

Just wondering about the possibility of some sort of nano-weapon or some other sort of insidious damage dealer. Maybe something like the grapeshot weapon, basically just a cloud of initially unguided nanos. Unable to penetrate shielding, and if they do land on an unshielded ship they only do 1 point of damage.... on the first turn. Thereafter, they start eating into the hull every turn...

Haven't figured out the entire way this would work - perhaps using an increasing penetration value with each passing turn? Damage inflicted could just increase by 1 point per passing turn also. Would involve a bit of book-keeping (which could be handled by using tokens), but it could be an interestingly different weapon system form those already in the core rules.

[TheDreadnought]

That's an interesting idea. Might talk to the Empire Space IP owner and see if that's something he wants to add.

[warchariot]

Maybe it could eat away at the armor value on this part of the ship? Then other weapons would do more damage?

[captainquirk]

That would take a bit more record keeping, wouldn't it? Core rules don't differentiate regarding armour facings? But yes, that would make a nanite "splodge bomb" quite a nasty device without it being an overpowering superweapon.

Also wondering whether using ion weapons could be a counter to them. Either a ship carrying ion weapons which is attacked by nanites could "fire at itself" by routing the ion charge to the hull... each hit killing a nanite horde just like it disables a fire control.

Or possibly another ship could fire at the nanite horde and disable them in a similar manner.

[captainquirk]

Hmm... thinking about it, although it would involve keeping records for that armour facing, the rest of the weapon could be really simple, couldn't it? Nanites eat one level of armour from a single relevant facing per turn off that facing. If armour is gone then they eat one hull point per turn.

It does damage, but I don't think that makes it an overbearing weapon.

[toaster]

I do like an armour attack weapon, could be a very nice addition to fleets that have only D6 penetration weapons against heavily armoured opponents, the ion cannon as counter is a nice idea as well. Alternativly make it a damage control task to kill off a Nanite colony.

Robert