|
Post by TheDreadnought on Mar 23, 2011 14:08:09 GMT -5
So, I'm wondering if the autocannon still needs some work based on this battle report, where the player (quite legitimately) complains that gatling autocannons aren't effective anti-fighter weapons. www.star-ranger.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=7187I'm wondering if the rapid-fire property should change. (Both autocannons have it). Instead of offering a re-roll of the d6 range die, maybe it should offer a 1x open-ended die roll. So the property would read something like this: Rapid FireWhen rolling the attack die for a rapid fire weapon, if the die comes up with the maximum possible result, re-roll the die and add the result of the second roll to the total. This re-roll occurs only once, even if the result of the second roll is also the maximum possible for the attack die type. This has two effects: 1. It extends the range of the autocannon. The idea being that its throwing out so much metal, that even though autocannon rounds have a greater time-to-target than a laser or rail-gun, the fact that it has such a high rate of fire means multiple possible intercept points can be fired at. 2. It makes the gatling autocannon a more effective AF weapon. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by coldsteel on Mar 23, 2011 15:48:23 GMT -5
Auto cannons are very effective anti-fighter weapons when used with different tactics. In most of the games I have run, the vipers were used defensively, forming a ring around the battlestars to keep the raiders at a distance. The auto-cannons usually kill as many or more raiders than the vipers. When the vipers are used offensively like in the original post, raiders get to attack a ship before taking auto-cannon fire.
How about letting the auto-cannons fire before fighter strikes? Make attacking fighters penetrate through their fire to launch a strike.
|
|
daniel
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 110
|
Post by daniel on Mar 23, 2011 19:11:00 GMT -5
Auto cannons are very effective anti-fighter weapons when used with different tactics. In most of the games I have run, the vipers were used defensively, forming a ring around the battlestars to keep the raiders at a distance. The auto-cannons usually kill as many or more raiders than the vipers. When the vipers are used offensively like in the original post, raiders get to attack a ship before taking auto-cannon fire. How about letting the auto-cannons fire before fighter strikes? Make attacking fighters penetrate through their fire to launch a strike. I'm not sure which ships you're using to get those cannon results, but the new Reapers/Raiders can't be hit by any escort I've looked at no matter the die roll. Target Def is too high and not enough FirCon to get a hit. As it stands now, they aren't bad - they're useless...
|
|
|
Post by kealios on Mar 23, 2011 19:42:11 GMT -5
I have to say, Im quite interested in this myself. I just built my own race and fleet, and maybe its a mistake, but I loaded alot of my ships with Gatling weaponry, mostly Autocannons.
Some quick math:
With a d6 Attack and a FC 2, you'd need to roll (versus Interceptors): Range 1: 6 (with reroll, this averages to be a 5+ per gun) Range 3: 8 (unreachable) Range 5: 10 (unreachable)
Gatling Lasers, quite obviously, make much more efficient fighter killers in that their "speed" allows them to track fighters at a longer range, but do not get the benefit of the "throw lead down range" philosophy. With a d10 Attack and a FC 2, (vs Interceptors), you would theoretically be able to engage enemy craft out to 5 hexes (even further out, of course, with larger FC).
Quite simply, this is a self-defense tactic used in a manner similar to ECM and missiles, specifically targeting out swarms of enemy fighters, moving next to them and letting the autonomous weapons do their things.
Using the generic rules (non MvM), I put Autocannons on a lot of my smaller ships specifically because the cannons can hurt enemy ships more effectively, where the lasers wont really. Most fleet actions have seen fleets closing and then circling, with ranges under 6 quite common. Autocannons should work fine in this scenario, and in those close quarters, fighters will never be far away.
My larger ships loaded up on Lasers because of the Compact rule. For example, my Battleline Battlecruiser packs 8 Gatling Lasers with a FC3, firing into F/P/S arcs. Enemy bombers will be hit on a 6+ out to Range 3 (range 3, defense 6, FC3), meaning that 4 bombers will die at that range per turn, and more if they get even closer. Those are really good odds.
Autocannons? Well, its a trade off. They're on a lot of my ships. We'll see how they perform when I field test the fleet next week, but I think their extra damage will be nice at shorter ranges.
I dont think getting an Exploding Die mechanic is the way to solve it. Often you would need to roll your dice just hoping for the 6...meaning you would be engaging targets outside of maximum range in the first place, which breaks a core mechanic.
As mentioned above, Gatling Autocannons are almost like Flak Batteries. In fact, I'd even say they ARE Flak, as it is certainly how and why I armed my ship as such, although I purposefully used Gatlings instead of flak for the ability to help strip shields off enemy ships at close range (poorly as it may be, 1 point here and there is better than none). Allowing them to fire first at fighters, or adding dice to Point Defense, might be other alternatives. PD might be a more efficient method of doing it. The math would have to be done carefully, though. Maybe add 1 PD per 2 Gatling weapons, so my ship above would get 4 extra PD? Maybe too much? I did pay a fair amount of space for them...about 20 tons for the 8 guns, but at Hull Size 4, it takes 24 tons for only 2 PD...
Like I said, it might take careful math...which is not my strong point...but its something to consider for sure.
|
|
|
Post by coldsteel on Mar 23, 2011 20:32:07 GMT -5
Re-reading the rules, it looks like I have been figuring the auto-cannons wrong. I was not adding the fighter defense. My bad.
OTOH, that may be what is needed to make the weapon more effective. Drop the fighter defense in the calculation, but also drop the re-rol of misses for balance.
|
|
|
Post by kealios on Mar 23, 2011 20:38:12 GMT -5
EDIT: Just noticed that the FC1 on my Scout and Frigates (both DD's in CBF terms) means my Autocannons wont be hitting Interceptors at all! Meep! Flak would be MUCH more efficient at swatting fighters in this case, and would likely cost less space on a 44-ton ship than the 4 Gatlings I threw on it...even though they couldnt help in ship-to-ship battles... Awww man
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Mar 23, 2011 21:01:51 GMT -5
I wonder if we should make autocannons fire with a D10 at fighters, d6 against ships much like fighters have two stats. You could limit the range for the D10 say 2-3 hexes? You could also take the FC away from them against fighters if you think this is too much.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Mar 23, 2011 22:05:50 GMT -5
So I think its fair to say that there is some consensus that gatling autocannons need a boost as an AF system. So far we've got:
Open-ended die mechanic D1d0 attack vs. fighters d6 vs. everything else Ignore fighter defense on the to-hit roll Gatling ACs add to point defense dice
Any other ideas?
Anybody care to argue for or against any of these?
Personally I don't like the inconsistency of the D10/d6 rule. Could make it a function of rapid-fire, but still doesn't sit quite right with me. Might get used to it though, since it has fewer drawbacks than some of the other ideas (including mine) put forward so far.
Ignoring fighter defense invalidates the differences in fighter types which I don't think is a good thing.
Bonus point defense is an intriguing idea, but I feel that again we ought to keep laser gats and ac gats as different but similar flavors, not create a radically different effect for one vs. the other.
Open-ended die mechanic I feel does lead to a lot of "desperation" shooting, at no real chance to hit. Which leads to wasted die-rolling and game lag, which you guys all know I hate.
So what else is out there? What am I overlooking about these ideas?
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Mar 23, 2011 22:51:14 GMT -5
The reason I liked the D10/D6 is it is easy to remember, fits with the game, honors the fighter differences. What I'm not sure of is limiting the range and/or removing the FC bonus? I didn't want the weapon to be so good that every ship would now want/have one over PDef and/or Flak, but adding the FC gives it some distance and it still fires after the fighters attack.
I also like the add to PD, which means you would need to buy both for your ships to use it in this way (right?). So could laser gats have this also?
|
|
|
Post by toaster on Mar 24, 2011 0:36:41 GMT -5
I think the D10 vs Fighters is the simplest solution, it fits with the PD is always a D10, you just have to say antifighter weapons always roll D10. The defense values of fighters are enough that I don't think you'll see much problem with long range fighter killing unless the ship has a really ridiculous number of FC and in that case they have paid the cost for a dedicated antifighter capital ship and deserve the range bonus but are likely to get hammered by a balanced fleet.
Robert
|
|
|
Post by kealios on Mar 24, 2011 1:54:43 GMT -5
Bonus point defense is an intriguing idea, but I feel that again we ought to keep laser gats and ac gats as different but similar flavors, not create a radically different effect for one vs. the other. Gatlings of the Autocannon and Laser varieties already have differences, specifically in range and damage to other ships. Versus fighters, lasers are clearly superior because ton-for-ton they do "more" damage (ie Lasers do 1 damage, Autocannons do 3, but a hit from either will kill a fighter). Giving ACs extra range versus fighters isnt such a bad thing...but something doesnt just feel right about it to me...yet. Dont do this. I think this is a REALLY bad idea...there isnt much that uses Fighter Defense, and honestly, fighters in space SHOULD be really hard to hit as there as so many ways to avoid incoming fire (up to and including nap-of-the-ship flying!). What about every bank of Gatlings adds a die to PD? ...oh wait, as I write that, I realize that my Scout ship with 4 weapon hardpoints, 3 of which are Gatlings (1 each!), would have a PD of 4! lol...never mind...
|
|
talkos
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 12
|
Post by talkos on Mar 24, 2011 4:09:22 GMT -5
How about something that would make it have something similar to grapeshot/flak rules.
Up the tonnage a bit under the assumption that they are grouped into batteries, and then only allow them to fire at a single target hex within 3 or so hexes perhaps? Keep the damage stats for Gatlings and use grapeshot rules for any ship or fighter within that hex. (Perhaps give them the opposite of the compact rule so that half as many can be mounted. Though that may be a bit much)
Then the progression for anti-fighter weapons would go Flak for adjacent, Gatling ACs for close in, then batteries of Laser Gatlings for medium/long range.
Actual Canister Shot as an AF weapon will be slightly weaker for it because it takes its place as a close in form of defense. But for stripping shields and destroying fighters at a distance it will still have a place. Point Defense as a fighter killer will also suffer comparatively though.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Mar 24, 2011 9:02:51 GMT -5
SOme nice out-of-the-box thinking there. . . but I think I came up with the solution as I was thinking about it this morning.
One of my goals is a rule that will apply to all autocannons, not just the gats. That way I can just change the rapid fire description, which I've never been super happy with anyway. So how about this:
------------------------------ Rapid Fire Rapid fire weapons can target multiple possible intercept points to increase the likliehood of a hit, at the cost of reducing damage inflicted.
You may subtract damage from a rapid-fire weapon to add to the attack die roll on a 1 for 1 basis. Damage cannot be reduced to less than 1.
------------------------------
This makes gats more effective vs. fighters, but is also something that is useful to the heavies.
|
|
|
Post by kealios on Mar 24, 2011 12:05:27 GMT -5
talkos, increasing the weight of the Gatlings would remove them as viable weaponry for Scouts and Frigates (I am, of course, using ship classifications from Full Thrust), which, weighing in at 40-60 tons, dont get a ton of options. @dread, thats a great idea! Would the damage be removed from the SDmg or HDmg? If SDmg, my ACGat on a FC1 Frigate could hit an adjacent fighter on 6+. If HDmg, I could hit said Interceptor on a 5+ or reach out to range 2. At least with this option, I HAVE options with the Frigate, whereas before I had none...I like it.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Mar 24, 2011 12:49:18 GMT -5
I'm thinking HDmg.
|
|
|
Post by kealios on Mar 24, 2011 13:08:33 GMT -5
ACs would be nastier at short range. Lasers would still swat fighters at longer range. Not a bad trade off.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Mar 24, 2011 18:33:42 GMT -5
Rapid FireRapid fire weapons can target multiple possible intercept points to increase the likliehood of a hit, at the cost of reducing damage inflicted. You may subtract damage from a rapid-fire weapon to add to the attack die roll on a 1 for 1 basis. Damage cannot be reduced to less than 1. ------------------------------ This makes gats more effective vs. fighters, but is also something that is useful to the heavies. Nice. Simple. Effective. Will have to try this.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Mar 24, 2011 21:35:17 GMT -5
Okay, we'll give it a try.
|
|
|
Post by toaster on Mar 24, 2011 23:26:22 GMT -5
Using hull damage makes it a no brainer for shield stripping.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Mar 25, 2011 9:07:29 GMT -5
Except that autocannon SDmg sucks.
|
|