|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 3, 2010 10:12:37 GMT -5
OK. . . can everyone do me a favor.
I'm considering moving the fighter shooting phase to the first step of the shooting process. But that's a significant enough change that it calls for some playtesting.
Can everyone run a couple games with fighter shooting happening first (before Capital ships) and let me know how it goes?
Does it improve the value proposition of fighters?
How does it feel from a "game flow" perspective?
Does it have any consequences for other parts of the game - missiles, movement, starship shooting, whatever?
Overall reaction to the change?
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 3, 2010 10:29:28 GMT -5
I'll try and get a game or so in today with that change.
Question - when you were playtesting the rules originally, were the Fusion Torps for FIghters able to be used as 'standard equipment' and only moved to higher tech when those rules were added in? I could see allowing them as a base capability for Strike Fighters and having a higher tech option just add +1 Damage to Strike Fighters or something. The Fusion Torp thing gives Fighters a real threat value (albeit at considerable mass cost). But having to crank even farther up the tech tree seems a bit costly for that capability.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 3, 2010 10:53:48 GMT -5
Fusion torps are not an option for fighters in many settings. The tech trees were designed and ordered so that the right tech settings could be used to replicate other popular sci-fi settings. Even with the changes in weapon orders, I've tried to maintain that. So they need to be higher up the chain than regular strike fighters.
Fusion torps are an extremely lethal upgrade for fighters that, as a stand-off weapon enables them to attack from outside the range of most fighter defenses. A higher tech level is warranted for them. Granting them to everybody would invalidate the use of PD or Flak Batteries to ward off fighters, or require a re-write of those systems which would then, in turn, reduce the utility of the fighter fusion torp (FFT) tech.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 3, 2010 12:37:34 GMT -5
Yes, that capability definitely changes the 'feel' of Fighters, but it really doenst feel 'overpowered' because of the high cost involved. So from a 'balance' point of view, I dont think it's a problem (after all, you can't pre-empt the torpedo or disruptor of mag cannon etc fire from ships so not being able to do it to Fighters isnt a huge screw IMO).
But from a 'create the Sci-Fi' aspect, yeah, leaving it a higher tech is the way to go. I just want to make sure that by doing so (to allow the flexibility of the system) Fighters without them arent getting the short end of the stick and I feel like they are in the current system.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 3, 2010 12:57:39 GMT -5
Well, you can always house rule it. I think if I were to make fighters as powerful as you would like them they would really start to eclipse the battleline. That's not really something that can be objectively measured, but is more a matter of opinion and I don't think our opinion on fighters are in synch. As far as where to err, I prefer to err on the side of conservative. From a house rule standpoint it's easy to make something more powerful. It's harder to tone something down - a problem that Full Thrust fighter players are familiar with. That said, I suspect you will like the Ravenstar/Fox fleet book when it comes out with it's corresponding fighter upgrades.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 3, 2010 13:12:04 GMT -5
No, I dont want to see them eclipse the battleline at all. I've seen enough game systems ruined by the addtion of Fighters to them (either balance-wise or by turning them into mechanical nightmares). But I do want them to be a viable addition and the more I play, the more I think that they are not really close to worth their cost. I definitely think there is a long way to go before they could even remotely considered overpowered.
That said, yes, we could House Rule it, but I think the system itself could benefit from my robust fighter rules to encourage more diversity in builds. To keep things in check, I think erring on the side of caution is the best plan. That's why I mentioned the potential change in timing as an idea...it doesnt really change their power level at all, it merely gives them a more defined fleet support role...ie, the pre-scrubbers to help your battleline inflict damage.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 3, 2010 14:12:22 GMT -5
Yeah, I really liked that idea, which I why I need some folks to try it out.
|
|
|
Post by Jester on Jul 3, 2010 14:52:48 GMT -5
OK, I just played a 2k point game with the suggested “fighter attack” timing change. I had two goals with this game: 1) I wanted to see what would happen if one side was totally “unprepared” vs a heavy fighter fleet. 2) I wanted to see how the suggested timing change impacted the game First impressions, I definitely like the change in order as it lets fighters to strip shields before the big guns hit. Also, it allowed me to kill a BCB before it was able to fire. Now, it was already on its last leg and probably would have died if I had a ship left to fire at it but the timing makes fighters a bit more useful to kill “that” ship before it can fire. Here is what I played: Task Force Carrier (TFC): 1000 Ton BBC (30 fighters total: 15 Intys, 15 Strike) 500 ton BCB 350 ton CAB 2l DDs Task Force Battleline (TFB):2x 500 ton BCBs 350 ton CAB 200 ton CAB 3 DDs I built TFC around a super carrier with no weapons but decent armor and shields and a ton of fighters with 12 Fusion Torps for whichever fighters got close enough . TFB was build around the 2 BCs and a few smaller ships. All ships were gun/missile platforms I did not include any anti-fighter capability and only had 1-2 PD per ship (again, just to see what would happen if there were no precautions for fighters). TFB won the game with 1 undamaged BCB, CAB and all three DDs (actually, neither side brought their DDs in…I guess they heard the reports of all these ships being destroyed and decided to stop by the bar instead ). TFC was completely wiped out (except for the DDs). High level game details: Fleets started at speed 5 about 26 hexes apart. TFC slowed down to launch as many fighters as possible. TFB sped up to engage as soon as possible. TFC’s BC blew up a CAB (with the help of fighters stripping the shields and doing a torp hit before it fired). After that, the two BCBs from TFB blew the TFC BC out of the water. The TFC CA did get a missile salvo off at point blank range before dying a glorious death. The next turn, that missile salvo (9 missiles) put almost 60 hits on the BCB of TFB. In the shooting phase of that same turn, the fighters finished it off with a few torps. With only the carrier left and a fully operational enemy BCB and CAB, the admiral of the TFC started getting a bit nervous . That same turn, the BCB and CAB finished off the carrier and started the grim search for survivors. I realize I took this to the extreme (1000pt carrier) but wanted to see what would happen. At that ratio (1/2 your points in CVs), it didn’t pay off at all. I got lucky with the ASGM hit on the BCB…otherwise, the fighters would have just done a few points of damage. As I mentioned earlier, I do like the suggested change in firing order. Having read Unclejoe's posts, I tend to agree with much of whats been said. For me personaly (and lets all be honost here, its all about me ), in a perfect world, it would be nice to be able to create a fleet similar to TFC and be competitive vs an all gun fleet. Lots of fighters, but much less guns = Lots of gun and no fighters. Having said that, its real easy for me to say I want that, but I can imagine how hard it is to create that perfect equation (ive yet to find it in a game system that I enjoy playing). Its good to hear about the fleetbooks and new fighter rules/upgrades. Maybe that hit on some of the reservations a few of us are feeling atm. Im going to play another game now with fewer fighters in TFC (and thus more gun ships) and see how that goes. Still going to be testing vs an “unprepared” fleet to see what happens. Will keep you guys posted as the day goes on.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 3, 2010 15:09:00 GMT -5
Try a larger percentage of strike fighters too. Interceptors should represent no more than 1/3 to 1/4 of your total fighter strength, unless their only purpose is to keep strike fighters off you.
|
|
|
Post by Jester on Jul 3, 2010 16:59:55 GMT -5
Yeah, the idea was to use the Intys as my Torp delivery platform (since they were faster and coudl better position themselves for attacks on the same shield facing my Strike fighers attack). In my next fight, I will try more strikes though and see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Jester on Jul 3, 2010 18:11:53 GMT -5
Ok, just finished another 2k game with slightly different fleets: Task Force Carrier (TFC)BCC (450 ton: 15 Fighters and 9 Fusion Torps for fighters) 2x BCB (500 and 300 tons) 2x CAB (350 and 270 tons) Task Force Battleline (TFB)2x BCB (500 Ton) 3x CAB (350, 300, 200 tons) CLR Same premise as before though. I used the suggested Fighter Firing Sequence change and TFB had virtually no defenses vs fighters (only a few PDs). This game was much closer with the fighters still having an impact. In the end (via some hilarious rolling), TFC carried the day (pardon the pun). I have posted a very quick/high level AAR in the AAR section of the forums: www.steeldreadnought.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=aar&thread=101Overall thoughts: I definitely like the suggested firing order change. I did not notice any bad effects on the other aspects of the game. If I get a vote, count me as a big YES. Im still uncertain as to the “value” of fighters. The first game I played wasn’t really that close (TFC could have used those 1k points much more effectively with gun ships). The second game was much closer but still there are factors we need to consider: 1) TFB did not take any anti-fighter items (a few grape shot, a few intys or some more PD could have really diminished the effect of those “shield strippers” and at very little cost to its “gun line”). 2) I had two really lucky crit rolls: a natural 20 and then 2 engine hits in row on the same ship…Im not sure what the odds are of that happening, but im heading out to go buy some lottery tickets ;D ). So im not really sure what im taking away from this except that I probably need to play some more games (oh darn ). I also agree with Unlcejoe (and CB in general) that if we are to err, I would like to err on the side of caution for fighters. As it stands now, CB is still a great game and fighters are potenially useful. Its just that my gut tells me they should be a bit more dangerous and not something that can be totally ignored . How to make that happen…well that’s what we pay Dreadnought the big bucks for . And who knows, it may be perfect now and Ive just not played enough yet (something im trying my hardest to rectify). We are playing again on Tuesday night (with the new fighter rules) and I will try to post some thoughts after the game. I would love to hear anyone elses perspective on their test games as well. Two games does not a consensus make
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 3, 2010 23:03:00 GMT -5
We did get to play a few games today, but I was introducing the game to some new players and nobody wanted to mess with the Fighters in their 'learning' games. So sadly, we did not get to playtest the rule. On the plus side, everyone who has played so far has really enjoyed it. A few comments on Jester's games: 1) Your Carrier fleet even has the Torps and they still felt pretty ineffective? Wow. I would have figured that they would have really made the difference. Still, I guess against heavily shielded ships, the torpedoes are actually LESS effective firing before cap ships (since at best the target will only be down 12 points of shields when the torps hit). 2) How fragile did the Fighters feel? Did TFB have Gatlings to use? They were the only AA weapon in our fleets and they did a number on those Fighters. Perhaps have ships with Autonomous weapons have to EXCEED Fighter defense rather than equal or exceed? I would imagine with any of the AE weapons vs Fighters, they would evaporate ridiculously fast. Thanks for posting. Hopefully we'll get a chance to play a few more games this weeks and give the Fighters another workout. I explained the rules change to my friends who had used Fighters and they were in favor of it. On the downside, neither would choose to bring Fighters again if it wasnt to play-test. Big Guns have made a pretty big impression with our crowd since they seem to be far far more reliable and deadly than anything the Fighters have managed. I personally think it would be worth experimenting with removing the hamstrung crit penalty too. Its already hard enough for FIghters to even DO a crit (and its likely much harder with the rule change). So when you finally do one, it would be nice if it wasnt 50/50 it does nothing. Even if you manage to hit Hard Point, if you roll a weapon that doesnt exist you do the whopping 1 additional point of damage. :/ But that is one thing to consider with the rules change...Fighters gain the ability to support the fleet better, but their ability to 'finish off' smaller ships might go down a bit?
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 4, 2010 0:29:42 GMT -5
OK. . . can everyone do me a favor. I'm considering moving the fighter shooting phase to the first step of the shooting process. But that's a significant enough change that it calls for some playtesting. Can everyone run a couple games with fighter shooting happening first (before Capital ships) and let me know how it goes? Does it improve the value proposition of fighters? How does it feel from a "game flow" perspective? Does it have any consequences for other parts of the game - missiles, movement, starship shooting, whatever? Overall reaction to the change? We played two games today, one with fighters in the normal sequence and one with them going before ships in the fire phase. We’re not ready to change the sequence at this point. We do believe it makes fighter squadrons more potent if they shoot before ships, in fact a Mercury class (884 ton) was finished off by fighters (It was hit by 14/15 ASGMs at the start of the turn) before it could shoot. This did save a two blade (336 ton) for the Cylons as it would have been destroyed if the Mercury could have fired, still the Mercury would have gone down regardless of when the fighters shot. We'll try again with a different mix of ships, but it does do some damage to the big ships before they fire. This did hurt the Colonials.The game was a a 2100ish point game with no shields, but 3 P DEF and Flak batteries.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 4, 2010 0:45:11 GMT -5
But for the record, you're still playing with ships with no shields and low armor values for this test right?
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 4, 2010 0:48:25 GMT -5
As I said, no Shields, but very high AV values and lots of P DEF and Flak.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 4, 2010 1:04:57 GMT -5
OK, I completed a solo test game at 1500 points using 1 CV and 1 non-CV fleet much like Jester above. I played with the change and with Fusion Torp tech for the Fighters. The Fighter fleet lost, but it was a very close deal. The non-Fighter fleet was able to 'circle the wagon' well enough again to prevent the Fighters from causing much internal damage, but the shield removal helped the CV-fleet to inflict damage with shots that otherwise would have gone to waste. The game was close enough that an initiative roll here or there or a better crit roll etc could have reversed the decision. Question: Can ANY ship that carries a squadron be able to 'direct' all of the remaining squadron if all the CVs go down (albeit at range 12)? Some observations on what changing that rule does: It definitely better allows the Fighters to support the main fleet. Having the shields you're firing at with your ships down by 8-12 helps, especially when firing with smaller ships that usually cannot down a shield and do much. Firing first DOES seem to weaken the Fusion torps a bit on the Fighters in some ways (prolly not a bad thing) since it's far less likely that they will be delivered to a downed shield on anything bigger than a DD or a small CL. The Fighters on any particular shield wont do more than 12 and could easily be doing less if they squadron is attrited. This means that the torps will be less likely to be delivered into the hull unless you have multiple squadrons and multiple torps aligned. It's also an interesting choice to fire on the Fighters now since they have already fired and you aren't pre-empting them. So now firing those batteries of 8-10 Gatlings at them instead of firing them at a ship to strip shields doesnt seem quite so attractive. I think that is a VERY good thing. The option is still there to hose down the Fighters, but there is a little less payoff for doing so. I think I much prefer firing first for Fighters. It definitely moves them into the role of fleet support from weak 'finishers'. I dont think it has made them more 'powerful' (they gained something and they lost something), but it definitely made them more USEFUL IMO. I like having them to support my flanking DDs so that the shields in the arc my DDs can get do might be much weaker by the time the DDs fire. Overall, I think I'm going to continue to use this rule for a while and hopefully others will give it more of an acid test as well.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 4, 2010 1:05:30 GMT -5
The lack of shields is key. WIth shields, Fighters are rarely doing 'damage' since the shields regen and the Fighters are almost always facing near full shields.
What would be considered as a lot of PD? My ships typically have 2-3, with a further one often granted by a nearby Screening ship.
We haven't messed with Flak yet because frankly no one has felt threatened enough by Fighters to bother with them (ditto for Grape and Clusters).
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 4, 2010 8:55:49 GMT -5
What would you guys think of kicking strike fighter damage up to 3?
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 4, 2010 9:53:54 GMT -5
I dont think it would be a bad idea at all. That would let them 'digest' enemy ships a little better and would fit in well with being able to harass small ships (without always having to always resort to torps). And vs larger targets, it still rounds down to 1 for non-pen rounds.
And as I said, I'd even consider removing the crit penalty since by firing first, their odds of doing crits to any decent sized ships are pretty low. If you aren't comfortable with that as a base capability, put it up there with the Armed Recon benefit on the tech tree.
So a quick summary of proposed changes:
Move Fighter attack phases ahead of Capital Ship attack phase
Strike Fighter damage increased to 3
Remove the Crit penalty at TL5
Doing the above would subltly boost Fighters and make them a more interesting option IMO. There is no way you could use them as a 'main strike force' against anything larger than say a CL, but they would be a great support element for the fleet.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 4, 2010 9:54:13 GMT -5
The lack of shields is key. WIth shields, Fighters are rarely doing 'damage' since the shields regen and the Fighters are almost always facing near full shields. What would be considered as a lot of PD? My ships typically have 2-3, with a further one often granted by a nearby Screening ship. We haven't messed with Flak yet because frankly no one has felt threatened enough by Fighters to bother with them (ditto for Grape and Clusters). We general have all we can buy which means 3 for the Colonials and 2 for Cylons. Flak batteries are used by Colonial forces as it frees up a hardpoint for other weapons. With the change to the Auto cannons, they become a much more effective weapon against fighters. In fact they out strip the role of Flak which makes me wonder if it needs a redo now?
|
|