• Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 379

Topic: Flack

I still think ships are in need of a defensive tactic against opposing FACs, as the bst they can come up with (for now) is to kill an offending torpedo platform AFTER it has conducted its run (if the capital ship is any shape to shoot back).

Could we look at creating an area around ships, dependent on the number of Light Guns and Machine Guns they can bring to bear through a firing arc, at which point it starts to get HOT for the attacking FACs?

Right now, attack craft entering a minefield die on a 8+, right?  (I think that's the stat in TMW).

Could we look at something like the following

Guns# / Zone
2-3 / 1"
4-5 / 2"
6-7 / 3"
8+ /  4"

You mark down how many light guns and MGs will be throwing up defensive fire during your movement phase.  Then any FACs that press their attack and enter a certain range have to roll and make sure they got through.  If they roll an 8+, then just like mines, they go Boom. Guns used this way cannot make to-hit rolls, and the normal arc limitations apply.

IE -- Blanco Encalada has 10 light guns.  She assigns them to throwing out a carpet of FAC flack during her movement phase.  Any FAC coming within 2" of her is going to be hit on a 8+ (2" because only five light guns can fire out of any arc, and 5 guns in the above chart shows a 2" defensive zone or whatever you want to call it).  If the FAC wants to press its luck and fire its torpedo at less than 2", it runs the risk of dying.  If it plays it safe, then it peels away early and has to suffer the standard range penalty to its attack. 

AMS Nordlingen has 14 light guns and three machine guns.  That means it can assign up to 17 pieces to defensive fire.  7 of its light guns and two of its machine guns can fire out of any given arc, which means it's defensive zone goes out to 4".  A FAC with a d8 torp could target the ship, needing an 8+ to hit (4+2 for armor +2 for range).  But a FAC with a d6 torp would HAVE to come within that envelope, and runs a risk of being blown to scrap.  It's up to the player about what he wants to do.

I think something like this could help destroyers and destroyer escorts perform fill the role they're meant to fill.  Guarding the backs of the big boys.  I mean, put a destroyer with six light guns and four machine guns next to a battleship, and it could lend cover.

Just an idea.

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Flack

kevinsmith67206 wrote:

> Why not steal page out of Grand Fleets?
> Sorta...
> I believe the current turn sequence in Iron Stars is that
> FACs move AFTER all capital ships, but attack BEFORE all
> capital ships.
> How about inserting an additional phase in the turn sequence
> called, appropriately enough, the Anti-FAC Attack Phase?
> Kinda catchy, ain't it?
> smile
> This phase would represent ships allocating any light guns
> and machine guns to firing at FACs before the FACs attack.
> All normal mechanics for attacking FACs would be in effect,
> with the added caveat that any light guns or machine guns
> used for anti-FAC firing would not be available for firing
> during the capital ship firing phase.
> This keeps all of the mechanics consistent, and simply adds
> an additional combat phase. It also simulates FACs having to
> weather ship flack before attacking their target.

I like this better than Matt's proposal (sorry, Matt smile), because I'm worried about the over-effectiveness of light guns when used in a "passive" way like that... but I would also penalize ships if they wish to use some of their light or machine guns during the Anti-FAC Phase; perhaps a -1 to-hit?

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 379

Re: Flack

No need to apologize.  big_smile  But I'm not a fan of adding another phase to the game. 

I thought about offering it up as a seperate phase, but to me that just adds more steps to track as opposed to making a notation on the ship's sheet.  I was thinking of the earlier means just because it seemed to cut down on the number of dice rolls you'd have in a turn and it (rather than rolling for all those light guns and MGs, you'd have one toss for an FAC running the gauntlet) and it, too, would force FACs to weather flack before making their attack runs. 

And it didn't seem to give the light guns too much power if they're losing the ability to be used in any other fashion that turn.

To each their own smile

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: Flack

Sounds reasonable.

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Flack

themattcurtis wrote:

I thought about offering it up as a seperate phase, but to me that just adds more steps to track as opposed to making a notation on the ship's sheet.  I was thinking of the earlier means just because it seemed to cut down on the number of dice rolls you'd have in a turn and it (rather than rolling for all those light guns and MGs, you'd have one toss for an FAC running the gauntlet) and it, too, would force FACs to weather flack before making their attack runs.

And therein lies the problem as I see it. By forcing FACs to "run the gauntlet",  we'd make MGs and Light Guns so much more effective in deterring attacks than they are right now.

I understand that's the point, but still... smile

Especially since we already have equipment that does exactly what you're talking about ... escorts with a couple mine factors each should do the trick.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-30
  • Posts: 272

Re: Flack

Realistically, if you give light guns & MGs a chance to fire before FACs, they're *going* to fire before FACs no matter what the penalty to hit is.  Anything's better than eating a torpedo spread, especially if it's likely to kill you.

Mind you, I'm not sure that's a bad thing, and the "anti-FAC phase" with a -1 penalty strikes me as a better idea than the "flak" one.  But I'm not sure how much it would throw off game balance...FACs seem pretty good for their points most times, but they have weaknesses too.

You could avoid the (minimal) record-keeping by just declaring that light guns & MGs always fire before anything else, in their own seperate phase.  I don't think that would radically change the balance ship vs ship (well, maybe for destroyers with primary guns), and you wouldn't have to remember which guns have fired defensively that way.

Rich

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Flack

While I know that FACs can be annoying, and understand the desire to have defenses against them, I'm not sure either of the ideas presented here solve more problems than they raise.

There is no way to destroy fighters in Starmada before they get their attacks (aside from having your own fighters -- and the initiative smile). I don't see why IS should be any different.

Now, if I start playing a bunch of games in which I lose primarily due to the predations of FACs, I may change my mind... big_smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 379

Re: Flack

Plane leaves here in a bit -- work made me take a laptop with wireless connection to vacation -- but I have a promise from my boss he won't email me.  Had to go through the motions of taking it.  Once I hit Florida, this f---ing thing goes in my dad's closet.

I don't FACs are annoying.  I love them.  And I think figuring out when/how to use them adds a lot of depth to the game as they aren't exactly like fighters as most folks understand 'em.

I just have a friend who's learned to hate the Central Powers (Germany and Austria) because he has yet to figure out how to fend off attack craft.

So with him, I have a handshake agreement to never included more than 3-4 in a game (usually meaning a lone Huszar CL).  And I just got tired of having to give up my style of play -- which is to have the ability to launch at least a handful of the little buggers during the course of a game.  I wanted an optional rule to placate him.  But I may have to tell him to either suck it up, or else just play straight gun platform battles with him.

  • Registered: 2005-03-30
  • Posts: 272

Re: Flack

cricket wrote:

There is no way to destroy fighters in Starmada before they get their attacks (aside from having your own fighters -- and the initiative smile). I don't see why IS should be any different.

To tell the truth, that's probably my least favorite aspect of Starmada.  It's not a crippling problem, but it definitely raises some eyebrows when you first explain it to a new player, especially one who's got a background in, say, Full Thrust.

Mind you, FT's fighter rules are far more of a mess than Starmada's, so maybe it's not really a problem...

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: Flack

hundvig wrote:
cricket wrote:

There is no way to destroy fighters in Starmada before they get their attacks (aside from having your own fighters -- and the initiative smile). I don't see why IS should be any different.

To tell the truth, that's probably my least favorite aspect of Starmada.  It's not a crippling problem, but it definitely raises some eyebrows when you first explain it to a new player, especially one who's got a background in, say, Full Thrust.

Mind you, FT's fighter rules are far more of a mess than Starmada's, so maybe it's not really a problem...

A mess?!?  Kind of a weak term there...*chuckles*  :wink:

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: Flack

I've got Full Thrust, and I've got Starmada.

Due to the WORST work schedule devised by man, I haven't gamed a Starship combat game since about 1985....no one wants to hook up on Thursday Evenings for some reason.

Are you telling me that the Starmada Fighter Rules are better than those in Full Thrust? I wouldn't mind a breakdown if anyone was so inclined.

  • Registered: 2005-03-30
  • Posts: 272

Re: Flack

thedugan wrote:

Are you telling me that the Starmada Fighter Rules are better than those in Full Thrust? I wouldn't mind a breakdown if anyone was so inclined.

My take on the subject, as a semi-regular player of both games:

Full Thrust fighters have balance issues based on numbers, and the amount of point defense the enemy fleet carries.  If you have too few fighters versus too many PDS mounts, they're worthless.  If you have too many fighters, or the other side skimps on PDS, the fighters walk all over the enemy.  The "comfort zone" where their combat effectiveness is on par with their actual cost is very narrow, and dependent on how *both* fleets are built.  Makes it hard to guess whether a random pick-up game is going to be fun or a one-sided slaughter.

To a lesser(?) degree, the Salvo Missiles, Phalon Plasma Bolts, and UNSC Anti-Matter Torps suffer from the same problem, and for the same reasons...it's all a question of relative PDS strength with them.  Having a high thrust helps versus these weapons, though, so there are other ways to defend against them than just layers of PDS fire.

There's a definite rock-paper-scissors thing there, since a carrier (or missile) fleet has problems with a heavy-PDS fleet, which in turn has problems with heavy-gun-light-PDS fleet...but a gun fleet will get massacred by a carrier fleet, so it's really rock-paper-machinegun, to borrow a phrase.

Starmada suffers from the same problem to a lesser degree, but I think the more accurate basic CR system helps counteract it, and I *know* the general ability to shoot at fighters with anti-shipping weapons is a big assist ('cause I remember when that wasn't the case).  It's still damned frustrating to lose a ship to a massive fighter strike without getting a shot back in reply, but if you have a good formation and/or some area-effect weapons, your fleetmates can usually get some revenge, at least.

Interestingly, one of the major public playtest "fixes" the FT crew is working on allows anti-shipping guns to engage fighters, missiles, etc, which were previously PDS-only targets.  So I guess great minds think alike, right?  smile

Rich

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: Flack

Thanks for comparing the two....

hundvig wrote:
thedugan wrote:

Are you telling me that the Starmada Fighter Rules are better than those in Full Thrust? I wouldn't mind a breakdown if anyone was so inclined.

My take on the subject, as a semi-regular player of both games:

Full Thrust fighters have balance issues based on numbers, and the amount of point defense the enemy fleet carries.  If you have too few fighters versus too many PDS mounts, they're worthless.  If you have too many fighters, or the other side skimps on PDS, the fighters walk all over the enemy.  The "comfort zone" where their combat effectiveness is on par with their actual cost is very narrow, and dependent on how *both* fleets are built.  Makes it hard to guess whether a random pick-up game is going to be fun or a one-sided slaughter.

This is almost the way it is in real life, as some weapon systems can't effectively shoot at missiles or planes. Only with the advent of CIWS did surface ships really have any defense against anti-shipping missiles - and the only defense from planes was our (then sorta crappy) missles....

hundvig wrote:

To a lesser(?) degree, the Salvo Missiles, Phalon Plasma Bolts, and UNSC Anti-Matter Torps suffer from the same problem, and for the same reasons...it's all a question of relative PDS strength with them.  Having a high thrust helps versus these weapons, though, so there are other ways to defend against them than just layers of PDS fire.

There's a definite rock-paper-scissors thing there, since a carrier (or missile) fleet has problems with a heavy-PDS fleet, which in turn has problems with heavy-gun-light-PDS fleet...but a gun fleet will get massacred by a carrier fleet, so it's really rock-paper-machinegun, to borrow a phrase.

Starmada suffers from the same problem to a lesser degree, but I think the more accurate basic CR system helps counteract it, and I *know* the general ability to shoot at fighters with anti-shipping weapons is a big assist ('cause I remember when that wasn't the case).  It's still damned frustrating to lose a ship to a massive fighter strike without getting a shot back in reply, but if you have a good formation and/or some area-effect weapons, your fleetmates can usually get some revenge, at least.

Interestingly, one of the major public playtest "fixes" the FT crew is working on allows anti-shipping guns to engage fighters, missiles, etc, which were previously PDS-only targets.  So I guess great minds think alike, right?  smile

This is like it is in Star Fleet Battles, not that SFB is that great, it's a better setting than it is a game.

There's the problem that shooting a big gun at fighters can be sorta like hitting a bug with a ten-pound-sledge. If ya hit, the bug's dead - but ya wasted an awful lotta potential.....