You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Ship Anti Fighter Weapons
I just noticed that a short ranged battery is pretty limited in it's use as an anti fighter/striker/seeker weapon. Will there be an option for shipborne weapons to allow them to fire in the fighter phase? Or maybe an option for range (1), meaning it only fires against f/s/s when attacked? Otherwise a short ranged defensive system like the modern Phalanx just isn't going to pan out. Or alternatively, am I being dense and missing something?
From what I can tell, it's going to be a tricky matter of engaging fighters and seekers rather than letting them engage you.
Example: A Rng-3 weapon won't be able to hit a fighter if it move up next to you during the fighter phase and blows you away. BUT if the fighter is a few squares distant, and you move up to it, the weapon becomes a respectable anti-fighter gun, and hits it BEFORE the next fighter phase ever happens.
Example: The enemy flights fail to knock your vessel down, at which point your RNG-3 weapons become an asset.
So really, it's more a problem of making sure the fighters don't get to make their move-in during a fighter-phase, or that you have 'picket' vessels with high thrust ratings which can move up to them and engage them swiftly.
I do wish there was a "Point-Defense" mod for weapons, at, say, x1.3. "Weapon takes -1 on all IMP and Acc. rolls against vessels, but does not take the -1 Acc. Penalty for attack small craft.".
Or somesuch.
-Adso
You're right about fighters. They'll just get their licks in first. But in my case I've only been using seekers. Which means that unless I maneuver a ship to be 11-13 away from the seeker (assuming speed 10 for the seeker and range 3 for the weapon system) there's not going to be a shot. I played a quick and dirty scenario with 2 ships and they were within knife fighting range pretty quickly where seekers would hit in their first movement phase after launch.
I guess I'm basing what I expect should happen on modern naval close in weapon systems. I'm expecting the defense system to be able to get a shot off just before the weapon hits.
For anti-fighter work I'd use a range 12 weapon with area effect (say 3+, 3/1/1). Call it a burst missile. It should take out bunches of fighters.
I just noticed that a short ranged battery is pretty limited in it's use as an anti fighter/striker/seeker weapon. Will there be an option for shipborne weapons to allow them to fire in the fighter phase?
I really like this idea of a reactionary weapon. Another idea that could satisfy the same goal would be the Battlefleet Gothic's rule of putting a fighter flight on CAP in the capital ship's hex. The first flight to come adjacent to the capital ship trying to attack it gets automatically jumped in to a dogfight.
(I don't think it's a thread hijack if I'm talking on the same subject, but if it is I apologize. I think a Fighter-Reacts power on a weapon would be totally cool.)
Maybe call the trait...Rapid Response
Allows weapon battery to fire first during the fighter phase of the turn in response to attack by small craft, seekers, etc...Should the battery be used in this mode, it may not fire again during the normal combat phase.
I'd recommend a restriction against using this with the AoE trait simply to avoid wholesale slaughter of fighters...or use a slightly higher multiplier than 1.3
I would say play test it, but fear it would slaughter fighters. Fighters big/only advantage that they have vs very high ROF batteries (which could also have range based ROF and variable ROF :shock:) is that they get to act before ships. Ships have range on them so essentially can get this by simply firing a longer ranged weapon (12+) at them. Using Terran standard PACs as "Flak" cannons was a time honored tradition in the 81st fleet (my terrans from cold navy). It makes a Range 12+ ROF X IMP 1, DMG 1 a very useful, cheap, general weapon.
another option would be simply to increase your shielding, that way you are more likely to survive the attack, leaving the fighter right next to you for your gun to vaporize in the combat phase.
I am not totally against the idea, just offering up other anti-fighter tactics.
Sheesh... I weakened fighters and you're all STILL whining about how to defend against them? 
Yes, fighters get to attack before ships -- but they pay for that opportunity (I believe the modifier is x1.5 or x2). Further, in order to attack a target, they must offer themselves up to retaliatory fire.
The best defense against fighters is your own fighters. Failing that, have some escorts with lots of short-range, high-ROF weapons. Failing that, remember that fighters are powerful, but not invincible. Don't panic. And DON'T, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, leave one ship out in front of your force. Enemy fighters will chew it up. Mutual support is the name of the game.
Strikers might initially seem to be a concern, since they attack and then go away before "revenge" fire (and if launched from close range, there is no chance of interception) -- but the good news is that they attack and then go away.
And if someone is relying on the ability to get strikers close enough to launch and attack in one turn, I'd say go ahead: it's almost always more cost-effective to use direct-fire weapons.
That being said, if I were inclined to add options for fighter defense, I would look at:
1) Combat "Air" Patrol (but this requires friendly fighters)
2) Reactive weapons -- they are "triggered" by a fighter attack, but cannot be used offensively (think a more active version of the old AFB)
3) An anti-fighter trait that ignores the -1 to-hit penalty.
The funny thing is I just realized that I was looking at this from expectations of how the rules would work versus any issue of game balance. I'd say table it for now until more games are under our belts.
Although another solution might be an option for Countermeasures that works against fighters/strikers/seekers instead of ships. Close In Defense System (CIDS)?
1) As Dan has said the best defense is your own fighters. because you alternate at most the enemy is going to get the drop on you one with one element before you get to intercept his fighters with yours. Having a near by fighter flight is essentially having CAP.
and 3
3) That effect can be generated a few ways already for those who want to stick to the current rules. One is to give the ship firecontrol (making an dedicated anti fighter ship with that could be a great idea) the second would be to add the double range mods trait to the weapon.
I kind of like the CIDS idea best so far if we adopt something new. Anywho, I am looking forward to my first game in a few days. Wish me luck.
Although another solution might be an option for Countermeasures that works against fighters/strikers/seekers instead of ships. Close In Defense System (CIDS)?
This idea is a good one. Maybe this is the new role for the point-defense system (PDS).
1) As Dan has said the best defense is your own fighters. because you alternate at most the enemy is going to get the drop on you one with one element before you get to intercept his fighters with yours. Having a near by fighter flight is essentially having CAP.
Essentially, but not quite the same. Basically, my thought on CAP would be to have a fighter place itself on CAP instead of making an attack. Then, whenever an opposing flight moves within range (half the CAP fighter's speed?) the CAP flight can "jump" to the opposing flight's hex and initiate a dogfight.
3) That effect can be generated a few ways already for those who want to stick to the current rules. One is to give the ship firecontrol
True. Forgot about that. 
Sheesh... I weakened fighters and you're all STILL whining about how to defend against them?
Well, we all but KNEW this was going to happen. 
Yes, fighters get to attack before ships -- but they pay for that opportunity (I believe the modifier is x1.5 or x2). Further, in order to attack a target, they must offer themselves up to retaliatory fire.
The best defense against fighters is your own fighters. Failing that, have some escorts with lots of short-range, high-ROF weapons. Failing that, remember that fighters are powerful, but not invincible. Don't panic. And DON'T, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, leave one ship out in front of your force. Enemy fighters will chew it up. Mutual support is the name of the game.
Strikers might initially seem to be a concern, since they attack and then go away before "revenge" fire (and if launched from close range, there is no chance of interception) -- but the good news is that they attack and then go away.
And if someone is relying on the ability to get strikers close enough to launch and attack in one turn, I'd say go ahead: it's almost always more cost-effective to use direct-fire weapons.
That being said, if I were inclined to add options for fighter defense, I would look at:
1) Combat "Air" Patrol (but this requires friendly fighters)
2) Reactive weapons -- they are "triggered" by a fighter attack, but cannot be used offensively (think a more active version of the old AFB)
3) An anti-fighter trait that ignores the -1 to-hit penalty.
#1 is what they do now in the real world
#2 and #3 would require home-brew rules....
I think that the fighters are pretty balanced. They can't do all the SFB-ish stuff that I advocated, but they honestly don't need those things (mentioned in another fighter thread) to work in Starmada. This thread is proof of that.
There was some concern about changing the fighters in ANY way, but I think the changes are Quite Positive.
Fighters are now going to act a LOT like they do in Cinema, and much like they did in WW2.
My two cents, anyway....
How about this for a expensive weapon but which should annihilate fighters:
Range-18, 5/1/1, Area-Effect, ACC: 3+ with firecontrol. Long enough to attack all fighters, even those strikers/seekers which have maximum speed. Or, alternately, go for the short-range approach and have several RNG 6 weapons
Although, I must say, I still prefer SX (especially since I can cross with VBAM and there aren't any odd number of space units) I do prefer the S:AE way that fighters have been handled, and I especially love the seekers and strikers.
Although, I must say, I still prefer SX (especially since I can cross with VBAM and there aren't any odd number of space units) I do prefer the S:AE way that fighters have been handled, and I especially love the seekers and strikers.
Well, you should be able to cross SAE with VBAM soon enough.
But I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "any odd number of space units"?
aresian wrote:Although another solution might be an option for Countermeasures that works against fighters/strikers/seekers instead of ships. Close In Defense System (CIDS)?
This idea is a good one. Maybe this is the new role for the point-defense system (PDS).
I concur.
Hmmm. I ran some quick tests, and I agree that fighters have been toned down, but the lack of anti-fighter batteries or any other deterrent makes them even more one sided, even if the one side has become less deadly. While my fighters, fielded in reasonable numbers, were not overpowering to the basic ships on the other side, they did seem to somehow not differ enough from drones or something -- they would usually get in their licks and then get anihillated.
A similar option to 'Countermeasures' (-1 to all small craft attacks), or a more radical one like 'point defenses' (all small craft attacks which roll a '1' result in one hit to the attacking flight) would make ships and fighters seem less disconnected than they do now. Those would both be ship options. One thing people might also consider is a weapon option, like "Anti-Aircraft Mount", which negates the -1 against small craft and adds a -1 against full sized vessels, or "Point Defense," which would allow the weapon to fire in the fighter phase ONLY.
-Adso
Hmmm. I ran some quick tests, and I agree that fighters have been toned down, but the lack of anti-fighter batteries or any other deterrent makes them even more one sided, even if the one side has become less deadly.
I have to disagree. The only thing that is different from X, besides the fighter's lack of the "Halves Shields" ability, is that there is no option for Anti-Fighter Batteries; which, according to consensus, was not really a deterrent in the first place.
A similar option to 'Countermeasures' (-1 to all small craft attacks), or a more radical one like 'point defenses' (all small craft attacks which roll a '1' result in one hit to the attacking flight) would make ships and fighters seem less disconnected than they do now.
I lean towards the countermeasures-type option.
I think we're in agreement, Dan the Designing One :-)
Fighters have been toned down a little -- as you said, 'halves shields' is no longer a default ability. I also agree that little else has changed in terms of available deterrents (though the new movement system may make things a little less predictable). I am surprised at the consensus against AFB -- I always found it an important deterrent when picking targets, as did my group.
Two more questions, sorry to pester:
1) I think the OP wanted something not merely to lessen the effectiveness of fighters, but to interdict and attrit them actively. So while I agree that the countermeasures is a good idea, it doesn't go to the heart of his question.
2) How would you price such a 'Close Defense System'? SUs, ORAT, DRAT, etc. Would you consider it interesting and useful enough to include in Admiralty 1.1?
3) And one question of my own, in a similar vein: what happened to 'interceptor' fighters? There are two ways for fighters to get -1 against other flights in excahnge for greater vessel-damage, but no way to exchange vessel-damaging ability to flight-damaging ability. I assume this is intentional, but why?
-Adso
I would represent interceptor with increased ROF or simply increasing their ATT. Perhaps increase the ATT to 3+ but then give it no hull damage effectively making your anti figher a 4+, and your anti ship 5+ as normal, but much less likely to kill a ship. Could also be done with non piercing as most fighters do not have DEF.
I am surprised at the consensus against AFB -- I always found it an important deterrent when picking targets, as did my group.
So did I, frankly. I never designed a ship without 'em. But the forum here seemed pretty one-sided in their assessment...
1) I think the OP wanted something not merely to lessen the effectiveness of fighters, but to interdict and attrit them actively. So while I agree that the countermeasures is a good idea, it doesn't go to the heart of his question.
An active fighter defense is something that people have been asking about for years. And I don't have an answer. The only possible "solution" that seems to meet the demand would be to allow some weapons to fire in the fighter phase -- but that's a can o' worms I'm afraid to open.
2) How would you price such a 'Close Defense System'? SUs, ORAT, DRAT, etc. Would you consider it interesting and useful enough to include in Admiralty 1.1?
By "such a system" you mean forcing a -1 penalty to fighter attacks? I would think something close to AFB would be a good starting place; x1.2 to the DRAT and a 5% space requirement.
3) And one question of my own, in a similar vein: what happened to 'interceptor' fighters? There are two ways for fighters to get -1 against other flights in excahnge for greater vessel-damage, but no way to exchange vessel-damaging ability to flight-damaging ability. I assume this is intentional, but why?
It was sort of intentional... Allowing fighters to take "no hull damage" or "non-penetrating" without consequence would have left them open to abuse. But I didn't eliminate "interceptors" per se for any particular reason.
murtalianconfederacy wrote:Although, I must say, I still prefer SX (especially since I can cross with VBAM and there aren't any odd number of space units) I do prefer the S:AE way that fighters have been handled, and I especially love the seekers and strikers.
Well, you should be able to cross SAE with VBAM soon enough.
But I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "any odd number of space units"?
Having space units that does not end in a 0. With S:X, you have 5800 space units for a hull 20 ship and its easy to remember the space requirements--heck, I could do most of the work in my head and just leave the CR calculations to the calculator. Now with the odd numbers like 1493 and 2529 space units its very hard to do in my head and I've got to keep referring to the tables.
Thats the primary problem for me, and its just because of my mindset...
Another way to deal with fighters is to create dedicated anti-fighter escort ships. Make them small, and therefore cheap, with range 6 high ROF weaponry, and keep them near your other ships. If you mix that with some AOE weapons, and fighters of your own, you should be able to deal with incoming fighters without too much difficulty.
Although the idea of a counter measure is interesting to explore.
John
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Ship Anti Fighter Weapons
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.