My sons play "rock-paper-scissors" sometimes when they're extremely bored.  Often they start doing "rock-paper-scissors-hammer-knife-gun-grenade-machinegune-cannon-nuke... -whatever else they come up with".

SAE can't fall prey to that.

So I agree that weapons shouldn't be included that trump the fighter's ability to fire before other ships and inflict their damage instantly.

I do however, think that something has to be done to allow players to design weapons systems that head off the fighter's ability to launch in the order's phase and attack untouched. 

Nevermind game balance for the moment.  There's something that doesn't "FEEL" right about fighters launching from a ship in the movement phase, swarming in on a mighty ship of war and slapping it around a bit without answer from the warship.

Right now it's impossible to build a weapon that a ship can use to attack fighters that are inbound.  I would like to see a weapon trait that dedicates a weapon (perhaps permantly, perhaps on a turn-by-turn basis, written in orders) that put's the weapon on "anti-fighter duty".  Each weapon in a battery with the "Anti-fighter" trait would have it's target assigned and firing resolved during the fighter phase as if it were a fighter flight.

That would put a weapon that was "tooled up" to sweep the sky of fighters (or try to...) on equal footing with fighters timing-wise within the rules of the game.

Pointing the weapon trait, is something I won't tackle... it's what I pay for when I buy rules, after all.  *grin*

--Tim

That is certainly a valid tactic as the rules exist today. 

It doesn't change my opinion something feels wrong with the current system in which fighters can launch and attack unopposed in a single turn.  Assuming one lets an enemy carrier get within 10 hexes.

I don't believe that fighters are inherently over-powered. (Justin's statements about SX edition's fighters notwithstanding.)   My complaint about the fighters as they exist today is the "gamelike" feel of how they work.

My complaint about the feel isn't a big one.  It doesn't ruin the game for me at all.  I'm really excited about the new edition and I wish I had more days in the week (weekend days, of course!) to play.

Still, it's one of those "if only they'd..." annoyances that gets me thinking about how else it could be done.

When I read the first part of that, I thought "Oooh!  That sounds good."  Then the second part had me re-thinking it.  It gets worse for campaigns settings/linked scenarios when you consider that the carrier is what counts for victory, not the fighters.

--Flak

The "simple" answer would be to have fighters act just like ships -- plotting movement and simultaneous combat resolution.

But the reason we went to the separate fighter phase is that I didn't want to plot moves for dozens of fighter flights.

Underling's option is very good... it allows the fighters to remain the fast reaction force on the board, while making all weapon fire simultaneous...

I'll have to try it out and see if it works....

My only complaint with fighters was the massed destruction effect that I saw used once. This is from a Starmada X game.... and the player in question first made it a point to look at the control sheets for the other players. If the opponent did not have sunbursts (at the time, one of the only area of effect weapons), he would use a fleet consisting of a couple of light Hull 1 or 2 ships that were extremely fast. The rest of his fleet consisted of long range fighters..... no carrier needed, they had their own hyperdrives.

He would mass his fighters and then rush in on one of your ships, he was pretty much guaranteed a kill, and would then hide behind the explosion, making it hard for the rest of the fleet to target the fighters. His explanation was that it was the same as a Star Wars fighter strike, ala the X-Wing novels.

If his opponent had sunbursts, he avoided massing the wings in single hexes, and instead tried to turn it into a running battle with the floating map option. If his opponent had carronades, he would insist on long range fighters (2 hex range)..... and everyone was eventually forced to take both sunbursts and carronades... limiting any form of unique design for each fleet. I havent't had time to play any AE games yet, so I cannot say whether the same problem exists or not.

What are the odds of a dedicated anti-fighter escort ship? Something like the Carrack class, from Star Wars. Maybe if you take "anti-fighter" as a weapon mod, you get to fire during the fighter phase at the normal to hit, but the weapon cannot be used against capital ships (flachette ammo, or whatever reason).
I want to avoid the paper, rock, scissors,..... Nuke argument as well, but have always been intrigued with the anti-fighter escort ships.

John

I'd be careful in doing anything to blunt the effectiveness of fighters -- this includes making them attack simultaneously with ships -- unless they have been shown to be unbalancing.

If, however, it's just a question of "feel", then there are other options for fighters -- one of which you will see in an upcoming supplement...

I don' think there is such a thing as a "fighter problem", at least not yet so far. As I said my aversion to having fighters being significant is a question of personal taste, but not of game balance.

Yes, with SAE fighters have the opportunity to become much more powerful than their predecessors were in S:X but they've become much more expensive. While they may not be attacked anymore within their phase (ie anti-fighter batteries) they lost their shield-reducing advantage, and a "stock" flight costs the same.

What would REALLY be unbalancing is going back to allowing extended range fighters or strikers.

[quote="cricket
If, however, it's just a question of "feel", then there are other options for fighters -- one of which you will see in an upcoming supplement...