Well, in the case of the fighter there will be retaliatory fire at least.

I agree that as I understand the seekers, they seem rather brutal in that regard.

(I do not have the rules right in front of me...so this is not confirmed)

Seekers, being a subset of small craft/ fighters should be subject to the same movement/attack/retaliatory rules as a normal fighter squadron. 

The main differences as I understand them are that they are one use, have to have a designated target which they move towards along the shortest line of travel possible, and cannot initiate dogfights.

You do read the rules correctly.

However, as flights are launched in the End Phase, there is the opportunity for ships to move away before the subsequent Fighter Phase. Also, enemy fighters/seekers have the opportunity to intercept the newly-launched flight.

Theoretically, you could house rule it so that flights are launched during the Fighter Phase (but don't move until the next turn), giving ships at least one opportunity to fire at them. But I'm not sure such an adjustment is necessary.

I would like to see a "Reaction Fire" or "Point Defense" trait for ship weapons. This would allow them to fire during the Fighter phase, after a fighter has moved, but before the fighter fires.

Obviosly the weapon would not be able to fire during the regular fire phase, and maybe limit it to range 1 making it self defense only. :?:

No idea what off/def mod or SU value to give it though.

No tracking if you mod it so that reaction fire weapons cannot fire during ship-ship phase.

I like it

Actually I was thinking of tracking it. Either fire in the fighter phase or the ship phase.

But I think you're right, only allowing it to fire in the fighter phase makes it easier.

If you want a weapon that can fire in either phase you could use a Dual-mode weapon. One mode reaction fire one not. Make your choice at the beginning of the turn. Could make for interesting desicions. Do I need to engage the fighter swarm or the ship bearing down on me?

Seems to me that Anti-Fighter Batteries should have been given the option to fire in either the Fighter Phase or the Ship Combat Phase, with AFBs being able to fire before the fighters attack their target. 

Rule suggestion:
The AFBs of a ship must be plotted at the start of the turn as to which phase, Fighter Phase or Ship Combat Phase, they can fire in and all AFBs of that ship can only fire in that phase.  Any number of AFBs can be fired at a fighter group, but all that are to be fired at a specific target must be designated before dice are rolled.  Example: BB Bozo has 24 AFBs which have been plotted to fire in the Fighter Phase.  It is attacked by the first of three enemy fighter groups (6 units per group) that could attack it, so the player chooses to fire 8 AFBs at the fighter group, leaving 16 AFBs for any possible other attacks by fighter groups.  The dice rolls are 1,1,1,3,4,4,5,6 thus two fighters are destroyed before they get to roll their attacks against the ship.

Optional idea for damaging AFBs: if any AFB roll is a 1, one AFB is destroyed and unrepairable (keep track like you do with lost Marines); this would be one of the currently fired AFBs.  Perhaps this would keep the current cost of the AFBs if you think the above rule should increase their cost.

They aren't worth their cost now.  Usually, it's either you have too many (enemy does not have any fighters) or you do not have enough and are pointless if the ship dies or is severely damaged in the Fighter Phase before the AFBs get to fire.  They are worthless against strikers/seekers.

This has got to be THE most-suggested rule -- ship weapons that get to go in the fighter phase...

Haven't yet decided if it breaks things too much, tho.

Fighters have been contentious in both of the spaceship combat games I've played (Full Thrust and now Starmada X/AE).  Both games have arguably been based on paradigms and assumptions about space-ship combat that make it much like WWII naval combat in space.  With that in mind, it makes sense that a fleet with fighter is going to be more powerful than a fleet without.  Once the Japanese showed the world the power and flexibility of naval aircraft (not talking about Pearl Harbor, which is as much about the power of ambush than air-power) it was essential that almost any naval group include aircraft.  I'm sketchy on my naval tactics, but entire operational groups were organized around the support and protection of the carriers.

So with the WWII-esque effect of Fighters in SAE we're running into players who don't WANT to include Fighters in their fleet having problems dealing with opposing players who do include them.  I know I'm not all that fired up about using swarms of fighters, but I also don't like to get b-slapped around by them. 

IMO, fighters/seekers/drones are affecting the battle "from the outside".  They are treated differently from everything else in the game.  They move differently, they fire differently and they do their damage differently.  It's no wonder that they have consistently had issues with points-costing and the like.  Something has to be done to bring how fighters move, attack and are destroyed more in line with the rest of the ways we destroy each other's ships.  Somehow that has to be done without nerfing them into uselessness or making them feel like their not fighters anymore.

I know that Dan is pretty invested (meaning, he likes them) in some of the rules covering fighters and the "feel" that gives them, but those differences are, IMO part of the problem.  I love the game, don't get me wrong, I just really don't like the "Feel" of getting ambushed by fighters that were launched within sight and range of fleet without my getting a shot off at them.  It "feels" wrong because in spite of all the other WWII-like assumptions, the fact that Fighters were very vulnerable when launching from the carrier during WWII is missing from Starmada.  Even today they're still very vulnerable when they launch, assuming something can get into range of the carrier... (not likely these days given that our current enemies are more into attacking civilians and soft targets).

So what to do, what to do?  Like a lot of you, I've been thinking about it.  My life is kinda hectic right now with little free-time, but I'm going to try to write up some house-rules that will over-ride the fighter rules as written.  I'll post 'em on my blog and invite comments when I get to it.  It'll be kind of an overhaul of the fighters, and my humble efforts might suck, but *shrug* I wanna give it a go anyway.

--Flak Magnet

The British were already showing the value of naval air power in WW2 before the Japanese got involved, even with British "obsolete" naval aircraft.  Swordfish vs. Bismarck, anyone?       

Now, we are not playing a WW2-era game.  And in space, there really is no difference between a "fighter" and a "ship" in terms of the medium they are maneuvering in.  What can be  different is mass vs maneuvering engine in the construction.  If fighters are considered to be a short duration combat vessel then it can sacrifice the amenities of living conditions (like a bowling alley  ), most life support functions that a ship has, powerful sensors, scientific gear, medcial facilities, and all the staff needed for such things, which cuts down on the fighter's mass and lets it have more maneuverability for the same size engine.  It can also be made smaller for the same abilities that a similar ship has.  But the cost is that it must return to a base very soon after launch.

What does this mean for Starmada?  I like the fighter movement rules, it lets the fighters be more flexible and maneuverable, and saves game time plotting movement/actions for all those squadrons (and striker/seeker salvos). What I don't like is the free action that fighters get vs. ships.  Both in WW2, and seen in the movies (such a great standard of reality  :roll: ), anti-aircraft/starfighter systems got to damage and destroy some of fighters before those fighters got to attack ships; but not in Starmada. 

Luke wouldn't have needed to fly down the trench of the Death Star since a few of the first wave of bombers that was shot down by anti-fighter defenses probably would have instead been able to drop their special package down that vulnerable spot if Starmada was used to simulate the battle.   

Changing how AFBs work seems to me to be the simplest, and most logical considering their name and how they function now, way to allow some sort of active defense for ships vs fighters.  And, make them useful against strikers and seekers.

The simplest way I've thought of to do this would be to have the AFBs work on the same dice pool they use now, but be a reaction shot- That is, the attack dice are rolled when an offending group moves into AFB range, with the damage being resolved before any action by the squadron in question. The AFB pool represents how many dice may be rolled against squadrons in this way per turn. This allows AFBs to act in the fighter phase, but purely in a defensive capacity. Any offensive use of AFBs against other ships would have to wait until the ship phase.