Hello everyone!
I just returned from south Florida where we played 7 games of Starmada at Gaming Glenn's awesome store.  One game with just Glenn and I was a 3800 point battle .  I never use fighters, but almost always use a lot of strikers.  In fact in the 3800 point battle, I had over a hundred of my Sea Dart Strikers:   {speed 15, 1/3+/1/1, Piercing +1}   8) 
Flight after flight of these strikers would move from up to 15 hexes from Glenn's ships and then ravage them.  Although he did shoot down a few Sea Darts the turn before, the AFBs  on his ships were able to do Nothing!   Since I don't plan to use fighters, any AFBs on my opponents' ships don't seen very useful...
After these strikers attacked and reduced the shields on Glenn's ships and knocked out many of his weapons, my fleet,  demolished his already ravaged fleet.  These Sea Darts also are excellent fighter-hunters.
I can't imagine the havoc that these speed 15 Sea Dart Strikers would cause a fleet with range 18, 15, 12, 9, ... weapons. :!:

Like the old saying goes, the best counter to a fighter is a fighter.
Star Burst Striker:{size 4, speed 15, Atk 3+, Area Effect/Interceptor/ROF-3, 47 pnts}
Put a bunch of these near your fleet on Combat Intercept. That should slow down the mass fighter/striker waves. Or at least force them to spread out a lot. :wink:

I'll second that. AFBs as constituted do not give the feel of a CIWS/Phalanx type system, or even a the massed light batteries of 20/40mm type guns on late war WWII vessels (or of more recent vintage the massed light batteries of the Galactica) which kill/disrupt fighter attacks through volume of fire. See planes on an attack run...start shooting...let planes fly themselves into the engagement envelope of the weapon(s). In the case of a modern CIWS it is more like line up on target and spit out enough metal that something is bound to hit. Either way, the emphasis isn't on gunner tracking and methodically plinking enemies as they come near.
Erik

1) Already covered by the "anti-fighter" trait.

2) I can see a weapon that fires in the fighter phase -- but it cannot wait until all fighters have moved and then attack before the fighters do. That would take away the move-then-shoot action of fighters.

3) You'd think that figher-only (or ship-only) weapons should be cheap -- but you'd be wrong. Consider: one ship with 10 all-purpose weapons and another with 10 ship-only and 10 fighter-only weapons. If you assume the fighter-only/ship-only traits should have a x0.5 multiplier, then both ships should be equal. But they are clearly not. The first has 10 weapons to bring against opposing ships; so does the second. The first has 10 weapons to bring against opposing fighters; so does the second. But the first must make some choices from turn to turn; the second does not.

For the bomber/interceptor fighter traits, I set a x0.7 multiplier -- and even that might be too low.

It's pretty expensive in real-life, too.

Antishipping cruiser missiles only travel at mach2-3, IIRC. CIWS isn't REAL long range radar, but extends beyond the range of the gun, I'm pretty sure.

If we're talking something that travels THAT fast in the game, it's going to be hard to hit.

One possible Idea...do NOT read anything official into this... 

Phalanx Fire Option:
AFB's may be rated 1-3, the rating equalling the dice that are rolled against the incoming fighters/ seekers/ strykers...whatever.  This will of course adjust their points cost...so AFB-1 would be normal cost, AFB-2 x 2.5, AFB-3 x 4 (or adjusted for the actual statistically correct impact by the math guys). 

When Strykers/ Seekers/ Fighters (etc) are "Sprint Launched" or close to the 1 Hex engagement range, the AFB's get a reaction fire before the incoming small craft make their attack.  Small craft are still destroyed on the standard die roll. (There's just possibly more dice rolling).  Main weapons with the anti-fighter trait may NOT use reaction fire against small craft, ONLY AFB's gain that benefit.

It's not that simple, everyone's got a different concept in their heads.

Insert previous technical merit's discussion here, and add in a cup of "everyone thinks in terms of WW2 scenarios" and a scoop of "Star Wars allegories that don't really apply"...

BY "craft of the appropriate comparative scale" do you mean that we may all have different ideas as to fighter size? As in one guys "fighter" is another guys bloody torpedo boat? And another guys fighter is a dinky powered space suit with shooty bits?

Aye, that's true enoufh laddie....
:mrgreen:

We've been playing with 2300 ad ships converted to Starmada, and since 2300 ad fighters use starshiip scale weapons and for all purposes are treated as very short-ranged starships we use Hull 1 ships with no Hyperdrive and Overthrusters to model the "Fighters" of that setting. Detonation missiles become strikers, and "fighting missiles" become fighters. Overall it has worked well, I think. No ships have AFBs or Point Defense, but missiles in the setting move relatively slow compared to full-fledged starships (some are slower than your average battleships) so it is difficult for them to get a launch/attack in without exposing their ship to some kind of return fire. Typically, an attacker salvos as many of his strikers at long range, and they try to soften up an opponent before moving to beam range. With smaller engagements it is easier for targets to get swamped by strikers, but in squadron-sized battles the sides mount a large number of weapons which can shot at the strikers on approach and generally whittle down a few before they reach their intended target. Overall, the system really does replicate the feel of the 2300ad system very well for our taste. We've tried some other settings that are fighter heavy (IE B5) and found that the only way to hand fighters is with fighters.
Cheers
Erik

That sounds glorious, Comrade Erik. I loved 2300ad back in the distant day when it first came out (ca. 1986?).

Whereabouts in MA are you? I can't quite imagine finding time to join a Starmada group. But if there was one nearby I might actually try to find the time.

By scale I mean treating the craft for what it is;

1) a single or two-man vessel
2) generally weighing in below the 50 ton range
3) realizing that it's beam weapons are nowhere near capable of producing the same damage potential as capitol beam weapons (unless you ARE building a gunboat type small craft...at about 3x or better the size)
4) something that relies on the others in its squadron to allow it to make its missile/bomb strike on the target.

The rule of cool sells games. *shrug*

But until it's looked at from an engineering/physics possible modeling perspective, you'll always have "balance" issues no matter what rules you play them under.

Adjusting points is like patching a pothole without fixing the underlying problem...which is one of scale.  It's not something unique to S:AE either...and adjusting scale isn't that complicated since S:AE is made for tweakin.

Even then...tactically speaking, you're still going to get a swarm of fighters in the face at some point. It's just that they should only get one "OMFG!" level attack...then be stuck with "watch us plink away with knitting needles" until they return to re-arm. 

Seekers and strykers being one-way affairs simply lack the flexibility of continued combat activity...and of re-arming.

:geek: