• Registered: 2009-08-03
  • Posts: 245

Topic: AFBs in the Fighter Phase: Redux

So, while re-reading the old house-rules thread, a possible solution to the "AFBs suck because they can't shoot during the fighter phase" hit me.

Short version: Let ships with AFBs have an 'AFB Combat Air Patrol' mode that costs fighter flight activations to use.

Detailed version:

1) Count ships with AFBs as part of the total number of fighters when determining the number of fighter flights each player gets to activate per cycle during the fighter phase.

2) When you get a chance to activate a flight, you may instead activate an AFB-armed ship.  During this activation, you may put any number of the ship's AFBs on 'alert' (AFB Combat Air Patrol mode).

3) When a fighter flight enters a hex adjacent to a ship whose AFBs are on alert, the AFBs may fire on the flight (to a maximum of one shot per AFB per fighter phase).  You may choose not to fire all of the AFBs on alert at a given flight entering an adjacent hex (for example, if you have 4 AFBs on alert, you could fire 2 and save 2 for another fighter flight that you expect to engage you during the next activation cycle).  However, AFBs put on alert during the fighter phase may not be fired during the shooting phase. 

Thoughts?  It'd also be neat if there were a weapon trait to do something along these lines (for longer-range AFB interceptions), but hard to price.  One interesting effect this creates is that if you have fighters already at attack range with your ship, alert mode is no use because it only triggers on fighter movement (unless they're circling to hit a weak screen or facet).  Not sure if that's exactly what we're going for, but it's an interesting side effect.

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: AFBs in the Fighter Phase: Redux

Even if we suppose that AFB should fire before fighters, or just after one flight attacked, I feel that fighters should be left as they are just for one reason: They are very expensive (IMHO). Take two same-hull ships. One will be full of weapons, the other will be full of fighters. The price of the former would be very low compared of that of the latter. Twice to thrice the cost.
And when the fighters are gone, the CV will have no use at all.

Marc

  • Registered: 2006-07-24
  • Posts: 158

Re: AFBs in the Fighter Phase: Redux

True, but take a ship with few weapons and defenses, and then put fighters on it.
Make the cost, say, 200 or so.
The cost of that ship will be quite low compared to the power fighters give it.

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: AFBs in the Fighter Phase: Redux

Yes, I noted that a true carrier is horrendeously expensive, compared to a mixed 'regular/carrier' ship, especially as that ship can fight with its fighters instead of trying to avoid the firefight.

Marc

  • Registered: 2009-08-03
  • Posts: 245

Re: AFBs in the Fighter Phase: Redux

Mainly I was throwing this out there for those who advocate using pre-emptive AFBs as a kind of compromise position between "AFBs are awesome and always get the first strike" and "AFBs are useless because they never get the first strike."  Not so much to start a debate over whether fighters are overpowered or not.

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: AFBs in the Fighter Phase: Redux

Not so much to start a debate over whether fighters are overpowered or not.

I know, but I feel  that both things are related. But I could be wrong.

Marc

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: AFBs in the Fighter Phase: Redux

I never put AFBs on any of my ships because of their inability to fire at fighters first.  Even if they could, they have range one and only hit on a 5 or 6; not very useful. 
Instead all of my ships have "AA Guns"  They fire to range 18, hit on 3+ and have no range modifiers.  They are 1/1/1.  These can fire at fighters at range, and if their are no fighters, they can fire at ships.  They are very similiar to the US Navy's 5"/38 DP guns in WW2.  Points spent on these are much better spent than points wasted on AFBs. 8-)
IMHO