It seems ok, especially as it doesn't appear to be used because of a lack efficiency. I'd like to add 'AFB may fire just before fighters are firing', i.e. we suppose some fighters could already be in position to fire without moving during that turn.
Also, I would like to point out that the anti-fighter trait could be modified.
Currently, it just removes the fighter malus when firing at them. Why don't we allow weapons with anti-fighter trait to fire as above, before fighters are attacking? To compensate that, the anti-fighter trait works only this way. You can't benefit if firing at long range at fighters during the regular fire phase.

Otherwise, I'm still convinced something should be done to reduce the power of fighters, especially in order to reduc e their price and make them more easily available. But that's another story.

Marc

I really hope this gets some attention in the new version of Starmada!  Ships should have some sort of anti-fighter defense that goes off immediately before the fighter gets to attack - especially considering how strikers and seekers work.  I'd be fine and dandy if you couldn't get other types of direct fire weapons that were "anti-fighter" - I think they take away work from interceptors anyways!

IMHO, the ability to fire at incoming fighters/strikers/seekers, etc., not only muddles the normal phasing of events, it also creates problems of tracking which weapons have already fired in the current Fighter Phase.

OTOH, the new edition might just address some of these concerns...

Can't wait to see what you've done!

Hmmm, I asked but they didn't have much to say about it
[attachment=0]New Ed.png[/attachment]
But they did sound surprisingly good!

I am curious, how would lettting antifighter batteries fire before fighters/strikers/ or seakers attack cause significant problems?  As they work now, firing after these units attack AFBs are simply not worth their cost IMHO.

We have house-ruled letting AFBs fire before fighters/strikers/seekers attack, but after each squadron has moved.  If a any fire, a dot is made on the ship's SSD.  It has Not proved difficult to keep trick of how many AFBs have fired.  8-) 
None of the people I game with have the Weapon Trait "Anti-Fighter" on any of their weapons because we don't think it is worth the cost.  Fire control is better and more useful overall.  All my ships, even the small PFs, have Fire Control.

Officially, you should say 'should fire prior' instead of 'may fire prior'. But I agree with you, AFB should be useful before the fighters are able to shoot down ships.

There is a simple solution. Disallow AFB to fire at ships. You should remember easily if those AFB have fired on fighters or not during the fighter phase. After that, you just have to forget them.

Marc

Actually, I was thinking of the AF trait when I said that, not AFB's. Oops. But I agree, don't allow AFB's to fire at ships.

Perhaps the solution is to give weapons with the AF trait the OPTION to fire after fighters/strikers/seekers have moved, but before the flight attacks.  If their are are no fighters or if the weapons with AF don't fire in the fighter phase, they can fire in the regular starship combat phase. 
This would make weapons with AF more similiar to WW2 dual-purpose weapons such as the USA's 5"/38 guns.  These guns could fire in AA mode at aircraft or at ships.

I thought about it but Daniel said that you have to remember which AF weapons has or hasn't fired. Of course, usually, it's easy to say (do they have adjacent fighters or no)?

Marc

Yeah.  I get the feeling that since this is one of the longest-standing / most discussed complaints with AE, it may be a priority fix.  I have a suspicion that they'll do it by rolling fighter firing into standard firing (ie, move ships, move fighters, then alternate activating a unit, firing all its stuff, and applying damage immediately), but no real evidence.