Vote?

Never the intention to make fighters more or less powerful, though the PDS is a neat idea I haven't considered.

See even after 5 years of 2-3 Starmada games a month, I find more things I'd like to try and I realise there's not enough time in the day to try them all. 

My position on fighters is this: I saw a campaign game that lasted over a year degenerate into a fight bash. Fighters became, in that game, THE weapon to use in a Starmada game.  You can rest assured that regardless of your defenses, 40 flights of fighters will make a Bad Day(tm) for anyone. 

It wasn't till the end that we found the wondrous Sunbursts and I think we'll probably start building the anime spinal mounts, if I have anything to say about it (which I probably don't).

Frankly, I'm sorry I brought it up. Seems to make people a bit twitchy.

Here's the challenge, then: post your best fighter-killer design in the Bourbaki Basin given the current Starmada: X rulesbook. Put your money where your mouth is.

A couple other random thoughts before bed (finally):

1) Area effect weapons. It's been tossed around before, and I don't have a problem with them in principle. They would need to have a modifier of around 3-4, but they would play havoc with full-strength fighter flights.

2) One thing that has always irked me was seeing 6 or more flights stacked in a target's blind spot. Two possibilities come to mind:

2a) No more than three (two?) friendly flights can be in a single hex;

2b) Require fighters to end their movement immediately upon entering a hex adjacent to their intended target -- i.e., no fair sliding behind a ship.

Neither of these would seriously undermine their effectiveness when used in moderation, but would (in theory) significantly reduce the benefits of a fighter horde.

@cricket: Some players (read: me) don't like fighters period. I, for one, see them as a necessary evil, possibly for atmospheric attacks, screening, and quite possibly attacks on enemy ships, either as expendable manned drones or when the enemy is too weak to withstand them. I don't like the fact that someone can just use fighters to win a battle without even trying.

I think, however, that your last post, with the Area Effect weapon, would be an excellent idea. It would make modelling certain weapons in SF settings (the Narn Energy Mine, that sonic mine from the new Star Wars trilogy etc), and it would mean that you can take on fighters. Fluff could talk about an evolution of the Sunburst technology.

And I re-propose the anti-fighter shields. Something you can use to make fighters lives a hell of a lot harder.

I think we've established that there are many ways to ensure that someone can't just use fighters to win a battle...

As do I.

Like PDS?

You're paying (Combat Rating-wise) the same as you would for shields 3, and getting the same effectiveness against other ships, but denying fighters one of their biggest advantages.

OK, my take on it.

I like fighters, and I used them myself.  However, I have noted that if the opposing fleet is not built around the anti-fighter concepts, then they have issues. We do not use anime spinal mounts in our games... for one thing, they are less than desirable if your opponents get anywhere in the middle of your fleet, or can maneuver so that you risk your own ships, or objectives (defending a space station). Two, we just really did not like them that much.... although we are fans of Starblazers, and even have the entire DVD series.... it's just not something we want on our tables.

Sunbursts are not always helpful... I have had some miss the hex with the fighters, but not miss the ship I was trying to protect....LOL.

One of the issues that we have found is that there is absolutely no incentive to purchase Launch Bays. Since fighters start on the board, Launch Bays are a waste of SU's. I would agree with Googleplex in that fighters have to be launched, same as drones. With maybe, one flight or so available at the start to simulate a standing patrol.

Use the CSP rules that are also available here.... although having to break off and return to a carrier just to attack seems a bit much.... maybe work up a set of rules that simulates them being "released" to attack from their standing guard orders.

The following are ideas:

Maybe find a way to simulate flak guns... maybe allow AFB a roll to see if it can hit any fighters in range (range 1).... example, for every 4 points of hull, or fraction thereof, you get to roll a die... on 6, you destroy one enemy fighter... rather than just waiting for your opponent to roll a 1 and blunder into your fire.

Maybe create a weapon Mod "anti-fighter battery" where the weapon must be a range 3 and you can use it to target fighters, but it has no effect at all on capital ships. It fires during the fighter phase.

And here is the one that my group likes..... Fighters are divided into 2 categories..... interceptors and bombers. Options such as shadow fighters, or fast fighters are in addition, of course.

Interceptors are like Tie Fighters, A-wings, or the Cylon fighters from the original Battlestar Galactica, in that they have armament designed to destroy other fighters, but are not up to blasting their way through capital ship hulls. They can wreak havoc all over a ship by destroying weapons and shield generators as well as damaging engines, destroying hanger doors, ect. However, they cannot really muster enough firepower to destroy the actual hulls of the capital ship (unless there is nothing else to hit, per the standard Starmada ruling that if you get a hit that does not have anything that can be damaged, you get a hull point instead).

Bombers, on the other hand, are based on X-wings, Y-wings, B-wings, ect.  They have weaponry capable of damaging a ships hull, and use it per the current Starmada Rules. When you launch a flight, you designate whether it is an Interceptor wing, or a Bomber wing.... and in our games, bombers cannot intercept drones or marine pods. Also, if an interceptor wing gets into a fight with a bomber wing, the interceptor does not lose a fighter if they roll a 1 on their die, although bombers can shoot down interceptors via their own die rolls, and also lose a bomber if they roll a 1.

Dan: I really like the Valkyrie's that you designed, but you are sort of forced to deploy them in pairs, because a fighter swarm can still rush up on one and destroy it before it is allowed a return shot. I'd like to find a way that a ship could fire on fighters as they approach, without having to use the upper range weapons in the game....

Hopefully, we can find a happy medium here, or at least get the options hammered out so that people can choose what they want.

John

I did not do a good jump spelling this out I guess... but my point was that as the fleet dies to the fighters you must decide "guns to fighters, guns to ships", or run. (In a campaign, running becomes a matter to carefully consider - save the ships and lose the system?) And you must decide.

Extreme example: The swarm sweeps in... a cruiser or two or three go poof. Your escorts haven't fired... but now you don't have anti-ship force. What do you do? Cause your enemy isn't using an unbalanced "all carrier" fleet. He has muscle, too.

Cause I am tired.
I am not articulating well, and I can't share my mileage cause you weren't in the car with me. 

(oh, and yeah, the fighters were all "heavy" which limited a lot of the usual efforts to kill fighters... too many variables I guess... but the basic feeling I am left with is something is off, not a lot but off nonetheless.)

Oh, I agree. I just don't think I can properly convey the situation on the tabletops I have seen (my mileage has varied, as it were.). Dedicated AF escorts, interceptors, sunbursts, high shields.... yet the fleet was devastated by fighters. Again and again. Just too many variables on each side - heavy fighters, campaign forced ship dispositions and objectives, etc. etc.

Maybe it is the players, with a well managed swarm of fighters superior to any effort to contain them that goes after the fighters do.

My experience has been tainted by several recent battles. I am on the other side of the issue now and I am uncomfortable there, but there it is. :?

I will be trying out CPS, though.

House rules are fine and dandy, until you want to talk about your experiences on message forums or go play other people outside your immediate circle, such as cons.  Campaign enforced rules are distinct and remembered as such.

I agree here, those that raised this did so in good will. The fact it has produced passionate responses suggests it si a subject that needs airing.

I also agree with the person whom mentioned previously that house rules are all well and good but not transferable. I suppose what i would like to see is some form of compendium, even if it sits in a sticky where those concepts where the systems and rule models are suitable to become optional rules are collected and 'published'. A repository of global house rules if you like. Hell if MJ12 eventually collated them into a PDF expansion, I would buy it.

As for fighters, there are ways of dealing with them but it does come down to a bit of a shell game, which I find as one of the weaknesses of S:X. We have only just started playing and try and build around sensible fleets, there are all sorts of extreme builds that cause problems. Overuse of expendables, repeaters, fighters, etc. Fighters seem to just be an easy one to overuse.

Oh and Dan, your Valkrye has only AB guns. Isnt that a big weakness for an anti-fighter ship? a single A-F gun or an ACE and BDF setup would seem more sensible.

Indeed, if you were expecting the Vals to operate independently. I'm thinking of formations of 3-4 at a time... they should be able to provide cover for one another; and more importantly, for the bigger ships in the fleet.

Something else to consider....

I am also a member of the ASFOS (A Sky Full of Stars) group... not that I play, but I do keep an ear on the discussions, and they are having a similar issue with missile packs. Originally, they were envisioned as small expendible missiles for very small ships.....
However, a lot of people are making somewhat larger ship, and or really expendible small ships, and loading them to the gills with these little swarmer missiles......

One solution that they came up with, was limiting the number of missiles that can go for one target, on the grounds that after a certain number, they interfere with each other...... and they got this idea from their fighter rules........

In ASFoS, there is a limit of 3 wings of fighters attacking any one ship, on the grounds that fighters don't just fly up in formation, line up in neat little rows, and sit there firing...... it is assumed that they are in motion and strafing the ship, ect. Due to this fluid nature of attack.... only 3 flights can attack any capital ship without having collisions, ect.

Might be an idea worth considering.......

Hundvig,  I am not sure how I feel about the idea of "massed anime spinal mounts" being used against fighters.... I know that the concensis in my group is to disallow anime spinal mounts.... and a lot of groups out there probably don't use them. Then again, to me, a weapon that was originally used in the source material to destroy a continent, then a small sun, and finally, push a planet into vast natural disasters.......being used against fighters......um.....
Wouldn't this be a really serious case of overkill?

The only source of reference for it, that I have seen, has been Starblazers..... and I am having trouble imagining them turning the wave motion gun loose on fighters.... that and the fact that if I knew my opponents had that, I would never let my fighter stray in front of the oponent.

If I was the fighter pilot, and I saw the enemy ship trying to line up with me.... I'd be out of there. in a hearbeat.  Yes, the airwaves would be cluttered with my pilots screaming for their mommies as they scattered to get away... but that's just me.

John

Anime Spinal Mounts are only "wave motion guns" if you choose to call them that, and even then they're a poor imitation at best.  As you said, WMG are planet wreckers and fleet killers, and the ASM sure isn't either of those, no matter how big a hull you put it on.  Even the Starblazers minis game had to tone down the WMGs from a "realistic" performance level to make the game playable.  The "real" WMG is an unplayable super-weapon.

There are other anime "big area effect beam cannons" that work more like Starmada ASMs, but aren't capable of cracking a planet's crust or annihilating enemy capital ships, although they're hell on wheels against small targets...see Legend of the Galactic Heros, for ex.  Many of them aren't even spinal mounts, just big primary turret guns that roast any fighter unlucky enough to have the bolt past near them.  Frankly, I find the idea of using a relatively unfocused "beam shotgun" to sweep fighters perfectly reasonable, and given the lack of "standard" area effect weapons, downright vital.  If/when Dan settles on a cost for AoE and/or anti-fighter-only guns, I'll use them instead of (or more likely, as well as) ASMs, but that's not an option yet.

Refusing to use ASMs when you're having fighter problems is not only a mistake, it's almost certainly the reason you're having fighter problems in the first place.  You can cripple a fighter rush with other tricks (mines, shockwaves, sunbursts) but none of them are as easy to use or as versatile against non-fighter targets as ASMs.  I agree that it's irritating that you have to use a few "oddball" systems to counter fighters rather than just relying on standard gunnery, but until we get AoE/AF guns, that's the way it is.

Rich