Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: barras1511 on January 02, 2011, 02:32:40 AM
-
Turrets. Their role in BFG is what I would confused. The rules are quite clear and consise as to what they do but I have some differing thoughts on their use in BFG.
Battle ships.
At the moment an Emperor class battleship is almost immune to bombers. Bombers should be the thing that the battle ship is most scared of. The current suppression rules are overpowered versus bombers.
The role of escorts.
These vessels were created for three main purposes. They are cheap to produce in comparison to a battleship which is represented in the game. They become a viable target for enemy vessels and bombers to engage in large numbers which they also do. Finally to support the main line with turret supression fire and direct fire to make a capital ship look less presentable to enemy bombers. They do not do this at all in game terms.
Cruisers and battleships need escort cover to put enough turret fire up into the air to gain this supression.
I prepose the following optional advaced rules.
-All ships that have at least one turret gets +1 turret to its profile.
-Turrets may fire at what ever comes at the ship. (lessens torpedos over all)
-Bomber suppression is only caused by killing AC.
-Supporting turret fire from ships can cause suppression.
-Each fighter on cap acts as a turret for the ship it is placed in base with and are not removed. (they are not burning fuel darting away on after burners but they do not have time to blow everything away as they are on the last line of defense.)
-Bombers with fighter escort do not get any bonuses apart from clearing the cap and offering an extra hit to the wave. These still cause suppression.
So an Emperor on its own under these rules would only have an average of 3 (6 possible) suppression. If supported with 3 escorts and 3 fighters on cap it would average 6 suppresion and 6 bombers shot down.
An enemy wave of 5 bombers and 3 fighters comes at the above Emperor in the ordinance phase. The 3 fighters seperate to take out the cap. The remaining bombers make their runs. The defender rolls 9 turret dice (3 from escorts and 6 from the Emperor) and rolls average getting 5. This would give it the same invulnerablity it currently has. A poor roll of 3 hits could see her in a lot of trouble and a disasterous roll of no hits would have her renamed the Bismark.
A unit of 8 bombers attacks the Emperor she would average her six dice hits due to the cap.
If she was attacked by 8 bombers on her own. She should shoot down three (slightly lucky) and have 5 attack runs against her at D6-3. 2 at 0 runs (1,2or 3) and total of 4 runs make it to armour rolls (one 4,5, and a 6).
This is much better than the current 8 bombers *yawn* that we have at the moment.
-
I can see where you are coming from with this idea, but I personally feel that the system as it is is ok. It should be really difficult to get through to bomb such a heavily dfended carrier as an Emperor. So just because 8 squadrons has difficulty, it doesn't mean the system is broken, merely that you need to chuck more wings of bombers at the ship. Plus, if we do what you say, much weaker ships with only 1-3 turrets will be almost helpless against bombers.
The game is not meant to be all about ordanance, so we shouldn't make it more effective.
-
But you are right as to how escorts are used now in real life to provide anti ordnance screen for the flotilla
-
Which is why we should make the Firedagger rules from BoN official, then we'd have a dedicated flak escort, which seems more in tune with fluff than having an escort that can be a gunship, and a flak ship.
-
Which is why we should make the Firedagger rules from BoN official, then we'd have a dedicated flak escort, which seems more in tune with fluff than having an escort that can be a gunship, and a flak ship.
It's one of those ships I'm very happy with. In my gaming group it's widely accepted.
-
I use it myself. But 'technically' its not official, so i'd like to get it added to the official fleet list.
-
Which is why we should make the Firedagger rules from BoN official, then we'd have a dedicated flak escort, which seems more in tune with fluff than having an escort that can be a gunship, and a flak ship.
Not familiar with firedagger rule or BoN
-
www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/
The link above will take you to the site where you can find a link for the Book of Nemesis (BoN), where the firedagger rules are located. Issue 96. Enjoy.
-
Another possible turret suppression rule:
Turrets shoot down incoming Ordnance normally.
Then roll a D6 for every turret and pick the highest.
Roll a D6 for every surviving fighter in the wave and pick the highest.
If the turrets win, that's the amount the bombers are suppressed by.
-
That sounds a bit odd to me. Surely that means an escort with one turret can roll a 6, and an Battleship can roll a 1 on 4 turrets. Just seems to be a tad random.
-
Doesn't the firedagger use the old fleet defense turret?
-
I think there was a fan made stat on the Port Maw site that was similiar to the firedagger, but it been a few years since I looked. I'd check now if I could, but its still broke.
-
I can see where you are coming from with this idea, but I personally feel that the system as it is is ok. It should be really difficult to get through to bomb such a heavily dfended carrier as an Emperor. So just because 8 squadrons has difficulty, it doesn't mean the system is broken, merely that you need to chuck more wings of bombers at the ship. Plus, if we do what you say, much weaker ships with only 1-3 turrets will be almost helpless against bombers.
The game is not meant to be all about ordanance, so we shouldn't make it more effective.
The problem with the current system is that bombers should be the bane of unsupported ships especially cruisers and battle ships. Ships that have support should be almost immune from bombers. Escorts from a Chaos point of view are currently a complete waste of points and are only really seen as gun ships in the rest of the fleets. Cruisers would be at 3 or 4 turrets depending on the ship, with escorts other cap ships and the cap you could get them higher than the current 2-3 suppression you see at the moment versus bomber heavy fleets.
Also note there would not be any ships with 1 turret.
2 (1 in old) turrets on average would be equal to their current mark
3 (2 in old) and higher would be weaker.
to make up for individual weakness against bombers all ships have slightly higher survivability against torpedoes.
However supported cruisers have advantages. Cruiser with one ship in base contact would get suppression equal to the current system on average. Any more ships in contact would be at a higher average than the current system.
This is not about making ordinance stronger. It is actually making it weaker over the whole whilst allowing players to maximize there fleet against it.
The only issue I have is Eldar ordinance. How do we fix them?
-
I can see where you are coming from with this idea, but I personally feel that the system as it is is ok. It should be really difficult to get through to bomb such a heavily dfended carrier as an Emperor. So just because 8 squadrons has difficulty, it doesn't mean the system is broken, merely that you need to chuck more wings of bombers at the ship. Plus, if we do what you say, much weaker ships with only 1-3 turrets will be almost helpless against bombers.
The game is not meant to be all about ordanance, so we shouldn't make it more effective.
The problem with the current system is that bombers should be the bane of unsupported ships especially cruisers and battle ships. Ships that have support should be almost immune from bombers. Escorts from a Chaos point of view are currently a complete waste of points and are only really seen as gun ships in the rest of the fleets. Cruisers would be at 3 or 4 turrets depending on the ship, with escorts other cap ships and the cap you could get them higher than the current 2-3 suppression you see at the moment versus bomber heavy fleets.
Also note there would not be any ships with 1 turret.
2 (1 in old) turrets on average would be equal to their current mark
3 (2 in old) and higher would be weaker.
to make up for individual weakness against bombers all ships have slightly higher survivability against torpedoes.
However supported cruisers have advantages. Cruiser with one ship in base contact would get suppression equal to the current system on average. Any more ships in contact would be at a higher average than the current system.
This is not about making ordinance stronger. It is actually making it weaker over the whole whilst allowing players to maximize there fleet against it.
The only issue I have is Eldar ordinance. How do we fix them?
I strenuously object to th idea that my beloved iconoclasts are a waste of points. They are quite useful at intercepting ord and running down other escorts.
-
I think there was a fan made stat on the Port Maw site that was similiar to the firedagger, but it been a few years since I looked. I'd check now if I could, but its still broke.
I know that there was a modified escort (Sword): permanently half range on the weapon batteries and capable of firing on ordnance like turrets do.
EDIT: that was before masses turrets and it allowed the supporting escorts of a cap ship to actively seek out ordnance. Two of them could effectively block a sizable amount of ordnance.
-
Thanks commander.
As for the turret issue. I don't see the current rules as a problem. They are simple, and they don't produce weird results most of the time. And it works against all the different races types of ordnance. It just sounds like you are making a simple thing more complicated just for a debatable amount of change. One of the principal rules of writing a wargame: keep it simple if it can be. Unneccersary complication slows the game down and makes it less enjoyable.
-
I strenuously object to the idea that my beloved iconoclasts are a waste of points. They are quite useful at intercepting ord and running down other escorts.
For the price you pay for them they are a waste of points. I would take any of the capital ships of chaos over our escorts and only fill out on escorts once I can no longer afford cap ships.
Which would you take a carnage or 6 iconoclast escorts? Escorts in their current role are a suicide squad or fill! They are cheap easy victory points for your opponent. That being said they can be useful for the reasons you have given. I wish to make them have a more stand out role so they need to be taken for fleet purposes.
-
Really? Escorts are just 'fill'? Are you sure you are using them correctly? I always take escorts, not loads mind, but for 1500 pts, usually 4, Swords mostly, for my IN. Don't expect them to take on cruisers, thats not the point of them. In fleet battles I use them to finish off crippled ships, anti-escort duties, and making flank attacks to support the main cruiser advance. Of course the equivalent in points in escorts can't take on a cruiser of the same points value, but as I said, thats not the point of escorts. As for being easy VP's, only if you let them be shot up. If you keep them safe until they can fulfil their purpose, this won't happen.
-
please note that was specifically for chaos
-
Still don't agree with you i'm afraid. Their extra manouverability is very handy, in the Chaos fleet as well. Yes, a Carnage class is more effective in a straight fight. But 6 iconoclast escorts (18fp WB) firing at the rear of a cruiser is also pretty darn good. Their threat can distract an enemy, or if he ignores them, they have the potential to do some hefty damage, if you keep them safe, and don't expose them to fire. Escots can usually turn to get the best firing angle possible too, making their firepower even more useful.
If your opponent has lots of escorts, or light cruisers, then the best defence against them are escorts of your own. Yes, I know you can use ABs or bombers, but you'll probably need these to combat the enemy's cruisers; you probably won't have enough ordanance to do everything.
So escorts do have a useful role to fill in fleet actions. As for low point scenarios (convoy for example), having a squadron of escorts is really important as they can quickly move to where they are needed most, which a standard cruiser cannot as it cannot turn quickly enough.
-
Really? Escorts are just 'fill'? Are you sure you are using them correctly? I always take escorts, not loads mind, but for 1500 pts, usually 4, Swords mostly, for my IN. Don't expect them to take on cruisers, thats not the point of them. In fleet battles I use them to finish off crippled ships, anti-escort duties, and making flank attacks to support the main cruiser advance. Of course the equivalent in points in escorts can't take on a cruiser of the same points value, but as I said, thats not the point of escorts. As for being easy VP's, only if you let them be shot up. If you keep them safe until they can fulfil their purpose, this won't happen.
What cruiser (not light cruiser) could you buy for those points (140) in IN? I guess that they must be fill in your fleet also. You use them as gun boats. I previously stated people use them for this. You hold them back from the enemy? Why? To deny easy VPs!
Thank you for proving my point.
Escorts in war are meant to be a target (shield) for the enemy to shoot at rather than your larger capital ships. Does this fit with the current game? Escorts should outnumber cruisers and battle ships within a combined fleet. At the moment there is no way you would do so unless playing 1k or less and only then because you don't have a choice. It would be incidental rather than deliberate. That being the case, they can not be fore filling their proper role within fleets encompassed in the current rules. Therefore this optional advanced rule would offer a reason to include more.
-
Why not light cruiser? That seems arbitary.
As for filling, again, no. When my swords, or in my chaos fleet, Iconoclasts Idolators, aren't protecting my batleship's rear, they are held back to finish off crippled enemy ships, to alow my dedicated gunship cruisers to get on with crippling more cruisers. You don't need a fully fledged cruiser to kill a crippled cruiser, its overkill. So escorts are perfect for this. But until they are needed, why expose them to fire they are not designed to face?
As for being shields, it depends on what era of history you are referring too. Anything up to WWII then you are incorrect. In WWII we start to see escorts used to defend capital ships against aircraft and submarines, a game mechanic that we can see in BFG. They were never designed to be amazing against hordes of aircraft, as there's only so much firepower you can put on an escort's hull.
But against incoming fire from other capital ships then again, no. Lets take the Bismark. The destroyers were never used to shield the RN cruisers from fire, they were used to fire torpedo salvos, before retreating to a safe distance. Who in their right mind uses escorts as a shield against capital ship fire?
Post WWII destroyers are used to be the main fleet aircraft defence. But BFG is not based on post WWII fleets but on wooden sailing ships, WWI and a little bit on WWII. Asking for escorts that are great at Aircraft defence will not fit the fundamental game mechanics.
Giving escorts greater power in any field will make them unbalanced. They are ok at what they do, be it torpedo runs for cobras, or gunship duty for swords. We have the firedagger for flak cover, and i'm sure if someone wanted to do it, an equivalent could be made for Chaos. They are relatively hard to shoot at the WB table. Other than that, I don't see the overwhelming need to make escorts any better.
As for escorts not being present in BFG fleets in the numbers they are in historical fleets, well, if you actually look at where the destroyers are in historical fleets I assure you they are not in the battle line being shot at! Lets take two well known examples:
Trafalgar- Frigates held back on both sides for scouting duties.
Jutland- Frigates held back to occasionally nip out and fire torpedoes and attack the opponent's escorts, and cover the flanks of the fleets against surprise attacks; leaving the capital ships to slug it out between themselves. E.G., Scheer's use of them to cover his retreat with torps. Which is perfectly feasible with 4 infidels in BFG.
So actually, historical fleets did use many frigates, but they were not seen in the main battle lines anywhere near as much as you imply. Therefore, few of them should be present actually on the table top in BFG, they have different roles.
So, I before trying to be an smart arse, don't say "thank you for proving my point", until I actually have.
-
Escorts are underrated by many.
Escorts are good and cool.
Somewhat more nifty to use but a valuable asset to my fleets.
Here is what I run:
Chaos/Renegade : 9 escorts
AdMech: 6 escorts
Tau CPF: 9 escorts
Craftworld Eldar: max 4 (fluff would be 0 in most cases...)
Imperial Navy: 9 escorts
Corsair Eldar, ehm 2 capital ships.
-
In a 2000pts IN fleet usually have 3 swords, and 3 firestorms. Sometimes I swap out the firestorms and go for 4 cobras instead. Or if i'm up against Eldar I go for 6 swords.
-
Ugh, I hate tailoring (taking specific ships (Swords) for a specific opponent).
I always make 1500pts fleet no matter what. Coolest is if I don't know what fleet my opponent will take.
-
If it was a stand-alone game i'd agree with you, I hate tailoring. Which is why my regular 2k fleet list has 3 swords in as standard, sometimes 6 if I don't fancy using my Dauntless.
However, most of my games are related to an ongoing campaign, so I know i'm facing Eldar, therefore I bring out more frigates! Which is exactly what Admirals would do in the fictional 40k world if they know they're facing nasty Eldar.
-
Ugh, I hate tailoring (taking specific ships (Swords) for a specific opponent).
I always make 1500pts fleet no matter what. Coolest is if I don't know what fleet my opponent will take.
I hate tailoring too. Then again most fleets I play can't really tailor (Orks, Demiurg, occasionally tau).
That's why I like the campaign system.
-
Ah well, never played a campaign. :)
-
Thats one of the great things about a campaign. If you have the ship (s) in your fleet, you can pick and choose the fleet you want to use. Which I think is perfectly ok fluff-wise. You wouldn't go hunting a rogue Battleship with a few light cruisers now would you? ;) But at the same time, you are limited by whats on your fleet list.
Have you really never played a campaign? I've rarely played a non-campaign game, because the BFG campaign rules are excellent. The current campaign is one of a series played in the same sector for the past five years (although of the original group, i'm the last one left), and we've (most me, nobody else was that bothered) created an in depth back story for most of the sector now. Its very fulfilling.
-
The designers of this game wanted a Jutland feel over a Midway feel. Not the exclusion of Midway or else there would be no AC. Manowar was a Trafalgar feel. I am not against escorts. I feel they are over costed for what you get in this game. I would take a ship of the line of escorts because of this. I am a primary SM and Chaos player. Both of these races have escorts that are over costed. If Chaos had swords at 35 I would take them over Iconoclasts and Iconoclasts are about the only viable escort in chaos list for the points paid and then they have the flaws I have mentioned. Our torp boats are so espensive they are only usable against torp heavy fleets like IN and that would be in a stand alone game. IN needs its escorts due to speed and line factors of it cap ships. I do not deny that the IN is better for having escorts. Chaos and SM do not need them and they only become useful. I have a very low opion of escorts in Chaos and SM.
This is not an agruement about the costs or abilities of escorts but the ability for an unsupported battleship to be almost immune to bombers and game rules that currently cause fighters to cause more damage against battleships than bombers. Fluff this out any which way you want it still amounts to this. This is flawed logic.
These rules would give you another reason to need more escorts and fix this anomaly.
-
In the ideal system, Battleships would be only slightly better defended against AC than Cruisers, if that, and bombers, particularly in large waves with fighter support against unsupported ships, would be overwhelming.
Substantially supported capital ships (eg 2-3 capital ships in BtB, or more escorts)) should be effectively immune to bombers (but not ABs or Torps, which don't have to line up careful attack runs, but go straight in like an arrow).
Try this system:
- Ships keep their turret value, but this is only used for the removal of incoming Ordnance on a 4+. Turrets may fire at every incoming threat, including torps/torpedoes at once.
- Bomber, AB or Torpedo waves are removed in their entirity if they encounter a fighter marker. If Fighters are included in a wave that contacts a fighter marker, these Fighters are still removed first on a 1-1 basis.
- These nerfs to Ordnance are a balance to the nett buff they receive in the folloing point, and incentivises fighter escorts.
- Bombers roll D6-2 attacks each, with the following modifiers: -2 for each Captial ship in BtB, -1 for each escort in BtB, and +1 for each surviving fighter in the wave.
- This makes BBs only more effective at killing the AC, not at defending their attack runs - all capital ships will now need support, and even BBs will be rapidly overun if they are caught unsupported by bomber waves.
For example: A Retribution class Battleship is caught unsupported by a wave of 4 Bombers and 4 Fighters.
Under the current system, 2 Fighters get shot down. The bombers make an average 0.5 attacks each, plus two supporting attacks from fighters. Total 4 Attacks.
Under the new system, 2 Fighters get shot down, the bombers roll D6-2+2 for an average 3.5 attacks each, and a total of 14, three times stronger.
This time, give the same BB a pair of cruisers in BtB, and 3 fighters get shot down (6 turrets thanks to turret massing), and the bombers roll D6-2-(2x2)+1, or D6-5, for an average of 0.167 attacks each and 0.67 attacks total; The group of ships is effectively invulnerable to bombers.
The drawback is of course that ships in base contact share shields and are far more vulnerable to direct fire weaponry as a result.
-
Well, to keep it KISS, I would throw out massed turrets and introduce flak-ships (escorts), such as firedagger or modified escorts (half range (R15 cm) WB's, can shoot at AC as turrets do or be used as R15 WB), OR introduce fleet turrets into IN.
-
Hmm, the problem with RCGs system is that fighters should not be able to destroy a wave of any size bombers. At most 2 per 1. And this is pushing it.
On thinking about it I would also limit massing turrets to escorts only. So escort + escort would share, escort + cap ship would share, cap + cap would not. This is for a few reasons. In reality escorts are used for anti-air defence of larger ships. Also the shared shields downfall really isn't much of a downfall on capital ships. I figure that only escorts would be manoeuvrable enough to get close enough to provide such support.
I also like Barras' idea of the fighters on CAP counting as an extra turret and shooting against all incoming attacks. Being the last line of defence and not having adequate time to properly engage the incoming bombers or torps seems right to me.
However, I like RCGs way of resolving the number of bomber attacks, independently of the number of turrets on the target. I would combine Barras CAP idea with a modified version of RCGs bomber attack run idea.
- Ships keep their turret value (maybe drop BB turrets), but this is only used for the removal of incoming Ordnance on a 4+. Turrets may fire at every incoming threat, including torps/torpedoes at once.
- Fighters on CAP act as a turret against incoming ordnance attacks unless intercepted and removed by other fighters (removed as normal).
- Bombers roll D6-2 attacks each, with the following modifiers: -1 for each fighter on CAP, -1 for each escort in BtB, and +1 for each surviving fighter in the wave (to a maximum of D6-1 per bomber).
-
Hmm, the problem with RCGs system is that fighters should not be able to destroy a wave of any size bombers. At most 2 per 1. And this is pushing it.
This idea really is incidental, and not a key point of the suggested system. 2-1 would certainly be enough to provide icnentive to support Assault Boat waves.
I am glad you like the key concept of the suggestion, that bomber attacks is not directly affected by the turrets.
On thinking about it I would also limit massing turrets to escorts only. So escort + escort would share, escort + cap ship would share, cap + cap would not. This is for a few reasons. In reality escorts are used for anti-air defence of larger ships. Also the shared shields downfall really isn't much of a downfall on capital ships. I figure that only escorts would be manoeuvrable enough to get close enough to provide such support.
Here I have to disagree with you, for two reasons:
Firstly, current lists don't include many escorts - Zelnik's 4820pt list has none! My standard 1500pt list includes just 6. Considering bombers are usually manouevrable enough to attack the least defended target, ordnance gets a boost under this idea thanks to fighter suppression and the reduction in a battleship's defences, the defending ships need a good supply of modifiers. Allowing Capital ships the -2 modifier doesn't FORCE anyone to change their lists.
Secondly, I think you're plain wrong about how effectively Capital ships support each other. At the battle of the Philippine sea, the Japanese waves that broke through the picket fighters was thwarted by a screening line of battleships and cruisers and caused next to no damage. At the battle of Leyte Gulf, an air attack on two Obsolete Fuso class Battleships was thwarted by good coordination, and analysts suggest the Prince of Wales and Repulse would have easily survived their fatal encounter had Prince of Wales had its early-warning radar operational and it hadn't been crippled by a freak critical hit in the first strike that caused flooding of the engine room, a loss of power, and the disabling of her AA guns.
So I think it needs the -2 modifier for Capital ships back. I also don't agree that it should be to a maximum of D6-1. If a ship is caught undefended, it's caught undefended. I do agree that it should be noted the limits are 0 and 6! Consideration of ships with 0 turrets should be added.
Also, just to clarify what you mean by fighters on CAP: They count as +1 turret, and roll 4+ to hit against every incoming Ordnance Wave AND they give a -1 modifier to the bombers attack roll?
So:
- Ships keep their turret value, but this is only used for the removal of incoming Ordnance on a 4+. Turrets may fire at every incoming threat, including torps/torpedoes at once.
- Surviving fighters on CAP, if not removed by enemy fighters, do not remove additional Bomber, Assault boat or Torpedo markers, but count as an additional turret, rolling a 4+ to hit against each incoming wave of Ordnance.
- Bombers roll D6-2 attacks each, with the following modifiers:
- -1 for each surviving fighter on CAP
- -1 for each escort in BtB
- -2 for each capital ship in BtB
- +1 for each surviving escort fighter in the wave
- +1 if the ship is crippled
- +2 if the ship has no turrets.
- The maximum attack roll per bomber is 6. The minimum is 0. Rolls may not be modified to exceed these values.
- Modifiers are not gained from ships or stations in base contact that have 0 turrets.
-
Forcing more escorts into lists, aka making escorts more worthwhile = good.
-
This change would still make escorts more worthwhile, but it wouldn't penalise lists as they currently stand. Perhaps -1 for all ships in btb if people feel strongly about it.
A central battleship could still be made effectively invulnerable to a combined wave from 2 Emperors without overlapping the bases if capital ships only gave -1. (8 fighters on CAP with 7 ships in contact)
-
Firstly, current lists don't include many escorts
This is more people choosing cruisers over escorts. What to do to make people bring escorts is another issue. Perhaps by making them better vs ordnance we can see an increase in their usage.
Secondly, I think you're plain wrong about how effectively Capital ships support each other. At the battle of the Philippine sea, the Japanese waves that broke through the picket fighters was thwarted by a screening line of battleships and cruisers and caused next to no damage.
Japanese pilots during this time were very green already, with the vets gone. Not surprising they were turned back. And note that the battleships and cruisers at that time frame were using their secondary weapons as AA weapons as well. Nothing equivalent exists in BFG officially except for the CWE Shadowhunters.
At the battle of Leyte Gulf, an air attack on two Obsolete Fuso class Battleships was thwarted by good coordination,
Not the cream of the American pilots. 3rd Fleet was off attacking Kurita and Ozawa. Nishimura was just facing the pilots of 7th Fleet who mainly had GP bombs. They didn't have much torps since their role was to support the landings and subhunting.
and analysts suggest the Prince of Wales and Repulse would have easily survived their fatal encounter had Prince of Wales had its early-warning radar operational and it hadn't been crippled by a freak critical hit in the first strike that caused flooding of the engine room, a loss of power, and the disabling of her AA guns.
No because Japanese pilots during this time were the seasoned vets bombing with high accuracy. British ships didn't have the anti-air defenses to tackle the shift in power from battleships to air power at that point in time. People were even underestimating Japanese pilots, planes, bombs and torps during this time. PoW and Repulse would still be sunk. Maybe a bit longer without the freak hits. Radar would not have helped.
-
the reason we currently have the turret suppression rule is to simulate bomber waves being improved by having a fighter escort. against turrets, this doesnt seem to make much sense unless theyre throwing themselves in the line of fire. why is it this way? because in terms of AC currency, 1 bomber = 1 fighter. they both take up exactly the same amount of resources, and are removed in exactly the same ratios. this is why a mixed fighter/bomber wave is no better than a full bomber wave when being intercepted by other fighters. if a wave of 8 AC hit 4 fighters, whether those 4 AC lost are bombers or fighters doesnt matter, they may as well be assault boats. hence, no incentive to take fighters.
with this line of thinking, i really like the 1:2 ratio for fighter vs bomber, as it really does give a real incentive to bring fighter support, for the right reasons - to hold off enemy fighters. the issue now is that defending becomes much easier than attacking, because if you and your opponent both have the same launch capacity, you can stick with fighters and not have to worry about bombers.
this would be difficult to balance i think. the only thing that comes to mind is to have bombers make a flat d6 attacks regardless of turrets - making them difficult to get to the enemy in numbers if they have lots of ordnance, but devastating if they do. this could also encourage more CAP, to protect against short range pure-bomber waves.
my last idea to encourage escorts is to have escorts contribute their whole turret value instead of just a +1, making high turret escorts very handy in groups of 3, surrounding a capital ship. another option would be to lift the cap on massing turrets for escorts, so you could gain a max of +3 from capital ships, or a +6 from escorts if you surround yourself. +8 for big bases.
(i know ive repeated a lot of ideas here, but i think these KISS. thoughts for the thought god, ideas for the idea throne.)
-
The drawback is of course that ships in base contact share shields and are far more vulnerable to direct fire weaponry as a result.[/list]
I'm not sure the rules say they share shields if BM's are only in contact with one of the ships. See page 4+10 of the F&Q2010.
All this discussion over whether people take enough escorts seems a little pointless. People do take escorts, when they need too. So changing the relatively good ordnance rules just to make escorts slightly more atractive does seem a little over the top. But that's just my opinion! (Sorry)
Also, that Zelnik's 4820pts fleet that was mentioned does have falchions in it, as he states later in his posts.
-
the reason we currently have the turret suppression rule is to simulate bomber waves being improved by having a fighter escort. against turrets, this doesnt seem to make much sense unless theyre throwing themselves in the line of fire. why is it this way? because in terms of AC currency, 1 bomber = 1 fighter. they both take up exactly the same amount of resources, and are removed in exactly the same ratios. this is why a mixed fighter/bomber wave is no better than a full bomber wave when being intercepted by other fighters. if a wave of 8 AC hit 4 fighters, whether those 4 AC lost are bombers or fighters doesnt matter, they may as well be assault boats. hence, no incentive to take fighters.
This is a problem with the AC rules not representing attrition. Basically each fleet has unlimited amounts of squadrons. If a good attrition rule can be put in place then this problem can be fixed.
with this line of thinking, i really like the 1:2 ratio for fighter vs bomber, as it really does give a real incentive to bring fighter support, for the right reasons - to hold off enemy fighters. the issue now is that defending becomes much easier than attacking, because if you and your opponent both have the same launch capacity, you can stick with fighters and not have to worry about bombers.
this would be difficult to balance i think. the only thing that comes to mind is to have bombers make a flat d6 attacks regardless of turrets - making them difficult to get to the enemy in numbers if they have lots of ordnance, but devastating if they do. this could also encourage more CAP, to protect against short range pure-bomber waves.
I don't agree with the 1:2 ratio. If we follow real life, a squadron of fighters attacking multiple bomber squadrons without escorts would result in almost, almost destroying one squadron of bombers. When the fighter protection came in, bomber losses went down to minimum numbers.
Chubbybob, an old BFG vet tried integrating attrition rules in place by using only limited number of AC squadrons per ship. I just don't remember if he used 2x or 3x the AC strength per ship. Once you include attrition rules, you will then see fighters escorting bombers on the table.
-
I don't agree with the 1:2 ratio. If we follow real life, a squadron of fighters attacking multiple bomber squadrons without escorts would result in almost, almost destroying one squadron of bombers. When the fighter protection came in, bomber losses went down to minimum numbers.
Chubbybob, an old BFG vet tried integrating attrition rules in place by using only limited number of AC squadrons per ship. I just don't remember if he used 2x or 3x the AC strength per ship. Once you include attrition rules, you will then see fighters escorting bombers on the table.
There's no reason for our future-tech sci-fi fighters to follow what was true in WW2 if it suits game balance to do otherwise. Watch a group of F22s get in amongst an undefended squadron of strategic bombers and it wouldn't be implausible for the F22s to take out 8 Bombers EACH, which could be a 10-1 Squadron ratio given the fighter squadron's additional numbers. It's not implausible to suggest a 2:1 ratio.
The attritional method in addition to offering incentives to escort, nerfs Ordnance overall (as it runs out), slows down gameplay (due to additional time spend working things out) and creates an exponential amount of book-keeping, particularly for joint waves from squadrons. It's not the simple solution.
-
ofcourse you could achieve something similar by having 1 lb able to launch 2 fighters at a time instead of one. you keep the 2:1 ratio and unlimited ordnance. not sure how this would affect gameplay.
-
There's no reason for our future-tech sci-fi fighters to follow what was true in WW2 if it suits game balance to do otherwise. Watch a group of F22s get in amongst an undefended squadron of strategic bombers and it wouldn't be implausible for the F22s to take out 8 Bombers EACH, which could be a 10-1 Squadron ratio given the fighter squadron's additional numbers. It's not implausible to suggest a 2:1 ratio.
And you think the next generation of bombers won't improve enough that the F22s would have a hard time? Fighters and bombers have each evolved at the same rate. The existing ratio still has not changed. F-22s would still have a hard time taking down B-1s with its speed and have a hard time finding the B-2s with all its countermeasures. The F-22 has to find the bombers first these days, something not done easily enough.
Also, look at the Russian doctrine where it would use supersonic bombers to take on the American Carrier Battle Groups. They would find the battlegroup, launch the Backfires then fire from tens to even hundreds of kilometers away.
Missile warfare actually would even make things harder since the chances of getting a kill is harder for the reason one is relying on radar or heat seekers which can be countered. This compared to WW2 where fighters were seeing bombers fill their windscreens.
Whatever improvements fighter tech gets, you can be sure bombers will not be far behind. This is so because the bombers have to survive whatever current dominant fighter can dish out.
The attritional method in addition to offering incentives to escort, nerfs Ordnance overall (as it runs out), slows down gameplay (due to additional time spend working things out) and creates an exponential amount of book-keeping, particularly for joint waves from squadrons. It's not the simple solution.
One hasn't even really introduced an attritional rule yet so how can you say it will nerf ordnance overall? If the nerf does occur then a change in the rules making ordnance slightly better can be introduced. While I agree it is not a simple solution, I think it is the better solution than just assuming 1 fighter marker will wipeout an entire unescorted bomber wave.
-
how about a different take on it - how about fighters needing to kill fighters on a 2:1 ratio? so a wave of 4 fighters attacking a wave of 2 fighter 2 bombers would only have enough to finish off the fighters, and make them actually useful at defending bomber squadrons. the issue here would be making defensive fighter screens very tough to break and dealing with odd numbers, but in the end any change is a balancing act.
-
Or just some fast rules for dogfights and bomber busting, not just removing markers because they met.
-
how about a different take on it - how about fighters needing to kill fighters on a 2:1 ratio? so a wave of 4 fighters attacking a wave of 2 fighter 2 bombers would only have enough to finish off the fighters, and make them actually useful at defending bomber squadrons. the issue here would be making defensive fighter screens very tough to break and dealing with odd numbers, but in the end any change is a balancing act.
OK, so what's to stop them from running a couple of a-boats, bombers or torp salvoes into wave to drop the fighter screen and then send in the fighters to mop up? This'll make it a 1 for 1 basis. Oh, and what happens if he just sends in 1 fighter? The defending fighters don't remove anything? They gain resilience for the turn? What?
-
Can someone tell me how these ideas enhance the game rather than just complicate things? At the moment all these ideas are riddled with problems, and no one's really got an issue with the rules as they are.
-
ithe issue for me i that the rules as they are dont really reflect the proper use of fighter support (vs other fighters), and it just *might* be possible that with enough random ideas something will come up that fits nicely. im fine with the rules as is, but it doesnt mean we cant throw ideas around and see if we cant come up with something better.
i fully realise that my previous suggestion was full of holes, i dont think its going to lead to anything, but if we dont explore ways to improve the game, how will we ever know if it could be a bit better? naysaying is much easier to do than bringing something new to the table.
another alternative: fighters on CAP are resilient to bombers and AC. this would make them great for defense, and necessary for bomber support. resilient fighters get a +1 bonus. the overall improvement? more decisions to make. how many fighters to mix in? do you throw all your AC on CAP duty?
another interesting idea from another thread, making bombers/AB resilient when accompanied by X amount of fighters.
possible escort improvement: escorts can forego using their turret(s) for their own defense in exchange for giving it all to a capital ship in b2b. so a sword class could add +2 to a cruiser in was next to, but would be defenceless if it were targetted by other AC. result? people might start taking escort squadrons as standard accompaniment to battleships. attacking player has to decide how much AC he wants to devote to distracting the escorts, to improve chances vs capital ship. defending player must decide who the escorts are going to defend, themselves or the capital ship.
-
And you think the next generation of bombers won't improve enough that the F22s would have a hard time? Fighters and bombers have each evolved at the same rate. The existing ratio still has not changed. F-22s would still have a hard time taking down B-1s with its speed and have a hard time finding the B-2s with all its countermeasures. The F-22 has to find the bombers first these days, something not done easily enough.
Whatever improvements fighter tech gets, you can be sure bombers will not be far behind. This is so because the bombers have to survive whatever current dominant fighter can dish out.
The F22 is 44% faster than the B1 without afterburner, and 60% faster on full thrust. It is also far stealthier than the B2. This is hardly surprising, considering it's a newer generation of aircraft (and much much smaller than the B2). The B3 won't come online until at least 2018. Any unescorted group of bombers intercepted by fighters would be obliterated with room to spare. Modern combat doctrine revolves around either not exposing the bombers to risk in the first place, or escorting them.
And Defensive technology does NOT always keep up. It's far easier to destroy than to protect. No amount of armour plating could practically protect a battleship against large bombs dropped from high altitude. No missile defense program could hope to ward off an all out ICBM attack - decoy warheads, evasive manoeuvring, multiple warheads make a shield pointless against all but the smallest scale launches.
So it's neither clear that technology keeps up, nor that fighters can't have higher kill ratios against undefended bombers. But even if I conceded these points, the argument "Historically fighters have not had high kill ratios" is not proof against "In the far future, fighters can have high kill ratios".
Furthermore, you are considering that the fighters must kill every single bomber and therefore individually have a high kill ratio, when in fact the kill ratio is irrellevant so long as the bomber formation is disrupted to such an extent that it ceases to be an effective formation and has to abort, not necessarily through casualties sustained, but due to an impossibility of regrouping into an effective formation and out-of-formation bombers posing no threat to capital ships. So long as the fighters achieve that, they need not kill a single bomber, yet could still be effective at disrupting multiple squadrons.
But WHY are we thinking about modifying fighters? Fighters have an interceptor role, and an escort role. In BFG, they do fine in an interception role, but poorly in an escort role - there's no benefit to escorting assault boats ever, and it's only worth escorting bombers if the target has more than two turrets thanks to a clunky turret suppression that is also under review.
What have the suggestions so far been?
#1. Increase the Kill Ratio of Fighters against assault boats and bombers to at least 2:1.
#2. A Dogfight Mechanic.
#3. An Attrition Mechanic, with limited AC that must be protected.
#4. Do nothing.
Why is increasing the kill ratio far and away the best suggested option? Because option 4 leaves us with a deeply unsatisfying situation, whilst the Dogfight Mechanic and Attrition Mechanic must by their very nature both slow down the game (they have to - there's more to work out), and increase the complexity of the rules (they have to - they're adding a mechanic that doesn't exist).
Conversly, increasing the kill ratio takes no extra game time (simply remove extra markers!), and is a minor modification to an existing mechanic, and still addresses the core issue - provide a strong incentive to escort waves of bombers or assault boats. It's possible that someone could come up with a better idea that addresses this issue, but given how elegant and simple the "Increase the Kill Ratio" option is, I highly doubt it.
-
thinking down the line in-game, i foresee the following:
players with an ordnance advantage would still have it, but would have to match the enemy's fighters before adding bombers. in a situation where you were outnumbered in ordnance, id consider going all-fighter to be a sensible course of action unless you could guarantee undefended targets.
in a game with fairly equal ordnance, id have 3 options:
1 go all out bombers - opponent would likely split his 50:50, and gain an advantage. all-bomber waves are vulnerable.
2 go all out fighters - full defence, forcing something of a stalemate. at the very worst, delay the enemy launching until he can get an advantage
3 mix. if i went 50:50 the enemy would have to match the number of fighters, plus 50% to guarantee taking out all my ordnance, and would have 25% of his capacity left over to cause damage.
note: all these are on very general terms, where the enemy has an opportunity to react and intercept. much more likely is that players will keep more fighters on CAP, anticipating short range bomber assaults.
-
So, going back to the topic in hand, the suggestions made so far (to the best of my understanding) that modify how AC and ships interact are:
+1 turret to all ships, Bombers roll (D6-Casualties due to turrets) attacks.
Bombers roll (D6-2+Modifiers) attacks to a min/max of 0-6, modifiers are: {+1 for crippled, +2 for no turrets, +1 for surviving escort fighters, -1 for ships in BtB}
Turrets roll a D6 each and pick the highest, Bombers roll a D6 plus a D6 for each escorting fighter and pick the highest. Bombers then roll (D6-Difference) attacks.
Turrets may attack all incoming targets, both torps and AC.
Allow Escorts to contribute all their turrets.
Scrap Massed Turrets.
Add fleet defence escorts.
Fighters remove Bombers and Assault Boats from a wave on a 2-1 basis.
Some options are not mutually exclusive, but the various ways of resolving bomber attack runs are, as are the options to enhance or scrap massed turrets. Attack run methods highlighted blue, with the other options highlighted green. I'd also like to suggest this option:
Ships always engage enemy AC they contact with their turrets, but the AC may choose whether or not to attack the ship they contact and therefore remain in play.
I would suggest that (D6-2+Modifiers) is the best bomber attacks system. It largely brings Battleships down to Cruiser level and makes them vulnerable, whilst still giving escorts (and close formations) an extra role. It's also very simple once you get the modifiers memorised, because it's so similar to the current system. I don't believe the other two options do quite as much to rebalance battleships and escorts, and are also either too much dice rolling for not enough benefit, or inelegant by means of modifying every single ship profile.
Of the other options, I'd keep the 2-1 kill ratio of fighters(for incentive to escort Bs and ABs), allow turrets to attack all incoming targets(as large ordnance now actually can overwhelm a target, this very rules-mechanicy choice is no longer required), and allow AC to choose whether or not to attack a ship they come into contact with (If a ship is surrounded by other ships, they'll need this to get through, at the expense of being shot up by turrets).
I'd also scrap massed turrets, because I think the -1 modifier under this system is sufficient protection.
Of the remaining options, escorts contributing all their attacks is mutually exclusive with scrapping turret suppression, and adding fleet defence escorts either requries adding additional ships and does nothing for the majority of escorts, or makes a fairly major way to how escorts and weapons function.
-
this makes me wonder why bombers have the variable number of attacks in the first place? for me it adds in an extra set of dice to roll which feels superfluous. would bombers be just as nasty if they each made 1 'lance' attack? ie. hit armour on a 4+ regardless? at the moment (and ignoring turret hits as they would apply to both), 1 bomber vs a lunar would get 1.66 hits on average, resulting in 0.55 damage on average. so 4 bombers would do about 2 damage.
with lance bombers, 4 of them would do on average: 2 damage, up to 4 maximum, compared to the current bombers (highly unlikely) maximum of 16. overall though, this would improve them against battleships, make them wasteful against escorts, and simplify the process. if underpowered could improve to 3+ hit.
of all the other ideas, i like the turrets hitting torps and AC, escorts contributing extra to massed turrets, and 2-1 fighters. id definitely ditch turret suppression in exchange for a boost to fighters.
-
:P
I think current FAQ & Bomber plus fighter rules are sufficient and easy enough to understand. I would add one thing: only surviving fighters may add the +1.
So far this thread hasn't convinded me on another set of rulings.
-
The F22 is 44% faster than the B1 without afterburner, and 60% faster on full thrust. It is also far stealthier than the B2. This is hardly surprising, considering it's a newer generation of aircraft (and much much smaller than the B2). The B3 won't come online until at least 2018. Any unescorted group of bombers intercepted by fighters would be obliterated with room to spare. Modern combat doctrine revolves around either not exposing the bombers to risk in the first place, or escorting them.
The F22 is also going to be using missiles to kill the B1. B1s can still avoid the missiles. It does have a gun. Enough for 5 seconds of sustained fire. So am not going to be surprised it won't be killing a lot.
And again, as you pointed out, F22 is newer so as you said no surprise. Even then, there aren't that many F22 squadrons yet so not surprised when the B3 comes in there still won't be that many. Not with the price tag involved.
Modern combat doctrine is to send the B2s under stealth at night or the B-1s rushing in under the radar. They don't necessarily go in with fighter protection. They can go in with fighter protection assuming the target is heavily protected but then again, the doctrine would be neutralize the air defenses then send the bombers in.
And Defensive technology does NOT always keep up. It's far easier to destroy than to protect. No amount of armour plating could practically protect a battleship against large bombs dropped from high altitude. No missile defense program could hope to ward off an all out ICBM attack - decoy warheads, evasive manoeuvring, multiple warheads make a shield pointless against all but the smallest scale launches.
Yes they do. It's slow at times but they do. Armor plating can't protect a battleship? Focus on carriers and add a lot of AAs while adding armor to protect the more important and vulnerable parts of the ship. The meta shifted not only on the attack but defense. Missile attack? Well, the anti-missile defenses were never really tested so we won't know. Russians supposedly had a good one surrounding Moscow.
So it's neither clear that technology keeps up, nor that fighters can't have higher kill ratios against undefended bombers. But even if I conceded these points, the argument "Historically fighters have not had high kill ratios" is not proof against "In the far future, fighters can have high kill ratios".
Yeah but until you prove otherwise, sorry, evidence points to the contrary.
Furthermore, you are considering that the fighters must kill every single bomber and therefore individually have a high kill ratio, when in fact the kill ratio is irrellevant so long as the bomber formation is disrupted to such an extent that it ceases to be an effective formation and has to abort, not necessarily through casualties sustained, but due to an impossibility of regrouping into an effective formation and out-of-formation bombers posing no threat to capital ships. So long as the fighters achieve that, they need not kill a single bomber, yet could still be effective at disrupting multiple squadrons.
The problem is your claiming that the fighters can kill more than twice their squadron numbers. Nothing in there about disruption. So far the claim has been 1 counter should be able to take out 2 bombers in an unescorted formation. I can understand them taking out 1:1 without fighter protection and with fighter protection this should go down to nil. But I can't see them taking out 2. Bombers have defensive countermeasures. Bombers try to avoid fighters by maneuvering. Bombers have more armor than fighters. You aren't considering those as well.
Conversly, increasing the kill ratio takes no extra game time (simply remove extra markers!), and is a minor modification to an existing mechanic, and still addresses the core issue - provide a strong incentive to escort waves of bombers or assault boats. It's possible that someone could come up with a better idea that addresses this issue, but given how elegant and simple the "Increase the Kill Ratio" option is, I highly doubt it.
I prefer for someone to come up with a better rule. While attrition rules may increase game time, it probably won't increase it too much. It'll be a bit slow at the beginning but once the attrition comes in, things should get simpler in the later turns as there is less to remember. Also, it would introduce new tactical thinking since now, AC squadrons are not infinite. One has to figure out when and how to make the best use of them.
-
I would suggest that (D6-2+Modifiers) is the best bomber attacks system. It largely brings Battleships down to Cruiser level and makes them vulnerable, whilst still giving escorts (and close formations) an extra role. It's also very simple once you get the modifiers memorised, because it's so similar to the current system. I don't believe the other two options do quite as much to rebalance battleships and escorts, and are also either too much dice rolling for not enough benefit, or inelegant by means of modifying every single ship profile.
And why should battleships be more vulnerable? As vulnerable as a cruiser anyway. And you want to keep things simple by avoiding attrition rules but you prefer bombers getting all those modifiers so now one has to stop and think about what modifiers come into play as well as figure this on a ship attacked by mutliple bomber counters which isn't crippled when the first bomber counters attack but then crippled before the bomber attack has ended meaning there still are a couple of counters left to attack. Oh yeah, definitely won't eat up time on the table.
Of the other options, I'd keep the 2-1 kill ratio of fighters(for incentive to escort Bs and ABs),
No, don't agree with this.
allow turrets to attack all incoming targets(as large ordnance now actually can overwhelm a target, this very rules-mechanicy choice is no longer required),
I'm ok with this.
and allow AC to choose whether or not to attack a ship they come into contact with (If a ship is surrounded by other ships, they'll need this to get through, at the expense of being shot up by turrets).
Nope, don't think a change into this is needed if one wants things simple.
-
Why is increasing the kill ratio far and away the best suggested option? Because option 4 leaves us with a deeply unsatisfying situation, whilst the Dogfight Mechanic and Attrition Mechanic must by their very nature both slow down the game (they have to - there's more to work out), and increase the complexity of the rules (they have to - they're adding a mechanic that doesn't exist).
Conversly, increasing the kill ratio takes no extra game time (simply remove extra markers!), and is a minor modification to an existing mechanic, and still addresses the core issue - provide a strong incentive to escort waves of bombers or assault boats. It's possible that someone could come up with a better idea that addresses this issue, but given how elegant and simple the "Increase the Kill Ratio" option is, I highly doubt it.
A good argument, but you're wrong. It is a poor option. Consider:
You have a fighter on CAP. I have a wave of 2 bombers. If I send in the 2 bombers unescorted then I lose both. If I had an escort, so 1 fighter and 1 bomber, then I get 1 bomber attacking, supposedly giving me incentive to send in an escort. However, I could just send in 1 bomber to remove your fighter, now I can attack with the other bomber. So rather than giving me incentive to send in a fighter escort I simply have incentive to break my bomber waves down and attack your fighters will single bomber markers. Soooo I'm getting superior efficiency by dividing my forces and attacking your fighters with my bombers? Silly.
-
I'm thinking for attrition rules limit the carriers to something like:
1. 8 LB carriers
-16 Fighters
-8 mix of Bombers and ABs
2. 6 LB carriers
-12 fighters
-6 mix of Bombers and ABs
3. 4 LB carriers
-8 Fighters
-4 Bombers (or mix of Bombers and ABs for those that have them though it might be unfair for Chaos)
4. 2 LB carriers
-4 Fighters
-2 Bombers (or mix of Bombers and ABs for those that have them though it might be unfair for Chaos)
5. 1 LB carriers
-2 Fighters.
Yes it will be a problem trying to identify which counters are from which carriers so that's what I am figuring out next but the point is, these figures will go down as the game progresses due to losing AC to fighters or turrets as they do not regenerate anyhmore. There will be more fighters as that is the general trend. Marking down which counters get taken out would be simple by just printing out a form with circles or boxes and marking the ones which have been taken out. The problem for me right now is more of identification.
-
I would introduce simple Dogfights rules.
My thoughts sofar:
- fighters attack with 2D6; bombers defend with 1D6.
- fighter marker shoots down another ordnance marker on a 4+ on D6
- bomber marker defend against fighter marker and shoot them down on a 6 on D6
- escorting fighters 'intercept' attacking fighters
- attacker has to decide how many fighters deal with escort and how many are going to attack bombers
- resilient craft save as normal.
-
As for turrets:
I would scrap massed turrets and simply introduce fleet defence turrets (as per AM) as an option for escorts and cruisers (revised cost?) but not heavy/battle/grand cruisers and battleships.
EDIT:
Turrets may fire at any incoming wave of ordnance.