Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Thinking Stone on April 26, 2013, 09:53:36 AM
-
—What do they tell us?
Hello everyone!
I've recently been thinking a lot about attack craft interations and how popular carriers are, and also about how unpopular escorts are. I noticed the Adepticon Aftermath topic (thank you for the reports!) and was wondering if we could get some insight into BFG game mechanics by examining the lists and experiences of the Adpeticon players (it seems to work for WH40K... :) ).
In particular, I'm unhappy with the way escorts are often passed over in favour of other ships: it seems that fleets should include them because they're great to have (at least in limited numbers) rather than being a tax or an auxiliary element, especially since real-life and background material both point to their crucial roles in naval combat. Whilst making them compulsory would make them appear in more fleets, it would be nice to have good reasons for taking, for example, 2 Swords to back every cruiser up.
Well, that's my bit! Feel free to talk about other Adepti-BFG stuff though :).
Food for thought,
Thinking Stone
-
Background wise there should be more escorts, yes. Except in a Craftworld Eldar fleet ofcourse. So! I also think there should be compulsory rules per race.
Aside of that I do think escorts are great and heavily underrated.
-
Well, I like escorts too but I have this nagging feeling about how their combat rules work.... But I think it would be an interesting idea to play some games with a compulsory escort compliment (e.g. 2 per cruiser, or whatever we discussed in the other topic) and see what happens: maybe people will find them really useful when not min-maxed?
It's interesting that Seahawk's (I think...) lists for next year don't have any escorts!
O, and don't forget Dan's Niddies! Kraken are pretty cool!
I like the e-mail notification thingy too. It's really handy :).
-
.... But I think it would be an interesting idea to play some games with a compulsory escort compliment (e.g. 2 per cruiser, or whatever we discussed in the other topic) and see what happens: maybe people will find them really useful when not min-maxed?
The Tau lists have an interesting approach to this. They don't have a hard "must have x escorts per ship" rule, but many of their capital ships have grav-hooks that increase the price of the capital ship but allow you to take a small number of cheap escorts. You're effectively paying some of the price for the escort when you buy the capital ship, but you're not forced to buy the entire escort ship.
A similar approach would encourage a fleet to use a few escorts, but would prevent an all-escort fleet from being too cheap. Maybe increase the price of some capital ships by 10 points, but for every one of those you take you reduce the total cost of one escort squadron by 10 points. Maybe. It encourages you to take a balanced fleet, but it doesn't force you to do so.
-
I like how Spartan Games did it, you have a set number of points to choose from and you have a certain % of that that you can spend on escorts, cruisers, battleships and such.
-
Another one of my wacky ideas for Imperial Navy involves two battleships and six light cruisers in 1500 points. :o
Just think of them as big escorts! :D
Don't get me wrong. I love escorts. My previous two outings at Adepticon saw me with 6 Gladius and 3 Sword, because FIREPOWAAAAAA!!! I didn't do as well, however, finishing in the middle of the pack. Of course, this was pre-FAQ 2010, so who knows how much impact that has with it. I do have 4 Cobras and 6 Firestorm with my IN, and 6 Idolator, 6 Infidel, and 2 Iconoclasts with my Chaos. It's just that, whatever they can do, I've found my cruiser selections to do better.
Minus the chaos torpedo boats of course, but I don't really ever use torpedoes, so...
-
Part of the problem IMO is that escorts don't actually escort with the current squadron rules which is really their purpose in the WW1/2 Naval analog. The other, as is pointed out, is that gunships are actually a separate beast that should work in hunter packs, especially vessels like Firestorms, and should be priced as such to encourage larger packs in fleet list construction. But I'm with Horizon, they can pack a huge punch and are always present when I game. :)
-
Someone, I cant recall who, posted that they had played escorts with the gunnery chart backwards. Basically the smaller and faster weapons of an escort would be more devistating to attack craft and other escorts, about the same against cruisers, and much weaker against hardened installations.
This seems like a great idea to differentiate them and would help cast a better light on the gunships.
-
I played with 3 wardens and 3 custodian escort in a squadron of 6 worked very well, and they only lost half there number in all three games. For the Tau fleet it's import because the escort are very maneuverable and can protect your rear from faster fleets. Also for points cost and relative firepower your getting a good deal. I think a lot of value is misplaced in escort vessels because there not deployed to do what they are meant to do.
Alot of the time Player rush them ahead of the pack only to get shot up and destroyed piecemeal. Escort can Harass a weak side of the enemy fleet in close conjunction with a cap ship.Their meant to do exactly that "escort", providing a nice column of added firepower to screen cap ships or added maneuverability to anchor flanking profiles and movements even as far as masking a feint. But they should never be sent out ahead of the pack by themselves unless there are secondaries objectives based on a scenario.
-
@AndrewChristlieb: That was me! That was me! I haven't had time to actually play games with it, but I would refine it and say: 'Escorts swap the Defences and Ordnance columns on the Firepower chart, as well as the Escort and Capital Ship columns'. The rulebook already says stuff about big guns being slow (I think it's in the 'Attacking Ordnance' bit on the Firepower chart page). It seems an elegant option to me, so I like it.
I agree with RaptorEvolved's suggestions for how escorts should be played. To me, though, it seems like they aren't quite all-the-way-there yet: it's like they're missing something in terms of game mechanics. Although Necron escorts have done pretty well against me when rushing up as a pack... probably because of the Tombship killin' my dudes at the same time... :).
Seahawk's experiences kind of highlight this missing bit: why waste points on a squishier escort squadron when you can get a cruiser with more firepower? Their niche is almost artificially compressed because of the lack of rules to give them more advantage when escorting. (Chaos is also a bit special because their escorts fill up the holes in the rest of their fleet). What was thy escort to capital ratio, RaptorEvolved?
But I was thinking on what Mallich and AndrewChristlieb (the first time) said about gently encouraging escorts and in between postings Jimmy Zimms said what I had concluded too:
Part of the problem IMO is that escorts don't actually escort with the current squadron rules which is really their purpose in the WW1/2 Naval analog. The other, as is pointed out, is that gunships are actually a separate beast that should work in hunter packs, especially vessels like Firestorms, and should be priced as such to encourage larger packs in fleet list construction. But I'm with Horizon, they can pack a huge punch and are always present when I game. :)
Although I wasn't in favour of this before (for various reasons at the time) I think that combining escort and capital squadrons is the best way to go to get escorts 'escorting' properly. They are a cheap way to add firepower to a capital, they are partially protected from larger enemies, they help with massing turrets and anti-attack craft duties and you want to take a pair of Swords for your cruisers (as the rulebook says :) ) which I suppose you wouldn't do so often with separate escorts because of survivability. It's really important to keep the separate squadrons for hunter-packs, that is, the current setup, but the WW analogue of escorts squadronning with capital ships is the neatest solution I can think of at the moment.
So, does anyone else (besides Jimmy Zimms :) ) think this is a good idea? Or is there a better, nicer solution? I guess someone should play-test a bit too :P.
Anyway, food for thought:
Thinking Stone
PS: Good thing I copied that before previewing... I had timed out 8).
-
I guess someone should play-test a bit too :P.
Well we've been playing that way for years now and works for our group ;) ;D :D 8) :o
So, does anyone else (besides Jimmy Zimms :) ) think this is a good idea? Or is there a better, nicer solution?
Doh! I don't count after all ;)
-
I can agree with allowing escorts to squadron with a capitol, actually that would make more sense to me than allowing capitols to squadron in most cases. This is something that they did when playtesting the game originally but they decided to separate them because escorts and capitols move diffently (not that they actually move all that differently).
-
Well, I sort of assumed that you would be in favour :).
I remember thee (or someone else perhaps...) talking about how thy group used combined squadrons... a while ago :). How does it work? Does it seem to replicate 'escort' behaviour? Are there any problems? I guess the biggest question is how do you deal with capital ship squadrons?
Just curious as, unfortunately, my group of friends don't have time for much else besides WH40K so I shall have to try to use it when playing against myself....
@AndrewChristlieb:
Upon thinking about it a bit more, maybe we need to invent a kind of 'super-grouping' for capital ships with escorts.... Since, as always, we have problems like, "Why can't my carrier reload ordnance while the other ships lock on?" or, "Bobby the Mauler braced for impact, it's lamer than a starving duck that I can't lock on with my other ships! If only they could use orders separately for some situations...." (No ducks were hurt in the making of this post)
I think that the BFG squadron rules (and their freedom) actually really suit combined squadrons because one has the freedom of protecting the capital's rear and being able to re-manoeuvre as needed with the escort's mobility. Also, changing the way capital squadrons work could make it easier to modify the Special Orders rules (if we so desired), e.g. to make add more fleet-like ones (rather than the very 'personal' ones we currently have).
Thinking Stone
-
I got it, though this delves into experimental/house rules.
Forming Up the Fleet
- Each escort is assigned to a capital ship, max 2 per capital ship.
- Treat the whole group as a sub-squadron; the capital ship may then be part of a cruiser squadron as normal.
- With up to four cruisers and two escorts per cruiser, this may make for a total squadron size of 12 models.
- Each escort must stay within 10cm of the capital ship it is assigned to.
Shooting With Sub-Squadrons
- Follow the normal rules for shooting with squadrons, adding on the firepower of the escorts to the total as normal.
Shooting At Sub-Squadrons
- Enemy shots may be directed at the capital ship or its escorts without needing to take a Ld test.
- If part of a cruiser squadron, the normal squadron rules still apply, though you can ignore the escorts in favor of the capital ships as above.
- Roll a D6 every time the capital ship suffers hits from a shooting attack: on a 3+, the hits are resolved first against its escorts.
-
Thanks, Seahawk!
1. I think it would be nice if escorts could stay within 15 cm if the Capital ship isn't part of a larger squadron. Gives more freedom to escort positioning, to let them protect the back of ships &c..
2. It would be interesting if you could do the sacrificial protection the other way around too... allow escorts to hide behind the cruiser :). It would let them be more protectable (and thus relatively more attractive in smaller numbers anyway). Although I do like the idea of the player positioning their escorts so that enemies have to manoeuvre to shoot their chosen target (like in 6th Edition WH40K unit positioning).
3. How does one determine the firepower column when shooting at the sub-squadron? Maybe it gets targeted like a Capital (large blob of sensor readings, after all) and the escorts get to save like you suggest, but on the roll of a 6 the hit/some of the hits is/are discounted entirely (i.e. not applied to the escort either). This could represent the chance that the attacking ship's sensors are fooled by the combined signal and miss entirely (and is kind of like a bad column shift). Or you do the save before damage is rolled, i.e. when targeting, and the new target determines the shooting column?
Although the original method might work well after all that thinking anyway :)
Another thought based on some ideas we had in another discussion of the roles of escorts: maybe they could 'mass shields' with their protectee capital ship? This could help them out when massing turrets by counteracting the weakness of the sub-squadron (very close proximity = more shared blast markers) compared with cruiser-only squadrons. With only 2 escorts per capital, it could easily be 'Close Protection. If both escorts and the capital ship in a sub-squadron are in base contact with all other ships in the sub-squadron, the whole group counts as 1 entity when receiving fire, but with +1 shield. Damage is assigned to the escorts as normal but only when all shields are disabled. An Emperor protected by 2 Swords would thus be an entity with a base the size of a large base with 2 small bases in contact and with 6 shields'.
Thinking Stone
-
Na, you don't want to over complicate it. Simply make it so that the escorts protect the ship they are escorting, and you're good to go.
-
Just make it as standard (you cannot target anything except the closest ship in a squadron). This way the escorts will be protected behind the cruiser or you can throw them in front to block for the cruiser.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-dunoA1H7zX8/UXtQmQdfAcI/AAAAAAAAAnQ/Ed9XjtJO9XM/w743-h548/bfg1.png)
In this example the Torment is targeting a mixed squadron composed of the Agrippa, Iron Duke, and elements of Omega Squadron. Omega 1 is the closest ship so any hits will be allocated to it first then the Iron Duke and so on.
-
to answer It was 1 cap shit per Escort only one with 2 squadron cap ships and light cruiser in the mix, very effective for turret massing
-
Hey people,
write up some ideas (each what they think is best) for such rules and submit them to Warp Rift. :)
-
You know, Horizon, that's just what I was thinking when I looked at the Warp Rift post earlier....
Unfortunately, what I think is best is what AndrewChristlieb thinks is best :(. O well, at least I can put in some other ideas for people to try :).
Editation: Err, how do we submit stuff to Warp Rift again? :)? And also, have there been any BFG:R revisions to squadron rules? The discussion had by Sigoroth et al. was quite thorough but didn't seem to come to a consensus: http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=2807.0
-
Hi,
you can mail it at horizon@epic40k.co.uk or warprift@epic40k.co.uk.
Warp Rift needs all kind of articles.
-
Mixed squadron is a good idea.
I would still limit it to a total of six ships max though.
-
Ive been thinking a bit on that actually and I think that allowing each cruiser to take 2 escorts with cruisers escorts forming their own squadron that takes the place of one cruiser. So you would have the option to take a cruiser squadron with 1 cruiser and 0-2 escorts, 2 cruisers and 0-4 escorts, or 3 cruisers and 0-6 escorts. For battleships and grand cruisers you can take 3 escorts with the same restrictions. So 1 BB or CG and 0-3 escorts or 2 BB or CG and 0-6 escorts.
-
A lot of very interesting and very tempting ideas. I like this thread. :)
"Massing Shields" is a somewhat neat idea, but occationally could result in a lot of frustration, since it will become highly difficult to damage a battleship. Additionally when you consider 2-shield-Escorts... I don't want to break through 8 shields to get to a battleship.
(Note to the curious: Rogue Trader document -> Xenos Vessel -> +1 shield upgrade)
-
Additionally when you consider 2-shield-Escorts... I don't want to break through 8 shields to get to a battleship.
(Note to the curious: Rogue Trader document -> Xenos Vessel -> +1 shield upgrade)
Nicassar Dhows also have 2 shields, as do Defence Monitors and Q-ships. Non-kraken tyranid bioships can also be upgraded with extra spores (shields/turrets).
-
Additionally when you consider 2-shield-Escorts... I don't want to break through 8 shields to get to a battleship.
(Note to the curious: Rogue Trader document -> Xenos Vessel -> +1 shield upgrade)
Nicassar Dhows also have 2 shields, as do Defence Monitors and Q-ships. Non-kraken tyranid bioships can also be upgraded with extra spores (shields/turrets).
Great observation , and honestly I wouldn't either, but that's what escorts are made to do :)
-
Hello again.
I got to consult my BFG-buddy. The basic idea of mixing ships squadrons with escorts is still great. But we figured out some details that are worth looking into.
Basically it's about "Shooting at Squadrons" and the "Gunnery Table".
Current rule details:
- If ships of a squadron are in different columns of the Gunnery Table the shooting party can decide which column to take, but no hits will be allocated to a ship that is "harder to hit".
Problem:
- Since escorts and capital ships are rarely in the same coloum, you can't shield a cruiser effectively with the current rules.
Possible Solution:
- "Escort ships count capital ships on the Gunnery Table, as long as they accompany a capital ship."
Escorts are harder to hit, because of their size, speed and maneuverability. But around big ships they actually have to throttle down, losing this advantage. So in a way this addition to the rules is fluffwise logical, intentionally effective and simple to use. Plus it has little effect if escorts are hiding behind a capital ship.
- Different Armour values. All dice that beat the lowest armour value will score hits. Each die will hit the nearest vessel it can affect.
Note:
- Now here's the "little effect" I was talking about. Escorts with a different armour value can get hit even when hiding behind bigger buddys. This is consistent to original rules, as capital ships squadrons face the same problem. But without the rule change mentioned above, they would be harder to hit because you would normally have to take the escort coloum on the Gunnery Table.
I don't think this is much of a deal, though. Choose your mixed squads well and try to place escorts abeam to minimize this drawback. Still I wanted to point it out. Maybe someone has to say something about it.
I'm kind of exited about this. It doesn't only "feel right", but in addition it promises interesting new fleet compositions, ship pairing and movement tactics to use or counter mixed squadrons. :)
Have a nice day,
Brethren.
-
Well to be fair the squadron rules are pretty bad to begin with. Why would a shot that cannot damage one ship go to the next ship that it can damage? What did they see the shot wasnt going to damage the ship so they swung the guns mid salvo? That just doesnt make sense. They should only be able to target the closest ship unless using a leadership test.
-
Well to be fair the squadron rules are pretty bad to begin with. Why would a shot that cannot damage one ship go to the next ship that it can damage? What did they see the shot wasnt going to damage the ship so they swung the guns mid salvo? That just doesnt make sense. They should only be able to target the closest ship unless using a leadership test.
I tend to picture that when firing one takes the whole squadron unter fire and not just the leading vessel. And if a salvo manages to crack through "light armour" it might not touch the ship in front, but the ships in the back. (In this case it is rather strange, that you can only hit the leading ship.)
I agree that squadron rules, as with some other BFG rules feel a bit awkward. But coming up with something entirely new isn't my intention here. I rather want to fit mixed squads into the existing rules.
If I'd want to get rid of all the BFG inconveniences I'd use another rule set, like Full Thrust. I'm certainly not willing to invent the wheel again. This is a hobby, not my life's work. 8)
-
I see what your saying but given the scale here is it reaslly feasable to say theyre shooting at the entire squadron? and if thats the case why are the shots not divided between the ships? It seems the only reason the rules are written this way is so that escorts are not as difficult to kill, it would really be a pita to have to kill each escort individually or try and split fire between them when shooting etc..
-
Why not just have it this way:
"Escorts may join with Capital Ships in squadrons. When shooting at a squadron with escorts, use the gunnery chart and consider the escorts as Capital Ships for purposes of shooting. The closest vessel is damaged first unless a leadership is passed, in which case the firing player may choose the targeted ship. When shooting with a squadron with Capital Ships and Escorts combined, fire the vessels as normal. Ships that are in base contact may combine their firepower."
-
works for me.
-
Hm, no. Doesn't work for me.
Ships that are in base contact may combine their firepower."
I don't know why you came up with this, because squadrons always add up their firepower before consulting the Gunnery Table, even when not in base contact.
Escorts may join with Capital Ships in squadrons. When shooting at a squadron with escorts, use the gunnery chart and consider the escorts as Capital Ships for purposes of shooting. The closest vessel is damaged first unless a leadership is passed, in which case the firing player may choose the targeted ship.
As for this part I see 3 changes to the actual rules.
- Escorts and capital ships can team up to use a better leadership.
- If you want to shoot at a chosen vessel in a squadron, that is hiding behind another ship/squadron unrelated to the target, you have to make 2 leadership tests instead of 1.
- The targeted escorts in a mixed squadron are easier to hit, because they count as capital ships on the Gunnery Table.
So a fleet with a good leadership rating has actually a easier time to finish off enemy escorts, if the opponent is stupid enough to mix them with capital ships.
And here I thought the basic idea was giving escorts the necessary ways to actually escort something by making them less vulnerable, when hiding behind cruisers. :o
-
Other way around; escorts are still always supposed to die first, but they should be soaking up hits for the capital ships. That's escorting 101 when lives are expendable. ;)
It should simply be:
- Battleship squadron: 2-3 Battleships, 0-6 Escorts.
- Cruiser squadron: 2-4 Cruisers, 0-4 Escorts.
- Squadron coherency rules as normal.
- Squadron leadership rules as normal; Escorts each roll their own as well.
- Squadron shooting rules as normal; treat the entire squadron as Capital ships (even escorts).
- Squadron ordnance rules as normal.
Done.
This way, Ld tests can't be made to bypass the escorts (otherwise what's the point, they might as well be as separate as they are now!), and the escorts do their job of protecting the important ships. Alternatively, you can protect the escorts for some strange reason by having them in the middle, so it appeases everyone. Nice, fluffy, sensible, and streamlined.
-
@Seahawk:
So you basically came to the same conclusion as I did one page earlier. Welcome to the club. Nice to have some company. :D
-
Yea, I think that Brethren's ideas are the most practical solution. It is possible to make escort-capital squadrons with no modification of the rulebook rules but the problem is that escorts would never be shot at!
But I do think it would be a good time to maybe think about redoing the capital ship squadron rules. The combined squadrons are troublesome because some mechanics don't really share well between the two types of ship (e.g. 'damage overflow' make escort squadrons possible but don't really make much sense for capital ships when comparing to the non-squadronned rules). This is probably why there aren't any combined squadrons in the original rules :).
The main points of contention that I observe with damage allocation in squadrons are these: (a) ships are really far apart (so only when in base contact is there a reasonably non-zero chance that firepower can hit two ships at once); and that (b) we must assume that the ships know how to allocate firepower such that they only shoot exactly enough guns at the first ship before using what is left over to shoot at the next ship. (a) reflects real life. (b) almost certainly won't happen during the time of the squadron's shooting.
I think that (a) must be sacrificed in favour of (b) when dealing with escorts because otherwise the rules make games too cumbersome.
I assure anyone who is worried about accuracy, though, that from a scientific model perspective this is okay! We sacrifice a mostly insignificant part of our described 'reality' (of course BFG is real... isn't it? Well, even though it isn't, it makes a fun and pseudo-believable game/universe :) ) to make our model actually work at all.
The only issues that might arise are the extreme cases where the first two escorts to die might be 30 cm apart but still in the same squadron.... This is reasonably hard to do in a normal battle (unless one was trying...) but to remedy it I would say hits can only overflow from the initial target to the ship nearest the initial target. (To protect the defending player, they may choose which ship is hit if there are two nearest targets... it makes gaming the system less unpleasant if this boundary is in place).
However, I think that we cannot ignore (a) for capital ships. They are too large and important in even small numbers.
So I would propose that for ALL squadrons, firepower can overflow FROM escorts onto the nearest ship. However, firepower can ONLY overflow from capital ships onto ships in base contact.
With all of the bonuses for being in base contact, it provides a nice counter-point by increasing the danger a little.
Anyway, food for thought,
Thinking Stone
-
Hmm, read 333 times :).
Also, concerning 2-shield escorts, Seahawk:
2-Shield Escorts and Massed Shielding: Maybe they should be upgraded to heavy escorts which can't squadron with capital ships... (sneaky eyes). :)
I think 2-shield escorts are on the edge of what this model can cope with too: the gameplay doesn't really seem designed around a 2:1 shield to hit ratio. Because of the generally low damage output of ships over a turn, attrition damage is the major killer (making it different to other games like WH40K where killing a dude reduces a squad's firepower immediately), meaning that 1:4 shield to hit ratios are more in tune with the capabilities of ships.
Although, a question: how does an escort mount a shield generator the quality of a cruiser? A comparison from Star Wars would be a Corellian blockade runner mounting the two large domes of a Star Destroyer (which are about 1/2 the size of a blockade runner anyway).... One would need all that shielding to survive with such a ship :). I also assume that the other deflector shield generators a Star Destroyer mounts would be superfluous for a small ship like the corvette.
Thinking Stone, dreaming of Corellian blockade runners with Star Destroyer quality shields....
-
Well Q ships sacrifice large amounts of storage (well ok all of it) for the extra power generators for the shields an weapons. For the others Im sure theres something to be said for it (alien tech, largeer ships built with poor materials, etc...) I think the route BFG-R went with 2 hit escorts makes more sense although I dont believe we changed any of the 2 shield escorts (Q ship maybe?)
-
Hello there everyone,
I really like the idea of escorts finally escorting, so I might as well join in the conversation ;D .
@ Escorts with 2 hits or 2 shields - in general a nice idea btw.:
I do not think that they should be considered in this thread, at least not to determine the "basic escorting" rules. After all they are more like the special-kids and not the norm. Guess they should be discussed more in detail later on, probably just exclude them form these rules, not sure ...
@ Massing shields:
Bad idea, bad idea, go back in your corner idea and stay there till I call you ;). No seriously this would brake with current game mechanics in a rather big scale and could shift balance a lot. To much impact for a nice little addition.
Also it does not make any sense to me ???. So shields are a bubbles, o.k., but where does it say they can be extended to such a degree (escorts protecting battleships), or combined with one another? Apart from that: if I was a cruiser captain I would not be pleased by the idea of an escort vessel, being really close, exploding within my shields :o.
@ Topic:
I fully support brethrens rules so far, because I am the bfg-buddy he discussed them with ;D.
Escorts are simply added (2:1) and then treated as other capital ships regarding the gunnery table, hit overflow and so on. Because these rules are a as-simple-as-can-be addition to the current game mechanics and do not require to change / add lots of new special rules. Yet they allow for all the fun:
- Valuable escorts can be protected by bigger ships.
- Bigger ships can be protected by escorts, at the cost that escorts have to slow down to cruiser-speed and maneuver into the line of fire to "sacrifice themselves". As bigger ships determine the column in the gunnery chart for the whole squadron, makes therefore sense to me.
- Also to attack "hidden/protected escorts behind a cruiser", pure escort-squadrons in themselves might become popular. Who else is better suited to jump to the other side of the cruiser and make short work of the "protected" escorts. So even more escorts, yay!
- This leaves but one problem: different armor values. However that is a given squadron mechanic right now and should be kept for the moment.
Please note:
Of course I am well aware that some things do not feel real in this game, but then again: the rules are more an approximation of reality and the current squadron-rules do not help to make it feel more real. However using these rules (with as little abbreviation for escorts) seems to be the best way to come up with a at least "ready to go" test version.
-
- Valuables escorts can be protected by bigger ships.
I still think this concept is utterly preposterous, both in RL tactics and in the game. I truly don't know what escort is ever more valuable than a capital ship. Escorts escort their parent ships, not the other way around. ;)
Unless said escort is carrying the grand admiral for some wacky reason. Maybe attack craft? But then that's what massing turrets is for, especially when you can add on like a carrier or something.
-
I would say it would be more of a give and take. The capitols protect the vulnerable escorts from long range fire while approaching then the escorts bolster their fire upclose and can take some of the brunt of a really bad salvo and save the larger vessel if needed.
Maybe it should be something like only the cruisers can be targeted by enemys (why wouldnt they target the larger ship anyway?) which would automatically exempt escorts from any roll over damage or lower armor hits, but allow for the escorts to "Look out sir!" basically take the damage instead.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-dunoA1H7zX8/UXtQmQdfAcI/AAAAAAAAAnQ/Ed9XjtJO9XM/w743-h548/bfg1.png)
Same example, the Torment is targeting a mixed squadron composed of the Agrippa, Iron Duke, and elements of Omega Squadron. The Torment is forced to fire at the Iron Duke as it take priority (closest capitol ship in the squadron). Any hits scored are applied solely to the Iron Duke unless it is destroyed then any roll over damage goes onto the Agrippa, Omega squadron once again cannot have any hits applied to it because they are a harder target to hit.
Now heres the twist. Before the Torment rolls any dice for damage Omega squadron's controlling player may elect to have them intercept the fire, this is an automatic action representing the escorts speed and willingness to defend their charges and no rolls are required. Any hits scored against the Iron Duke are instead applied to any ships of Omega squadron in range and fire arc, with roll over going to the Iron Duke, and finally the Agrippa.
Fairly simple way to defend both escorts and their capitol ships when needed.
-
- Valuables escorts can be protected by bigger ships.
I still think this concept is utterly preposterous, both in RL tactics and in the game. I truly don't know what escort is ever more valuable than a capital ship. Escorts escort their parent ships, not the other way around. ;)
You're missing the other side of the coin. ;D
Destroyers (back in the 40's) were ships that had to intercept things too fast for a Battleship to handle. But they certainly weren't used to swallow shells if an enemy Battleship arrived. So the relationship between classes is kind of symbiotic.
I would say it would be more of a give and take. The capitols protect the vulnerable escorts from long range fire while approaching then the escorts bolster their fire upclose and can take some of the brunt of a really bad salvo and save the larger vessel if needed.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3bW5WvM4j7ioc3Xm47pCrRAw-ZfDBhj94qtnSmkI1CphlbEJnDtJGxx0)
Maybe it should be something like only the cruisers can be targeted by enemys (why wouldnt they target the larger ship anyway?) which would automatically exempt escorts from any roll over damage or lower armor hits, but allow for the escorts to "Look out sir!" basically take the damage instead.
Same example, the Torment is targeting a mixed squadron composed of the Agrippa, Iron Duke, and elements of Omega Squadron. The Torment is forced to fire at the Iron Duke as it take priority (closest capitol ship in the squadron). Any hits scored are applied solely to the Iron Duke unless it is destroyed then any roll over damage goes onto the Agrippa, Omega squadron once again cannot have any hits applied to it because they are a harder target to hit.
Now heres the twist. Before the Torment rolls any dice for damage Omega squadron's controlling player may elect to have them intercept the fire, this is an automatic action representing the escorts speed and willingness to defend their charges and no rolls are required. Any hits scored against the Iron Duke are instead applied to any ships of Omega squadron in range and fire arc, with roll over going to the Iron Duke, and finally the Agrippa.
In Na'vi terms: "I see you." ;)
But I'm asking myself the question if there's a need for additional rules to get there.
Roll over damage simply is out there and if a cruiser breaks apart its escorts simply are in the line of incoming fire, like any other ship in a squadron.
As for the lower armour hits... they still are a minor case.
1.) You'll need a lot of dice, or a really lucky roll to pass enough hits to an escort to kill it.
2.) In cases of 6+prows (IN/Orcs) one just needs to set the escorts abeam to prevent any roll over or armour value damage at all. (...not true, lance shot still can roll over) Once the cruiser and the escorts are abeam to the enemy the drawback vanishes.
3.) I somewhat don't like the idea, that your approach allows escorts to choose which enemys fire they soak. Think of a cruiser besides the Torment that also targets the squadron. And somehow the escorts can halt the fire from the cruiser, but hide themselves from the blows of the Torment?
That really feels strange. Either you're in the line of fire or you're not.
Most of the things you just try to adapt are already working. Protecting one vessel with another is simply a matter of positioning and movement.
Plus always shooting at the capital ships kills the fun to flank a squadron with something fast like light cruisers or an escort-only-squadron to hunt for juicy ships that try to hide. ;)
-
Damn two hours of pc fixing and now brethren was faster in answering, well I will just post it anyhow ...
Ok first of all:
- Valuables escorts can be protected by bigger ships.
I still think this concept is utterly preposterous, both in RL tactics and in the game. I truly don't know what escort is ever more valuable than a capital ship. Escorts escort their parent ships, not the other way around. ;)
Unless said escort is carrying the grand admiral for some wacky reason. Maybe attack craft? But then that's what massing turrets is for, especially when you can add on like a carrier or something.
Ja I said that wrong and there is a typo in my text. ::) It does somewhat seem strange, but it is far from preposterous. E.g. take escorts with supporting special rules, or those bought to primarily support with their turrets. Another example: a battleship with escorts is attacked by a random no-name cruiser, will the escorts play lemmings and die, or will the battleship man up and let its four shield protect its youngling. What I am trying to say here is: it can be a valid option although it may not seem reasonable at first.
Btw. in RL this is actually a very valid thing to do, of course depending on the different vessel types. But a battleship will most certainly not send its dedicated AAA-support ships ahead towards an enemy battleships and "seek cover behind them". Certain ships have certain tasks in a real life fleet and who ever is needed is just right there "in the front row". This has nothing to do with size or value - unless a cheap sacrifice has to be made. I guess you know where this is going ;)
Secondly ....
Now heres the twist. Before the Torment rolls any dice for damage Omega squadron's controlling player may elect to have them intercept the fire, this is an automatic action representing the escorts speed and willingness to defend their charges and no rolls are required. Any hits scored against the Iron Duke are instead applied to any ships of Omega squadron in range and fire arc, with roll over going to the Iron Duke, and finally the Agrippa.
Well I am fairly certain that would work too, but I am not really a fan of it because it implies that escorts magically jump in the line of fire no matter where they are. (Even an agile escort has limitations when it comes to moving in the enemys shooting phase ;) .) To clarify: In the picture omega squadron is close to the iron duke and even closer from the torments point of view, but what if omega squadron was actually 15 cm behind the iron duke ???? Guess those escorts jumping in from the background could become very annoying and I personally think maneuvering your ships is way to important in this game to allow for such "free" moves/ actions.
After all what brethren proposed does allow to protect the capital ship, but only if you manage to get the escort to actually be in between. Something that requires you to plan ahead but should not be too hard. However that means that escorts are exactly where they are located on the field, just like every other ship, no "imaginary jumping around" ;D. In addition: treating them like normal cruiser type ships is much more simple and straight forward because there are no new rules.
-
You also get even more dice to damage the escorts tho when you treat them like cruisers and theyre already fragile enough as is.
-
The fair price of playing meatshield for the big boys.
-
The fair price of playing meatshield for the big boys.
This is exactly the way I see it.
After all they do have to slow down and cruise infront of the slower ships. In addition I think this rule should have some downsides, tradeoffs if you will, and should not deliver superpowers or an instant-win button. It is a valid option that has to be chosen and used carefully.
-
The advantage of an escort over a capital ship in many cases is the ability to project it's full firepower while presenting a difficult target. The disadvantage, given the preponderance of 6-8 hit 2 shield cruisers is, well, survivability.
I could see, for example, a player hiding 2 cobras in a squadron with a dictator, getting into ordnance range and then attaching the cobras to the dictator's base. You're now launching a wave of 4 bombers and a combined wave (unless I missed a 2010 FAQ change here) of 10 torpedoes. The target cruiser's owner is going to be struggling to make that nasty call unless they have a 6+ prow to soak the torps.
In this case it would make sense for the Dictator to "escort" the escorts into range and then mob up to launch a big combined wave. I realize you could get substantially the same result with a 6-strong squadron of cobras or infidels, etc., and nearby attack craft waves, but the synergy offered here comes cheaper and with a much better chance of the cobras surviving perfectly intact until reaching strike range.
As to massing shields, that sounded neat until I had a "wait a minute!" moment. A core BFG mechanic has always been that blast markers in base contact wipe out one shield per marker on every touching ship. In fact, the rules for massing turrets by being in base contact, when they originally came out, explicitly stated that shield losses would apply to every ship in base contact. I can't possibly see a reason to break those rules by pushing escorts up against a capital ship's base, so I feel like that shouldn't (and hopefully isn't) be(ing) seriously considered. No offense meant by this comment!
Really, I think the problem is deeper. Either cruisers have too many hit points, escorts have too few, or there really aren't enough (or any aside from a handful of 4-hit CLs) vessels in between full ships of the line and fragile escorts.
And you know what? That might have been a deliberate thematic decision on the designers' parts.
If leadership checks didn't make it so easy to overlook the nearest target, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, in truth... (I'm almost certain I'm echoing at least one person in the thread by now)
EDIT: I walked away to get some coffee and had an epiphany.
Hellebores & Eclipses.
The Hellebore is heavily overgunned for an escort, and as a consequence way too costly and easy of a target too.
The one time my eldar friend tried proxying them... Yeah. It was too easy.
That said, as a combined arms strike, 2 Hellebores squadroned with an Eclipse would actually be worth it, especially if the cruiser were out front soaking for the escorts. On the turn you got in range, one lock-on order would get you firepower 4 batteries (vs capital ship, closing w. re-rolls, so shields down basically), 4 pulsar lances (w. re-rolls), 4 bombers and a combined wave (if you risked it) of 4 eldar torpedoes in the ordnance phase. Now THAT would really suck to be on the receiving end of, and the Eclipse could reasonably shepherd those flying VP sinks into range for the strike...
-
If you wanted the 'cruiser escorting escorts' tactic to be viable a very simple way to do it would be to just apply a negative modifier to the leadership check to not target the closest thing if the thing you want to target instead is smaller.
-
EDIT: I walked away to get some coffee and had an epiphany.
Hellebores & Eclipses.
The Hellebore is heavily overgunned for an escort, and as a consequence way too costly and easy of a target too.
The one time my eldar friend tried proxying them... Yeah. It was too easy.
That said, as a combined arms strike, 2 Hellebores squadroned with an Eclipse would actually be worth it, especially if the cruiser were out front soaking for the escorts. On the turn you got in range, one lock-on order would get you firepower 4 batteries (vs capital ship, closing w. re-rolls, so shields down basically), 4 pulsar lances (w. re-rolls), 4 bombers and a combined wave (if you risked it) of 4 eldar torpedoes in the ordnance phase. Now THAT would really suck to be on the receiving end of, and the Eclipse could reasonably shepherd those flying VP sinks into range for the strike...
That above scenario sounds exactly how hunter killer packs should work to me actually! IIRC Andy had that great article on the perponderence of AC vs escorts where he said, and I paraphrase, "where are the packs of frigates waiting in in the shadows of the cruisers ready to pounce". I think we're onto something good here.
-
@Dragon Lord
See, that's kind of the problem though. This started up as a "hey, wouldn't it be nice if escorts actually did what they were supposed to do an run interference for capital ships in BFG?" The problem is, they're basically too fragile yet carry a reasonable amount of firepower, and any sort of scenario in which cruisers and escorts squadron together becomes, tactically, a means of getting glass cannons into their effective range by using a larger cruiser as ablative shields for the escorts.
My point in my post was to demonstrate reasonably nasty scenarios that would come out of squadroning escorts in with cruisers, despite the well-meaning original goal of trying to find a way to use the escorts as ablative shields for cruisers.
I'm beginning to think that the best solution isn't mixed squadrons but rather some greater penalty for the leadership check to shoot past the nearest target. Give that roll a -1 or -2 modifier standard and now putting a squadron of escorts out in front of say an Avenger-class cruiser means that you'd actually have a decent chance of screening some hits for the bigger boat on the way in. I mean, the opponent could still pass that targeting check, but reliably beating it would require focusing a significant amount of resources on a single target.
For that matter, reducing the chance of beating the target priority roll still means that you could hide a wolf pack behind a cruiser without opening up the possibility of ridonkulous ordnance salvos. Retribution + 4 cobras would be what, 17 torpedoes in a single salvo? The other good example would be an Emperor or a Nemesis with 4 escort carriers forming a single bomber wave, plus, in that instance the Leadership boost plus likely admiral onboard the BB pretty much defeats the escorts' ordnance difficulties.
I'm looking for the horribly broken combos to illustrate the issues with the combined escort/cap ship squadron idea ;)
-
"When opting to shoot a target further than the closest, you must pass a leadership test at -2 if enemy escorts are a closer target, or else you must shoot at the closest target."
-
At the risk of spamming the heck out of the thread, AfterImageDan, I'd like to just see target priority swapping made harder. I'd really want to test it in a few competitive games with a few different fleets before settling on applying a -1 or -2 modifier across the board. I mean, -2 would screw Orks... but also represent their tendency to think short term without having to model extra rules into them anyway...
This way you could screen more effectively in both directions, ablative escorts covering cruisers and glass cannon nightmares stalking in the shadows of capital ships. It would make maneuvering even more vital for starters... Ok, I think I'm going to let some other folks chime in now.
-
Well yeah, with a big universal rule change like this, we should definitely play-test it. Do you mean you would like it to be harder, regardless of escorts or not?
-
Hm, interesting idea @ Modifier.
Playtesting sounds reasonable too, especially with those representatives from the high/ low moral areas.
In contrary I am not really sure if this will make escorts more popular or useable. I personally just like to shoot them, as Armiger84 said: glass canons. It is fairly easy to bring a squadron down in numbers / threat potential and once you killed a handful its around the same points as a cruiser.
A modifier would therefore not really bother me and I guess escorts would become a somewhat preferred target for a lot of people. And when hords of escorts go extinct in every battle I guess their popularity would drop as people start looking for stability in a "world of massacres". :-\ But that is just my point of view ...
P.s.
Retribution + 4 cobras would be what, 17 torpedoes in a single salvo?
So far I assumed there would only be a ratio of 2 escorts for 1 capital ship?
My point in my post was to demonstrate reasonably nasty scenarios that would come out of squadroning escorts in with cruisers, despite the well-meaning original goal of trying to find a way to use the escorts as ablative shields for cruisers.
The basic idea behind the mixed squadrons was that people will also set up pure escort-squadrons as a countermeasure. Being fast and agile they could easily fly on the other side of a capital ship where the escorts of the mixed squadron are not covered but sitting ducks. Quite a big assumption but in a perfect world this would result in way more escorts. ;D
-
@Mogwai:
I realize I was wrong about the number of escorts for a battleship, that said, 13 torpedoes and the durability of a battleship is still reasonably threatening to me!
@Everyone:
(essay on BFG incoming, skip to the "- - -" if you want the quick & dirty)
I want to explain my reasoning in a clear and concise manner, but I realize it's going to require a little bit of background first. So, the background: My experience with escorts in BFG in my gaming group was that they were taken in minimal quantities to fill out a fleet list to a set points total by the fleets that had lots of capital ship options (Imperials, Chaos), and taken in greater quantities by the players forced to rely on them (Eldar, Orks). Everyone generally acknowledged their fragility, and felt that their firepower and points cost didn't offset inevitable in-game attrition rates. In the case of the Eldar player, he never even bothered to field one escort type because he felt it was much too expensive and obvious of a target (and was he ever right, my Carnage-class cruisers LOVED his escorts). Escorts were used by the Imperials and Chaos fleets when they provided options difficult to obtain by other means. For example, I used a lot of Infidels to generate torpedoes and bog down fighter screens, and one of my Imperial friends used a lot of firestorms because he wanted to load up on lances to supplement his cruisers. Generally though, our experience was the same as most people on here seem to have had: we barely used them mostly because when anyone took large number of escorts, it already was a "world of massacres."
I do want to see more escorts in games, and I've made a point to try to field more myself. I just see some escorts as having rather limited uses. Iconoclasts and Falchions come to mind, for example. My Iconoclasts have spent more games proxying transports than they have actually engaging targets since the few times I used them as a screen for anything big, my opponents just fired past them.
My thinking is that it's too easy to select your targets in BFG. Average ship leadership ranges 6-9, mostly 7-8. So trying to roll less than or equal to a 7 or an 8 on 2 D6 generally isn't too bad; you'll manage it around 1/2 to 2/3 of the time (disclaimer: I was an English & Government major in college. I realize the more math-minded people in the room are wincing right now). For highly trained crews (Space Marines, CSM, Eldar), leadership ranges 7-10. Furthermore, my experience has demonstrated that players tend to put Leadership boosting characters (Admirals, Chaos Lords) on Battleships, Grand Cruisers, and Heavy/Battlecruisers, pairing high leadership scores with long-range weaponry. The practical result is that target priority and rolling a leadership check to ignore a nearer target in favor of a more distant target has generally been pretty easy to accomplish regularly.
So, what does this have to do with escorts? Well, the obvious answer is that I can't use my Iconoclasts to screen my Desolator when Mars-class Battlecruiser with the Nova Cannon can lob shells right past them. Furthermore, I never had much trouble picking off my Eldar friend's Hemlocks early-game with my Carnages, even when he had his Aconites in the way. I've never had much trouble picking off a flanking squadron of Cobras before they've made it into position for an attack run either. My experience has been that even with average leadership scores, it is not difficult at all for a player to override the "shoot the nearest target" rule and apply his firepower to the most tactically beneficial target.
This thread started discussing fleet lists and evolved quickly into "ok, nobody takes Escorts."
Part of the problem IMO is that escorts don't actually escort with the current squadron rules which is really their purpose in the WW1/2 Naval analog. The other, as is pointed out, is that gunships are actually a separate beast that should work in hunter packs, especially vessels like Firestorms, and should be priced as such to encourage larger packs in fleet list construction. But I'm with Horizon, they can pack a huge punch and are always present when I game. :)
Jimmy's point is that nobody's actually using escorts to escort capital ships in the manner that they were used in the rough historical analogue for Battlefleet Gothic.
@AndrewChristlieb:
Upon thinking about it a bit more, maybe we need to invent a kind of 'super-grouping' for capital ships with escorts.... Since, as always, we have problems like, "Why can't my carrier reload ordnance while the other ships lock on?" or, "Bobby the Mauler braced for impact, it's lamer than a starving duck that I can't lock on with my other ships! If only they could use orders separately for some situations...." (No ducks were hurt in the making of this post)
I think that the BFG squadron rules (and their freedom) actually really suit combined squadrons because one has the freedom of protecting the capital's rear and being able to re-manoeuvre as needed with the escort's mobility. Also, changing the way capital squadrons work could make it easier to modify the Special Orders rules (if we so desired), e.g. to make add more fleet-like ones (rather than the very 'personal' ones we currently have).
Thinking Stone brought the suggestion that we combine capital ships and escorts in a squadron as a way of getting escorts more play, and this morphed into discussions about using escorts to soak hits for the capital ship(s) or using the capital ship(s) to soak hits for the escorts. I personally don't like the idea of combined squadrons (Cruisers and Escorts) mostly because it pretty much moves immediately into the wound allocation shenanigans of WH40K 5th Edition (and by the False Emperor, I really started to wonder why I was even reading BOLS for a while there, but that's another story...), and I honestly feel like we can get the same effect without altering the game rules in that manner.
This is where my idea of reducing ships' leadership when attempting Target Priority rolls came into play. My thinking is the average ship has a leadership value of 7-8, and the average ship with a commander onboard has a leadership of at least 8, often higher. A 2D6 roll means that ship is successfully firing at whatever target it feels like close to 2/3 of the time, but if that leadership suffered a -2 modifier... things would get interesting. At that point, most ships without commanders have a pretty good chance of failing 50% of the time to have the initiative to shoot at a more distant target. This in turn will force those ships to focus on nearer threats. The fleet's "Heroes" will still have at least a 50% chance of using their initiative and acting heroically, hitting the more tactically vital target over the obvious threat.
So how would this impact escorts? Well, in a couple of ways:
1) A player could choose to use some squadrons of escorts as living shields for strategically vital capital ships. A good example would be a Chaos player using Iconoclasts as a living shield for a battleship, or an Armageddon fleet's Falchions serving double duty as ablative shields and attack craft removal.
2) If juicy point-sink escorts with a lot of combat potential now have a decent chance of being protected by a moving screen of other escorts or cruisers, those one-hit glass cannons might actually be tempting to their owner to use. For example, a squadron of Eldar Nightshade torpedo destroyers could actually run interference for a squadron of Eldar Hellebores, allowing those 75pt escorts to get in closer before they start taking concentrated fire.
3) My real hope is that forcing people to shoot more frequently at the nearest target will actually generate more tactical play. If the manner in which you deploy your order of battle actually matters (read: I don't just chuckle at the line cruisers in front of your Emperor and immediately point every 60cm lance and battery in my fleet at it), then we as admirals actually have to put some thought into who's going to be taking damage first, when to overlap positions in the gun line, and flanking forces finally start to matter! I've used slaughters and small idolator squadrons for years in a wide sprint & arc maneuver to get serious firepower into people's backfield, and it works! There just isn't really a major tactical incentive to keep ships screened or out of the game for a turn or two currently.
- - -
So, for everyone I lost way back in that massive essay, here's the executive summary. My hope is that by making Target Priority rolls difficult to pass consistently, players will have the room needed to actually make ship deployment a meaningful choice. This ideally would mean that a player could use a cheap squadron of escorts as a screen for a capital ship, or that a player could hide a big threat (6 cobras in massed torpedo salvo position?) behind a line cruiser, or even that cruisers could actually provide cover for other cruisers. I feel like it's too easy to pick the most threatening target and wallop it with crushing amounts of fire, and simply single-target focus-fire your way through an enemy's fleet. Heck, I'm guilty of it myself.
Edit: I do realize that this might not necessarily increase the frequency with which people use escorts. After all, old habits do die hard, and many of us BFG admirals are pretty seasoned and might be set in our ways. That said, my theory is that forcing shooting at the nearest target most of the time would make positioning actually matter for more than just which guns you use to hit the other ship with, and that that in turn would render more strategies viable. Kinda hoping that a simpler fix would get the same, or better results than a more complex and difficult to balance fix.
-
Why all this in depth rule change? Especially regarding target priority. Also remember that it is best to keep things flowing within the existing ruleset (for what that's worth with the GW action...).
For me these changes should be incorporated:
1) Escorts must be mandatory per fleet. Eg. Per cruiser you must have (at least) 2 escorts. This is background wise most reasonable. However this is race dependant. For IN & Chaos 2 per 1 is fine. For Craftworld Eldar operating away from the Craftworld it should be 0 per 1. For Corsair Eldar 5 per 1 for example.
2) Squadrons: allow one escort squadron to squadron with 1 capital ship. Use the standard squadron rules (eg nearest target is being hit, so player can choose what he wants to be hit.). This flows best imo
2a) Should we allow super squadrons? eg 3 cruisers + 3 escort squadrons?
@ Amiger,
on the Hellebore a lot you say is true. It was poo. But it got a hefty point sink in the FAQ2010 rules -> 65pts. Aconite to 55pts.
Eldar MMS fixed it as well.
Oh...
This thread started discussing fleet lists and evolved quickly into "ok, nobody takes Escorts."
regular~1500pts:
Chaos: 9 escorts...
Imperial Navy: 9 escorts
Tau CPF: 9 escorts (or +2, depending on Emissary variant).
AdMech: 6 escorts
CWE: 3 or 4 escorts
Corsair Eldar: 15 escorts
Rogue Trader: in the works, but I reckon at least 9.
-
Was debating making this an edit to my post, but I figured I'd leave my reasoning up.
@Horizon:
I really should read the Eldar MMS rules. They're sitting on my hard drive, I just haven't gotten around to them yet.
Generally:
So I spent some time rolling dice. -2 LD on target priority rolls sounded really good in my head, until I started logging results and really thought about what an average 5-6 or less on 2D6 looked like (it's been a while since playing my brother's Orks, and almost half his fleet was brute ramships... should give you a pretty good idea of the breadth of his Special Orders use).
I thought I had a simple & elegant solution, and realize now my idea would have simply taken the possiblity of target priority overrides out of the game more or less entirely. I'm not even sure a -1 LD on target priority would be a good idea either, so heavy retrenchment on my part now that I've actually run some numbers.
I still don't entirely like the idea of mixing cruisers and escorts in a squadron, but I'll acknowledge that even my potential ordnance power combos aren't any worse than some of the things we can do now with only a little more effort.
I support the idea of making escorts mandatory and having an escort to capital ship ratio. Bare minimum 1:1 for cruiser-heavy navies, different for raider navies. Finding escorts might be a little tricky now that the metal's gone, but that's a discussion for another thread.
-
@Horizon:
I really should read the Eldar MMS rules. They're sitting on my hard drive, I just haven't gotten around to them yet.
Please do! They are fantastic on many levels.
-
Alright some big posts :)
@ Armiger84:
Wanted to discuss some things about you text (you made some valid points there) but now that you dropped the overall-idea I will just throw in one thing:
What about a to-hit modifier when shooting through a squadron at a target behind them? (E.g. a column shift)
Would be a similar approach to the original one you had, just moral-independent. And it could probably even be combined with the mixed squadrons, if needed. But that was a rather spontanious idea so I am not yet sure if there a considerable downsides ...
Now back to the ugly business ;D
Escorts must be mandatory per fleet.
Words like that make me shiver and I swear I heard a wolf howling in the distance :-\. I mean forcing people to take cruisers for battlechruiser and battleships is one thing. The game is centered around cruisers, they are the mainstay of every fleet and they provide the most variety.
Escorts on the other hand offer only limited options and variety. Sometimes I even have the impression that for some races nobody gave a damn about them and they where just added somehow, for the sake of having escorts at all - well my thoughts are not that radical but I guess you get where I am going with this. Kinda like uninspired stopgaps.
Armiger84 made a very good point about this:
Escorts were used by the Imperials and Chaos fleets when they provided options difficult to obtain by other means.
Most certainly there are fleets that use escorts in bigger numbers already. But some don't, just like armiger said here. E.g. Imperium: Why? Just take a light cruiser and be done with it. In comparison to light cruisers escorts do not deliver any real benefits to the fleet and are therefore ignored.
Just to take this to a new level, I once discussed the idea of delivering benefits and my ideas - although to radical to really include them - were: chaos escorts with torpedoes, or imperial escorts with R 45 cm, escorts with fleet defense turrets, btw. that was around the same time as escorts with 2 hits came up. I know, I know its a bit over the top but that would be escorts that really provide a benefit and I would get them for their benefits without being forced to do so.
All in all: forcing people to take escorts should only be included if every race has decent options to choose from, at least simple 2 hit versions of a basic type for some stability. Please do not get me wrong here I want to see more escorts, but right now I fail to see the perspective. And forcing me to take them feels like shiting in my hands because they where cold :-\.
-
Why escorts were not a mandatory choice from the start still baffles me, I imagine its because the designers assumed people wouldnt be douchbags and ignore them compleatly.
I would support a push to make them manditory but really I still think escorts should fulfill fleet requirements. Basically if your fleet requires you to field x cruisers for y bigger ships why cant a certain number of escorts also fulfill the requirement of a cruiser? Something like each escort squadron containing four or more models counts as a cruiser for fleet requirements. For other fleets it would need to be different. Tau may be for every six escorts you may field an additional Hero, Orks might be for every 10 escorts you may field an Ork battlekroozer or battleship, etc...
-
Alright some big posts :)
@ Armiger84:
Wanted to discuss some things about you text (you made some valid points there) but now that you dropped the overall-idea I will just throw in one thing:
What about a to-hit modifier when shooting through a squadron at a target behind them? (E.g. a column shift)
Funny, I almost suggested that a while back but didn't. Is it actually workable in practice though.
Just to take this to a new level, I once discussed the idea of delivering benefits and my ideas - although to radical to really include them - were: chaos escorts with torpedoes, or imperial escorts with R 45 cm, escorts with fleet defense turrets, btw. that was around the same time as escorts with 2 hits came up. I know, I know its a bit over the top but that would be escorts that really provide a benefit and I would get them for their benefits without being forced to do so.
I'm less enthused about 2hit escorts as a blanket concept personally. I think perhaps frigates would make sense like that personally but Destroyer/Raiders, probably not. Of course I think some of Plaxors ideas around the latter being able to navigate celestrial phenomena better were interesting and other bonuses to vessel types that allow them to fit in a specific niche If we start going down that path though we might as well go full DERP and go all the way then.