Some questions about the handling of "attack fighters" came up a couple of
weeks ago and I was hoping to get an official clarification.
In MT it states that attack fighters get a +1 on die rolls; and thus do
one point of damage on a roll of 3 or 4 and two points on a 5 or 6.
Now normally in FT/MT, the beam weapon and fighter damage progression
is:
target 1,2 3 4 5 6 average sum of 6 rolls
screen 3 - - - - 1 1
screen 2 - - - 1 1 2
screen 1 - - - 1 2 3
screen 0 - - 1 1 2 4
One would presume if this progression continued it would look like this:
target 1,2 3 4 5 6 average sum of 6 rolls
screen -1 - - 1 2 2 5
screen -2 - 1 1 2 2 6
If one did it this way it means that attack fighters get a two level bonus
instead of the one that is implied.
> From the way attack fighters are described however, I have to presume
target 1,2 3 4 5 6 average sum of 6 rolls
screen 3 - - - 1 1 2
screen 2 - - 1 1 1 3
screen 1 - - 1 2 2 5
screen 0 - 1 1 2 2 6
Now if you use them with Fleet Book rules regarding beam weapons, the question
comes up of how "roll ups" on a 6 are handled.
If attack fighters roll up on a natural six, then the damage looks like this:
target 1,2 3 4 5 6 rollups average sum of 6 rolls
screen 2 - - 1 1 1 0.6 3.6
screen 1 - - 1 2 2 1.0 6.0
screen 0 - 1 1 2 2 1.2 7.2
Compared to the normal beam weapon (and fighter) damage progression of:
target 1,2 3 4 5 6 rollups average sum of 6 rolls
screen 2 - - - 1 1 0.8 2.8
screen 1 - - - 1 2 0.8 3.8
screen 0 - - 1 1 2 0.8 4.8
and the torpedo fighter damage progression of:
target 1,2,3 4,5,6 rollups average sum of 6 rolls
any - 3.5 none 10.5
If the "+1 to the die roll" mechanic is taken to its illogical
conclusion, however, a roll of 5 would become 6 and thus qualify for rolling
up. In this case, the damage would look like this:
target 1,2 3 4 5 6 rollups average sum of 6 rolls
screen 2 - - 1 1 1 1.5 4.5
screen 1 - - 1 2 2 2.5 7.5
screen 0 - 1 1 2 2 3.0 9.0
However it is handled, attack fighters seem to be either overpowered or under
priced. Looking at either set of numbers, I think I would rather face a
squadron of torpedo fighters than these little terrors; at least there would
only be one turn of torpedo attacks, while the attack fighters just keep
coming back for more. And standard combat endurance in the Fleet Book is what,
six turns, now?
> At 09:42 AM 10/14/98 -0500, I wrote:
Oops. Should have been:
target 1,2 3 4 5 6 rollups average sum of 6 rolls
screen 2 - - - 1 1 0.4 2.4
screen 1 - - - 1 2 0.6 3.6
screen 0 - - 1 1 2 0.8 4.8
> Jeff Lyon wrote:
> >Compared to the normal beam weapon (and fighter) damage progression
No - you were right the first time round!
> Jeff Lyon wrote:
> In MT it states that attack fighters get a +1 on die rolls; and thus
Yes.
> Now normally in FT/MT, the beam weapon and fighter damage progression
Yes.
> One would presume if this progression continued it would look like
You've mixed Screen-1 and Screen-2 up, but otherwise correct.
> If one did it this way it means that attack fighters get a two level
The MT rules don't mention or imply a "one level bonus" - they clearly
state that the Attack Fighters get a +1 to all anti-ship fire, which
gives exactly the effect you've noted here.
You are of course free to change it if you wish! :-)
> Now if you use them with Fleet Book rules regarding beam weapons, the
Only apply the re-roll on natural rolls of "6" (or only to modified
results giving exactly 6). The +1 gives you extra damage, but not extra
re-rolls.
> If attack fighters roll up on a natural six, then the damage looks
Um... no, this isn't correct. You've forgotten that the re-roll damage
isn't reduced by screens - the averages should be 4.2, 6.2 and 7.2
respectively.
> Compared to the normal beam weapon (and fighter) damage progression
Yep.
> If the "+1 to the die roll" mechanic is taken to its illogical
Sure, you can do it this way. However, at the same time, the 6 becomes a
7, which does *not* qualify for a re-roll according to the rules!
> Looking at either set of numbers, I think I would rather
Up to six attack turns, yes - but if you manage to shoot this many times
without losing your fighters, your enemy is doing something seriously
wrong IMO :-/
The relative fighter costs in the FB are straight from MT, though - no
adjustment at all. They will probably change in FT3, just like the beam
batteries changed in the FB :-)
Regards.
> At 08:58 PM 10/14/98 +0100, you wrote:
Well, you're probably right on that count, but it did create a serious
questions regarding play balance.
Here's how the situation came up. In our Imperium campaign, we've limited
fighter purchases to basic combos of less than 25 points. This was because in
Imperium fighters cost 1 RU and the conversion rate is 1 RU = 25 FT points.
Also because fighters are useful, but not overwhelming. We thought about just
sticking to basic fighters, but opted to try this instead.
The Terrans (NSL) player had purchased several squadrons of attack fighters
and stationed them in various key systems along with his handful of ships.
Exactly how many and where they were was unknown, since we are using "bogey"
movement. The Vilani (FSE) player had managed to divert most of the Terran
ships chasing off scouts and decided to launch a probing attack on a key
system, expecting it to be lightly defended.
His main fleet, a Jerez, two Suffrens and four Ibizas jumped into the system.
Total point value of the force: 899 points. The defenders had 6
squadrons of planet-based attack fighters; total value: 144 points.
On turn one, the fighters concentrated their attacks on the heavy cruiser. On
turn two they split their attacks between the two light cruisers. On turn 3
the Ibizas managed to activate their jump drives and escape the
5+
remaining enemy squadrons.
Now, in our after-action debrief the Vilani player admitted that he does
not usually play with fighters and so did not have a real sense of what he was
up against. He said that if he had, he would have jumped as soon as the
fighters were spotted. Since he did not, he came in "fat and happy" and got
reamed.
Now there are several factors going on here and we're taking steps to remedy
some of them already.
First of all, none of the "representative ship designs" of the FSE presented
in the Fleet Book have any AFDC assets, so it really wouldn't made a
difference if these had been standard fighters. While it could be argued that
the FSE are supposed to bring along those big carriers and lots of their own
fighters, this kind lopsided battle begs the question of why they should even
bring ships (other than carriers) in the first place? And how can a small
force that can't afford a carrier compete? And what about those of us who want
to have fighters as part of a balanced force but don't want to recreate the
Marianas Turkey Shoot in space?
Second, there is the Imperium play balance question; fighters are useful in
Imperium but not overwhelming. Part of that is the "screening" rules in the
game which would prevent six of anything from singling out one target at a
time and destroying it. While this isn't really a problem for ships since any
ship can fire at any other ship in range, fighters can ONLY be fired upon by
the ship they are attacking and ships within 6" which are equipped with AFDC.
This is one of the reasons I made AFDC standard on all of the v.2 ships I just
finished designing recently. It eliminates the invulnerability of fighters to
other ships in the task force that occurred in the above battle. The other
alternative would have be to adopt one of several generally unsatisfactory
house rules to force the outcomes into more of a balance.
Third, there is the question of generic play balance. Are attack fighters as a
system more powerful than is warranted for their cost? Is a mere 24 points
fair for that kind of killing power? Does it seem lopsided in comparison to
standard or even torpedo fighters? Lord knows, it wouldn't be the first time
something from MT got declared "unbalancing" now would
it? ;)
We've tossed around the idea of adopted a house rule that another of the
players from our group uses which essentially imposes a -1 penalty on
fighters when engaging ships. I suspect this may have been a result of this
very sort of thing. Before we go and impose an across the board penalty on all
fighters, I wanted to get an official take on the attack fighter question to
see if perhaps we were handling it wrong or if it was a "known bug" that had
already been addressed.
> Jeff wrote:
> >Up to six attack turns, yes - but if you manage to shoot this many
> The Terrans (NSL) player had purchased several squadrons of attack
Makes life a lot more interesting, it does :-)
> The Vilani (FSE) player had managed to divert most of
If it is a key system, it shouldn't be lightly defended... <g>
> His main fleet, a Jerez, two Suffrens and four Ibizas jumped into the
Ah, that was what happened. Not too strange, then - the fighter costs,
both in MT and FB, assume that you have already had to pay for the carrier
(which increases the cost of each fighter squadron by at least 39
FB points - and that's in a Fragile-hulled orbital base with no engines.
If you want thrust-2 and FTL, you're looking at 48+ pts support systems
per squadron instead.).
[battle summary snipped]
> Now, in our after-action debrief the Vilani player admitted that he
Going up against an enemy which you basically can't hit tends to be a rather
bad idea, yes...
It sounds as if the FSE/Vilani player flew fairly slowly though, or at
least didn't maneuver much. I don't remember what movement system you
used, but the FSE ships are fast - all the ships in this battle are
Thrust-6. Under Cinematic movement, this is quite enough to force the
fighters to spread out if they want to hit the enemy fast even with the
endurance-burning secondary moves; under FB movement you have to place
the fighters carefully to ensure catching the enemy without burning combat
endurance on flying rather than shooting. If the fighters in addition have to
protect their base (which they didn't, in this case), they can quickly find
themselves in trouble.
> Now there are several factors going on here and we're taking steps to
No. Well, the battle might have taken a turn longer, but that's no real
difference - 6 standard squadrons kill a Jerez in more than half of the
cases, and cripples it in the rest..
> While it could be
Because their carriers are darn expensive, and rather vulnerable to a more
balanced force with decent ADFC coverage. The FSE doctrine is to use fighters
against fighters (and against SMs), and to be the supreme SM
user - and given that their main "historical" enemy is the NSL (with few
fighters and missiles), it works. Against pure fighter forces which gets its
"carrier" for free it doesn't.
> And how can a small force that can't afford a carrier compete?
Against ground-based fighters, force them to pay for the ground base as
well as the fighters themselves. If the base is destroyed, the fighters
die from lack of maintenance - even if they manage to kill the
attackers...
Small forces shouldn't be able to compete with large forces, though -
they should have to withdraw out of weapons range, or die...
> And what about
Balanced forces is what I usually fight with, both in FT and FB... apart from
regularly outflying the fighters (when cruisers usually run around
at speed 20-30, fighters just couldn't keep up) prior to the FB changes,
I've had very few Turkey Shoot situations where the fighters are massacred
without accomplishing anything.
> Second, there is the Imperium play balance question; fighters are
Equally important, you can shoot at them from afar - and a Vilani CA
kills a fighter squadron on a D6 roll of 4 at long range (or 3 at short),
while the Terran fighter squadron can only kill it on a 7 at long range
and 6 at short - so if this had been an Imperium battle, at least
one-third of the fighters would've died before they had had a real
chance
to shoot back :-/
The best use I get out of fighters (and scout ships) in Imperium is tying
up enemy units so my heavies can gang up on the dangerous foes - in FT,
it's the other way around :-)
> While this isn't really a problem for ships
Yep.
> This is one of the reasons I made AFDC standard on all of the v.2
Good thinking, especially considering how SM-heavy (and slow, in the
Terran case) the designs are. Compared to the amount of missiles flying
around, you may still find that the ships are a bit light on PDS.
> Third, there is the question of generic play balance. Are attack
Add in the carrier as well. Is 63+ points fair for that kind of killing
power (equal to an SML with at least 3 shots, and about as hard to defend
against)?
> Does it seem lopsided in comparison to standard or even torpedo
Not really.
Standard fighters eat Attack fighters for lunch in a dogfight, and aren't bad
against ships either Torpedo fighters are specialised against heavily screened
and defended targets, and are very effective if they get
to shoot - lots of damage fast, unless your dice are cursed. I think the
relative costs between these three are quite OK.
> Lord knows, it wouldn't be the first time something from MT got
No. In this case, though, I don't think it is that bad - not compared to
Kra'Vak or MT missiles, anyway <g>
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Only missiles or ortillery systems should be able to attack ground bases if
you are using the FT background. However, fighters that have to launch from
the ground and claw their way up out of the atmosphere and the gravity well
should have to expend time and combat endurance doing it! Even if it's just
one combat turn out of the atmosphere and one to
return to base, it should cut down on the effectiveness of ground-based
fighters.
Alternately, you might assume either two turns to launch and one or none
to return (maybe they can glide home, or have efficient dual-breathers),
or one or none to launch (using catapults or Southern Cross-style
boosters) but two to get home (gee, my heat shielding and glide
characteristics don't work so well after I've taken minor combat damage).