> Tom McCarthy wrote:
Actually in the FB2, the rules for Torpedo fighters changed a bit and I
haven't seen any discussion on it so I thought I'd bring it up.
The to-hit roll is the same (4+) but the change is in how damage is
determined. Instead of rolling a 2nd d6 for damage, the torpedo does damage
equal to the result of the to-hit roll (4, 5 or 6, a 1-3 is a miss).
This saves a roll and results in a higher average damage per hit (5 instead of
3.5) and higher average damage per shot (2.5 instead of 1.75).
What do the masses think?
> Tom McCarthy wrote:
This
> saves a roll and results in a higher average damage per hit (5 instead
Erm now I'm confused...........I thought attack fighters got a +1 on the
dice roll. I don't have FB2 with me but if torpedo fighters cause damage as
per normal rolling then what do attack fighters get? Do attack fighters still
exist in FB2?
> Erm now I'm confused...........I thought attack fighters got a +1 on
They do. They don't. As before. Yes.
Die Damage Roll Attack Torpedo
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 1 0
4 1 4
5 2 5
6 2 6
Hope that clears it up.
> Erm now I'm confused...........I thought attack fighters got a +1 on
They do. They don't. As before. Yes.
Die Damage Roll Attack Torpedo
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 1 0
4 1 4
5 2 5
6 2 6
Hope that clears it up.
Steve
> > Tom McCarthy wrote:
Nope damage is not per normal beam dice, its the actual result of the
to-hit
roll. Sorry if I wasn't clear, see below for a better explanation
> then what do attack fighters get?
Attack fighters are the same as in MT.
Torpedo Fighters in MT: 4+ to-hit then a second d6 rolled and result is
damage.
Torpedo Fighters in FB2: 4+ to-hit and any hit does damage equal to the
result of the to-hit roll (4, 5, or 6 points of damage).
Attack Fighters: Get +1 on roll and do normal beam type damage (1 point
on a
natural roll of 3-4, 2 points on a natural roll of 5-6, and reroll only
on a natural roll of 6).
Torpedo Fighters: Hit on 4+ (ignore screens), and do damage equal to the
to-hit roll (i.e. 4, 5, or 6), combat other fighters as Attack fighters
do (i.e. need a 6 do do 1 point of damage), and use up all thier endurance
when they fire the torpedo).
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> On 15-Jun-00 at 10:18, Dean Gundberg (dean.gundberg@noridian.com) wrote:
Time to start thinking about adding Torp fighters to my mix.:)
> Attack Fighters: Get +1 on roll and do normal beam type damage (1
Ok now I've got ya.:)
I'm tempted to ignore the FTFB2 write up for torpedo fighters. Although I
haven't played them, my gut says they're too powerful.
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:29:43 -0400, "Tom.McCarthy" writes:
Although I
> haven't played them, my gut says they're too powerful.
They also got much more expensive.
MT torpedo fighters were +24 per group (IIRC) and averaged 10.5 damage
per strike.
FB2 torpedo fighters are +36 per group and average 15 damage points
per strike.
Without including all the other costs, I couldn't tell you if the price change
made them better or worse, but they are paying for the extra damage.
Sorry, Matthew. My recollection is that Torpedo fighters cost about the same
as always (18 pts per flight more than standard fighters).
Unless the new morale rules have proven a huge disadvantage for them (and may
have, since they would be preferred PDS targets), I don't think the damage
increase has been balanced by any other disadvantage.
***
I'm tempted to ignore the FTFB2 write up for torpedo fighters. Although I
haven't played them, my gut says they're too powerful.
***
I certainly understand. My limited experience with fighters is they tend to be
Bantha Poodoo; one shot seems their normal mode anyway. Though, I'll have to
take another look at FB2.
If adjustments ARE needed, how about things like endurance requirements for an
attack:
***
and use up all thier endurance when they fire the torpedo).
***
so that their endurance to target is limited. Admittedly, this only matters IF
you use the endurance rules.
Otherwise, how about torpedo fighters have to drop their torpedoes if they are
engaged in dogfight. Using interceptors to pull teeth even if they're
unsuccessful in the attempt to slap down. This may be TOO much of a
restriction, though.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:49:02 -0400, "Tom.McCarthy" writes:
I believe I am incorrect. Oops.:(
I was reading FB2 as adds 6 per fighter, not costs 6 per fighter. The Torp
fighters do appear to have gotten a big boost in damage output for no cost.
Hmmm.
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:49:02 -0400, "Tom.McCarthy" writes:
Look I'm the guy that had 4 groups of fighters wiped out by Sa'vasku
interceptor pods flying all over the place in a matter of seconds. I'm quite
happy if my few remaining torp bombers can still do some damage.
Anyway you'll only get me started on that fighters wouldn't exist in future
space warfare discussion that was had about a month or so after I joined the
list. (I can always bring up the flat top carriers in space topic):)
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:29:43 -0400, "Tom.McCarthy" writes:
Although I
> >haven't played them, my gut says they're too powerful.
> MT torpedo fighters were +24 per group (IIRC) and averaged 10.5 damage
It was +18.
> FB2 torpedo fighters are +36 per group and average 15 damage points
Technically, they're still +18... normal fighters cost 18 points,
torpedo bombers cost 36. So if you wanted a torpedo bomber group over a
regular fighter or interceptor group, the cost is still the same.
> Without including all the other costs, I couldn't tell you if the
Well, having been accused of playing altogether too many fighters in my time
*grin* I thought maybe I ought to sound off on this.
First off... yes, this does make torpedo bombers a lot nastier, getting almost
half again the average damage. Whether I'd consider that a good enough reason
to use them in a custom game over other options depends.
In MT, torpedo bombers were pretty much _the_ assault weapon of choice
for a
carrier force. It wasn't a matter of _whether_ you threw them at
people, it was a matter of how many of them you threw and how many other
fighters
and/or
interceptors you put between them and enemy fighters to keep them save long
enough to pulverize two or three capital ships per run. Flying just about
any other sort of fighter for an anti-ship role was practically useless
under
human tech because _every_ front-line ship had level 3 screens, and
exposing your fighters to point defense fire for the piddly damage you'd get,
even
from attack fighters, simply was not cost-effective, especially when you
only got three to five shots. (Torpedo bombers = 10.5 points per group, only
one point defense counterattack. Attack fighters = 6 points per group per
endurance run, and they get three shots back at you.)
In FB1, that changed a bit, to a degree that torpedo bombers were no longer
anywhere near as cost-effective. There are a lot of tradeoffs, such
that screens might not be such a given any more. You can't even put up level 3
screens any more, which helps beam-based fighters right there. In
addition, your drives and hull integrity are no longer free... so if you take
screens,
you might be knocking off a third or more of your hull integrity and/or
speed,
when the benefit isn't necessarily all that automatic any more -- the
weapons that can penetrate screens got better and armor is a cheaper and more
all-
purpose alternative. For that matter, fighters were permitted twice as many
shots as they had in MT.
So in FB1, what we wind up with is, you could do a lot more damage to ships
with beam fighters than you could before (even against level 2 screens, a
fighter group can still do an average of 2.8 * 6 damage to a ship, which is
better than the 10.5 a torpedo bomber group will), although it did mean that
you exposed yourself to that much more point defense fire to do it. However,
the ability to do that much more damage even to a screened ship, without
having to sack your dogfighting power while you're at it, led _me_, at
least,
to seriously re-think whether there was really any cost-effective
benefit to springing for the bombers any more (especially when fighters in
general got that much more expensive than they used to be just to carry the
basic ones).
I pretty quickly arrived at the conclusion that the most cost-effective
way to throw fighters at people for all purposes was just to pile on the
regular varmints and forget about specializing pretty much altogether. If you
expected to get out-fightered you might want to give some thought to
interceptors, and if you thought you might have to slug it out against a stiff
area defense network you might give some thought to heavy fighters... but
after about one or two games I never gave a terrific amount of thought
to throwing torpedo bombers for all-purpose use any more.
Whether I change my mind on that in FB2 when people pointed this out... I
don't know. If I'm playing a custom game I can just as easily stick
K-guns
on my fighters and, while I'll trade off a little bit of anti-ship power
against the unscreened ships, that still means I can assure that I'm going to
pile up 24 points of damage per endurance run... though I will have to expose
myself to point defense fire more. I'm not sure that torpedo bombers are
really going to be worth the extra expense over that option, even with the
change, because you're still sacking your dogfighting power badly enough for
them that I can think of two circumstances that I'd have to estimate being the
case before I'd throw them in a serious fighter battle:
1. I can put enough fighters between them and an enemy that I can protect them
long enough to actually hit someone. For the number of bombers I'd probably
need to make a difference in a battle, that's going to mean that I'd need a
lot more fighters than the other guy, such that I'm not convinced at
all that you'd win against an all-regulars force with any equal number
of
combined interceptors/heavies up front with bombers in back.
2. I'm worried that exposing fighters to point defense fire will get too
costly for the amount of damage I'll inflict per attack.
It sort of boils down to what I'm expecting. If I can expect I'll run into
negligible fighter resistance I might throw a lot of torpedo bombers, sure. If
I think I'm up against a dreadnought force that will throw both enough
fighters to force me to stay honest in a dogfight and enough area defense to
make it really costly to the bombers coming through, I might not want to
try that. If I'm up against a serious carrier force, I _definitely_
don't want to try that.
I think all-regulars is still the best all-around option for a carrier
force that doesn't want to gamble.
> Dean Gundberg wrote:
> Actually in the FB2, the rules for Torpedo fighters changed a bit and
Dunno, but I think it is something Jon didn't bring up on the playtest list,
or I would've shot it down immediately. Particularly since it is paired with
the FB2 fighter reloading rule...
Interesting to see Stiltman's analysis where he assumes that the
(non-Torp) fighters would on average take no losses at all to enemy
PDS, while *at the same time* constantly pointing out that they're exposed to
PD fire.
Regards,
On 15-Jun-00 at 12:26, stiltman@teleport.com (stiltman@teleport.com)
wrote:
> So in FB1, what we wind up with is, you could do a lot more damage to
Um, I show a beam fighter group doing 0.8 * 6 damage against UNSCREENED
targets. Attack fighters only do 1.2 per against unscreened targets.
Against level 2 screens normal beam fighters groups do 0.47 * 6 damage.
> On 15-Jun-00 at 12:26, stiltman@teleport.com (stiltman@teleport.com)
wrote:
> > So in FB1, what we wind up with is, you could do a lot more damage
> Um, I show a beam fighter group doing 0.8 * 6 damage against
Clarification: I was referring to how much damage they'd do over a full
endurance cycle, not just in one shot.
On 15-Jun-00 at 15:12, stiltman@teleport.com (stiltman@teleport.com)
wrote:
> > On 15-Jun-00 at 12:26, stiltman@teleport.com (stiltman@teleport.com)
You get full endurance cycles? I must be doing something wrong. Usually I give
up 2 CEF acquiring the target and then lose significant numbers to PDS and
interceptor fire.
My guess would be the damage would be (0.8 * 4) + (0.8 * 2) for total
damage done. A pure torp force would of course do (2.5 * 4).
That of course assumes I have a slightly stronger force than my opponent has
defenses. If he has more defenses run those numbers way down.
> Oerjan wrote:
Uhhhhh... Oerjan... please stop skimming my posts and then mis-stating
what I say as though I'm out of my mind. I did not, in any way, at any point
in my comments on fighters, make any implied or expressed assumption that beam
fighters would take no losses to enemy PDS, and repeatedly commented that this
is a factor in deciding whether or not I'd want to take beam fighters as
opposed to torpedo fighters: beam fighters, in attacking enemy ships, are
going to be exposed to point defense more often in order to inflict their
damage. I said this pretty bluntly a good two or three times
in that post. I have _no_ idea whatosever where the heck you're getting
any sort of assumption to the opposite effect out of me.
The reasons I feel that all-regulars is the most cost-effective way of
stocking your fighters are (a) there is a risk that you take in equipping
large numbers of torpedo bombers because if an enemy flies a similar number of
total fighters
_without_ arming them as bombers, your fighters are going to lose the
fighter superiority battle, in which case you just provided a very expensive
turkey shoot, (b) torpedo bombers, although they do in fact inflict the most
damage for the least exposure to point defense fire, do not IMHO weigh that
damage in by enough of a margin over regular fighters in the current
atmosphere of ships that may or may not be screened to be worth spending twice
as much NPV per fighter unless you're willing to gamble that you'll be up
against a battleship force where assuring your bombers a free run to attack
without having to fight through enemy fighters is not a real issue, and (c) I
don't feel that's a risk or a gamble I want to take absent some insight where
I know my opponent isn't going to fly a serious carrier force against me.
> You get full endurance cycles? I must be doing something wrong.
Usually
> I give up 2 CEF acquiring the target and then lose significant numbers
You must have a fighter rich environment or are burning a lot for secondary
movement.
Remember, fighters do not loose endurance unless they engage in combat or are
engaged in combat OR use secondary movement. Otherwise, they do not use
endurance.
Also, the ADFC/PDS unlike the old ADAF, may not target fighters/missiles
unless they are attacking the ship on which they are mounted or on a friendly
ship that is within 6tu.
---
> On 15-Jun-00 at 15:12, stiltman@teleport.com (stiltman@teleport.com)
wrote:
> > > On 15-Jun-00 at 12:26, stiltman@teleport.com
> > > Um, I show a beam fighter group doing 0.8 * 6 damage against
> > Clarification: I was referring to how much damage they'd do over a
> You get full endurance cycles? I must be doing something wrong.
Usually
> I give up 2 CEF acquiring the target and then lose significant numbers
I'm just putting up numbers on the _potential_ damage that might be
inflicted. If you can assert overwhelming fighter superiority, you can do a
lot more of that damage per attack. If you can't... well, you probably won't
get any real shots in with bombers anyway.
Your mileage may vary depending on the ratio of your attackers to his
defenders, of course.
> On 15-Jun-00 at 15:29, Brian Bell (bkb@beol.net) wrote:
Usually
> >I give up 2 CEF acquiring the target and then lose significant
Usually 2 CEF acquiring the target, that is, of course, if I want to get all
the fighters into combat at once. If I were willing to allow
piece-meal action with the resulting extra damage to fighters I could
get away without using any to acquire.
Usually doesn't matter anyway. After 3 turns of combat the fighters have
ceased being affective due to losses.
> Also, the ADFC/PDS unlike the old ADAF, may not target
What good is a fighter that sits and looks at its opponent? Also, defensive
fighters can attack fighters that are not attacking. A relatively few
interceptors can really break up a fighter wave.
> Dean Gundberg wrote:
In the days before FB1, Torpedo Fighters were De Rigeur - you needed
them to
crack the Shield-3 ships. Attack fighters were used sometimes, but
generally
a 50/50 mix of normals and torpedos was used by CV groups.
With FB1, Torpedo fighters became far too expensive for their effectiveness,
and no-one used them (around here, anyway), Heavy Fighters being the
norm.
The change IMHO just about makes Torpedo Fighters worthwhile again - not
so much as to cause them to be galloping grossossities, but enough so there's
a chance that a small proportion of a CVs mix will be TFs.
I imagine them to be specially useful vs Phalons under Shroud.
Regarding fighters generally, there are several ways of using them:
a) Don't bother: for the points cost, they are too vulnerable to PDS and
morale rules. b) Have just enough for defensive purposes, to stop your own PDS
from being overwhelmed by SMs and Fighters coming in in swarms. If the
opposition has less than a massive alpha strike, they're very good at picking
off stray corvettes