September 27, 2024, 08:34:44 AM

Author Topic: Escorts-Do's and dont's of squadron composition  (Read 27363 times)

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Escorts-Do's and dont's of squadron composition
« Reply #120 on: October 17, 2012, 12:04:04 AM »
There is also 0 reason to even include fighters right now with assault boats, of course thats ok too.
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Mycen

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Escorts-Do's and dont's of squadron composition
« Reply #121 on: October 18, 2012, 03:01:03 PM »

2) Fighter resilience: IN have vanilla ordnance, and a shark assault boat has over two and a half times the armor of a fury interceptor, along with the same engine strength and almost three and a half times the directional firepower of a bomber. Other races have (presumably) even better assault boats. What if assault boats count as resilient ordnance? You could give them a weaker save (5+ or even 6+) to allow them a chance of surviving fighter interception.


I'm confused about where you're pulling all of this information from. Sharks are more armored than furies, sure. But where do you get that they have the same engine strength? From their speed stat? And where do you get the statement that they have "three and a half times the directional firepower of a bomber"? What do you even mean by that? As I recall, they're much more lightly armed than bombers, possessing only light weapons such as lascannons for defense against fighters.

I don't really see the point of a 6+ resilience save, it seems more like a hassle than something that will actually help them survive. But having them be resilient on the level of Eldar fighters (many times over more maneuverable than anything Imperial), Tau Mantas (many times larger and tougher than Imperial attack craft), or Thunderhawks (a kind of blending of the former two's advantages) is, to me, just inappropriate.


Offline Talos

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 542
Re: Escorts-Do's and dont's of squadron composition
« Reply #122 on: October 18, 2012, 04:10:39 PM »
I completely agree with you on the fact that the things you mention should have better saves; they have it for goo reason. I also agree that it's probably more of a hassle then it's worth to keep track of 6+resilience saves. That's why it was a toss up idea and ranked number 2. As for the engine strength, its well documented in both novels and RT that  although it is nowhere near as maneuverable, the shark assault boat has the same thrust and speed as the fury interceptor, specifically so that it can close faster and keep up with a fury escort. As for the firepower, I may have stuck my foot in my mouth; reviewed stats and realized I was looking at the wrong one, and it is in fact a starhawk bomber that has three times the firepower of a shark assault boat. My apologies on the misinformation.