BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[horizon]

RcG
Excuse on the numbers I forgot to add the bombers themselves (took one d6 only).

It doesn't have to be escorts, other capital ships would work too.

So you create a rule that dictates tactics.

Also: if I plant the bomber wave few centimetres before your ship you will lose the b2b status when moving (as this is fact per current rules).

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I don't mind a larger ship having more defence against AC than a smaller one, but this should be a simple linear relationship. So more turrets equals more enemies shot down. The suppression of attack runs is fine in principle, but in execution it's terrible. Six turret ships being immune to bombers is silly. The turret density that value represents is insane too.

Am fine with D6-4 for battleships, D6-2 for any cruiser type and D6-1 for Escorts.

[RCgothic]

RcG
Excuse on the numbers I forgot to add the bombers themselves (took one d6 only).

It doesn't have to be escorts, other capital ships would work too.

So you create a rule that dictates tactics.

Also: if I plant the bomber wave few centimetres before your ship you will lose the b2b status when moving (as this is fact per current rules).

True, but it does give the opportunity to fly an escort through that enormous bomber wave first.

[horizon]

But that is an option currently available as well.
Though I do dislike the concept I understand the merit of such an action.

[lastspartacus]

I don't mind a larger ship having more defence against AC than a smaller one, but this should be a simple linear relationship. So more turrets equals more enemies shot down. The suppression of attack runs is fine in principle, but in execution it's terrible. Six turret ships being immune to bombers is silly. The turret density that value represents is insane too.

Am fine with D6-4 for battleships, D6-2 for any cruiser type and D6-1 for Escorts.

Thats a damn novel idea.

[RCgothic]

Apart from the fact it still leaves battleships as near as invulnerable to bombers, which is where we have the disagreement in the first place.

The fundamental problem is that a linear increase in turrets does not result in a linear decrease in damage potential.

0 to 1 Turret is a 29% reduction to 71% potential
1 to 2 is a further 33% reduction to 48% potential
2 to 3 is a further 40% reduction to 28% potential
3 to 4 is a further 50% reduction to 14% potential
4 to 5 is a further 67% reduction to 5% potential
5 to 6+ gives total invulnerability.

All the while, each additional turret gets MORE effective, when from first principles you'd normally expect an increase proportional to the ^0.5 power, and possibly diminishing returns on top of that, and to a large extent this is already represented by the turrets shooting!
If you take into account hull size, there's no significant reason T4 should be any better on a BB (subsequent to turret shooting) than T2 is on a Cruiser.

D6-T is just not fit for purpose.

Note: I am NOT trying to make Ordnance in general more powerful, except in the case of bombers vs battleships. I'm just saying that D6-T is nowhere near optimal. As it is, assault boats will score nearly as many hits against BBs purely from critical damage AND cause a huge number of criticals on top. There's just no incentive to send Bombers against BBs, even with fighter escorts, unless you have no other options.

[horizon]

Note: I am NOT trying to make Ordnance in general more powerful, except in the case of bombers vs battleships.

Why? Battleships aren't overpowered.

[RCgothic]

Because it makes no sense that they should be so nearly invulnerable to bombers. They're not nearly invulnerable to ABs or Torps.

They won't be significantly harmed by it being equally sensible to send bombers against them as to send Assault boats.

And, if in re-making the D6-T mechanic we find a sensible way to boost escorts and fighter escorts for ordnance waves, all the better!

[horizon]

Then again a problem lies in the assault boats.

Not in the bombers.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Apart from the fact it still leaves battleships as near as invulnerable to bombers, which is where we have the disagreement in the first place.

And battleships should not be as vulnerable as you think. Sorry but D6-3 (or lower) makes them too vulnerable to bombers. Why should bombers be stronger? D6-4 is a fair enough cap already especially if fighters are accompanying the bombers giving extra attacks. If you want to make them that strong then fine, introduce attrition rules then so that counters knocked out by turrets and fighters are removed from the table permanently. Then I'd agree to D6-2 or 3.

Battleships in the game aren't even overpowered as Horizon has pointed out. Battleships can be killed, just that one really needs focused firepower from ships. Bombers can still contribute to battleships demise. Even then, just clear the board of cruisers and escorts first and even the remaining battleship will run.

[Xyon]

Why not try crippling the BB before bombing it? 1/2 turrets

I think the turret rules are fine as is.  Dont send your bombers against battleships if you dont think it will be effective.  I'm sure there's a whole rest of the fleet worth of ships you can send your bombers after.

[RCgothic]

I don't know what more I can say about D6-T

• It gives an exponential bonus to ships with high turrets, far more than a simple linear increase, which in itself would be tenuous. - There's no physical reason why extra turrets should impact so hard.
• It discriminates against bombers, but not against torps/ABs (which are both fine - the problem is defnitely with the bombers). There's no reason a battleship should be more than 3.5 times better defended against bombers, yet only shoot down one additional AB/Torp on average.
• It gives no concessions to wave size - there's no ability to overwhelm with numbers.
• Turret suppression is horrible, and frequently played incorrectly. (probably because people see the -4/-5 modifiers as so overpowered there must be a way round them)
• It wouldn't be a serious harm to battleships to be more vulnerable to bombers - as is people just send ABs instead.

Now I'm not saying battleships can't be ebtter defended against bombers than cruisers - perhaps 50% better protection in addition to more hits/better armour in some cases. But 3 1/2 times better protected is ludicrous. (whilst still being equally vulnerable to torps/ABs).

[horizon]

Hi's again!

I don't know what more I can say about D6-T

You just did.

• It gives an exponential bonus to ships with high turrets, far more than a simple linear increase, which in itself would be tenuous. - There's no physical reason why extra turrets should impact so hard.

I see no problem with this increase.

• It discriminates against bombers, but not against torps/ABs (which are both fine - the problem is defnitely with the bombers). There's no reason a battleship should be more than 3.5 times better defended against bombers, yet only shoot down one additional AB/Torp on average.

A-boats is more of a problem. Torps are good.

• It gives no concessions to wave size - there's no ability to overwhelm with numbers.

Yes, there is.

• Turret suppression is horrible, and frequently played incorrectly. (probably because people see the -4/-5 modifiers as so overpowered there must be a way round them)

Turret suppression is clear (with add I would use surviving fighters only).

• It wouldn't be a serious harm to battleships to be more vulnerable to bombers - as is people just send ABs instead.

Assault boats is only available to half of the races.

[Vaaish]

I don't have any issue with the current system or the suppression rules in the new FAQ. Some ships SHOULD be a fools mission to take down with bombers so stop expecting ordnance to do everything. Shoot the battleship until it's crippled and then attack it with bombers if you want and you will have d6-3 rather than d6-5 or d6-6. You don't HAVE to send bombers at a target you know they can't do much against. There will be plenty of other, softer targets to use bombers on in the mean time.

[Sigoroth]

• It gives an exponential bonus to ships with high turrets, far more than a simple linear increase, which in itself would be tenuous. - There's no physical reason why extra turrets should impact so hard.

I see no problem with this increase.

You see no problem with this? Really? It's insane. Why does 1 turret reduce incoming attacks by 1 against a single bomber, but when there's 100 bombers that single turret reduces the incoming attacks by 100! This is pure nonsense.

• It discriminates against bombers, but not against torps/ABs (which are both fine - the problem is defnitely with the bombers). There's no reason a battleship should be more than 3.5 times better defended against bombers, yet only shoot down one additional AB/Torp on average.

A-boats is more of a problem. Torps are good.

Eh? I agree that there's a problem with a-boats, namely that they're pretty weak. They were only useful against escorts but this rubbish FAQ has nerfed them further. So, given that they're weak, and the problem with high turret targets is that it's more worthwhile sending in a weak substitute (ie, a-boats instead of bombers) then how is it a problem with a-boats? Assuming that a-boats were "fixed" to be a worthwhile choice against capital ships then this would just make the decision to take a-boats even easier when attacking high-turret targets. Therefore the problem becomes exacerbated, not fixed. This is a problem with the turret rules. Like MSM it's a bad mechanic. It makes no sense.

• It gives no concessions to wave size - there's no ability to overwhelm with numbers.

Yes, there is.

What ability is that? You used to at least be able to get an average of 5.17 attacks against an Emperor from a wave of 6 AC. Boring, stupid, invalidates turret fire, yes, but you could do something. Now with the suppression up to the number of bombers in the wave you'd have to send in 3f/3b, giving you 3.46 average attack runs. Once you get past 5 fighters (meaning turret hits are once again meaningless) then every AC will be worth +0.58 attack runs. Wow. Really overwhelming. Not to mention we still have the logical absurdity of the fighters doing the damage.

• Turret suppression is horrible, and frequently played incorrectly. (probably because people see the -4/-5 modifiers as so overpowered there must be a way round them)

Turret suppression is clear (with add I would use surviving fighters only).

It is unclear simply by the choice of name. There is no actual turret suppression going on. The turrets still reduce bomber attack runs. Oh, and if you add "surviving fighters" to the current FAQ rule with no other change then you're just making battleships immune to bombers.

• It wouldn't be a serious harm to battleships to be more vulnerable to bombers - as is people just send ABs instead.

Assault boats is only available to half of the races.

Yes, and those that have them available send in a-boats against BBs instead of bombers. At least, they will once people start playing the new turret suppression rules.