BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[horizon]

The Desolator will add 4 turrets to the escorts. All escorts? One escort? Spread?

[RCgothic]

The Desolator still only counts as one ship. +1T to each ship it is in contact with.

If the Iconoclasts are in contact with the Desolator and 2 other Iconoclasts, they get 1+(3) =4 turrets.

[Vaaish]

And those missiles themselves have to run a gauntlet of fire, counter-barrages and fighter screens. Just play test it, try and break it, and see what you think. I think it works very nicely.

The same gauntlet all the rest of your ordnance has to deal with. There's always something you can counter with in theoretical discussions. For instance, if you have ordnance saturation and 28 LB and 24 missiles, such fighter screens and counter barrages become much more difficult to employ simply by nature of one side having extreme access to ordnance.

I don't think it even matters at this point if I try it or try to break the proposal. If I do break it Sig comes back with I must be playing wrong or am inept and should go play checkers and if I don't test it nothing changes. So out of curiosity, have you tried playing using the rules as they stand in the BBB for ordnance without any of the turret massing or fighter suppression rules? If so did you find ordnance too weak?

[Sigoroth]

@Vaaish

Do you recall me pointing out that there were a lot of things that people could do to stop a large AC wave from ever making contact if it wasn't shotgunned? Do you deny arguing that these things were not good enough? Some of the things I mentioned, just to recap, were: defensive torp salvos ...

... you may not have the option to snipe fighters with low torpedo salvos ...

... and massing turrets ...

... Turret massing isn't always possible or practical ...

... and, specifically regarding shooting at, or suiciding an escort into, a large wave while the ordnance player sits back and spams AC ...

... If you lose the wave, so what? RO and launch them all over again. He's weaker for it and you've lost nothing.

So you've said that torp sniping may not be possible and that turret massing is too inconvenient. Then you've gone on to say that even with all the defensive options that it's a good trade off killing an escort with a wave of 16 AC because "he's weaker for it and you've lost nothing".

I then made it apparent that this trade-off is not good. So now we're not talking about whether or not these defences are possible, doable or viable, but rather if the proposed rule adds tactical depth to the game.

Can you not see the logic behind, if X exists and X=Y then Y already exists? No it wouldn't increase tactical options. Those options already exist and are accessible and usable because the voss cruisers exist. Making them more attractive or more effective does nothing to increase tactical options.

I'm trying pretty hard to even see the logic behind that statement. What is X in this example? What is Y? In what way does X = Y? Nonsensical rubbish that. However, since you've provided an example I understand your misconception.

I never said add tactical options, I said add tactical depth. It would make the game more tactical because people would be forced to think more. If you were playing a game that gave you the option of doing 17 different things but only 1 of those things was worthwhile doing then the game would not be very tactical. You would simply do that 1 thing. You might say "but hey, I can do 17 different things, therefore there's already tactical options". You'd be wrong of course. You have 2 options in that case. Take the worthwhile option or take one of the 16 non-worthwhile options.

I'll give another example, related to BFG. Let's say that when a ship gets crippled it gives up the same amount of VPs as if it were destroyed. There would be no incentive whatsoever to disengage once crippled. You'd just fight to the death. You could disengage. It's an available option. But it's not very tactical to do so. Therefore giving the player the incentive to disengage before destruction increases tactical depth to the game, even though the options remain the same.

Again, regarding the current issue, it's possible to form a squadron of Emperors. There's just no reason to do so since large waves suck at the moment. In fact, there's good reason not to. Making large waves useful increases the tactical depth by making what was merely a possibility now a tactical choice.

On the flip side there just has never been much reason to think overly hard about defensive options against ordnance. They have a cap on their effectiveness so large waves aren't all that much better than smaller waves and in fact, depending on turret size, there comes an upper limit on effective wave sizes.

So, with large AC waves truly becoming a threat then the player is forced to think, because he can no longer afford to just coast as he once did.

Ok, to sum this whole thing up. One. I'm not being contradictory. I begin by saying your idea is overpowered with large waves and, as the discussion moves to tactical depth, that it doesn't give any added tactical depth to the game. Two. I supported this as evidenced by your stated examples of expanded depth already being possible in the current game. Finally. Stop restating my posts as you want them to read instead of how they actually read.

So, to sum up. The TTS rule brings a lot of positives to the game that are unrelated to actual bomber balance issues, including increased tactical depth. Bombers don't get overpowered by the change, though might get a marginal increase in general performance. This increase, if there is one, is incidental, not intentional.

Oh, and btw, every damn resource except ordnance simply "reloads". Ordnance requires taking and passing a command check!

Sigh.... none of those lets you sit 170cm off and maneuver at 50cm per turn to hit at full strength with skillful use. Gunnery degrades based on facing and range, most SO further reduce it. It has a limited maximum range and it requires you to put the shooting vessel in close proximity for retaliation much less hiding out of LOF. Apples to Oranges here.

There is no weapon system in the game that does that, though the Nova cannon could hit starting from 170cm out. As I said, you could take a pure AC fleet, hide yourself away and spam large AC waves to your hearts content. I, with a gun fleet, would never get hit by a single bomber. So it is fair to say that AC gets just as bad as guns at such extreme ranges.

Further, if you are in range of guns then you can't block their fire. On the other hand there's a lot you can do to reduce incoming AC waves. Even when shotgunned you could have CAP fighters. But even if they get removed by other ordnance first then it still requires that the enemy carrier be in very close range. Gunnery at that range is pretty much going to do just as well, plus or minus. In fact, gunnery has far more potential than AC. In my examples I just use average armour and the middle column on the chart.

When considering these proposed rules and large waves you are taking all the positives of AC (avoids shields, no theoretical upper range limit, high potential damage) and totally ignoring all the downsides. Have to reload (can fail leadership test and lose fire for a turn, can be forced to brace and lose fire for a turn). Have to form squadrons and get in base contact (dropping both shields increases incidental hull damage to second ship). The fact that forming one large wave means you no longer have more numerous smaller waves. So eggs in one basket. Wipe out a wave of 16 cheaply and easily through either direct fire or an escort ram and you've got much less of the enemy ordnance to worry about. Knock the fighter screen down and watch the effectiveness of that massive wave plummet. If he wants to get close to shotgun then pummel his soft closing cap ship 5+ prows! He'll have to brace or lose a carrier.

There are so many downsides all in all that if someone does manage to get such a large wave into contact then they've done well and out-manoeuvred their opponent. They deserve the pay-off.

Ok, I understand you get off on belittling people who disagree with your viewpoint. But really, you know very little about me or my skill and know absolutely nothing of my opponents so please, stop assuming things.

No, I don't get-off on belittling people, I just call a tool a tool. And the contingent isn't based upon disagreement, it's based on delusions of adequacy. You think that you're "arguing" whereas you're not. Despite showing just how implausible your "sit back and spam" idea is you hold to it. Despite showing mathematically and axiomatically how negligible the difference is of overall utility of AC you hold to the "encourages AC fleets" idea. Despite being shown how it makes it possible for a gunfleet to hold its own without carriers now you still maintain that they'll be required to take more.

If you were to actually put forward an argument that encapsulates my argument and provides a counter then the discussion would be progressing. Alas all you're doing is putting forward an opinion (that you don't like it) based on your fears that it'll do X (make bombers too powerful, encourage more AC fleets). This is fine as a starting point but when all that has been taken on board and argued against merely restating it over and over again is not an argument. Every single thing you have said I have countered. So just ignore all your arguments up to the is point and try something new if you're intent on arguing. Give an example that hasn't been considered. Run an analysis that shows that bombers do increase in power far more than has been stipulated. Play a few games to see if you're suspicion that it overpowers AC is right (it is just a suspicion after all, you don't have anything to back this up).

As for my assumptions about your skill levels, well I can tell you that they aren't just drawn out of the air. They're based on your notions that sitting back and spamming large waves from afar will do the trick. By your statement that 8 AC carriers always get to shotgun in your games, etc. Tighten up your games a little. Alternatively, don't pretend to know how to adjust play balance.

[Sigoroth]

So out of curiosity, have you tried playing using the rules as they stand in the BBB for ordnance without any of the turret massing or fighter suppression rules? If so did you find ordnance too weak?

I have, yes they were insanely weak. My IN opponent had a very carrier heavy fleet (Emperors, Mars, Dictators as his main choices). We got the ordnance launch limit rules before we got turret suppression. He nearly quit.

[Vaaish]

I never said add tactical options, I said add tactical depth.

Actually... you did say tactical options:

If the Voss cruiser becomes balanced, even if just by reducing its cost with no other change, then wouldn't this increase tactical options? Even though people could have bought it before, it now becomes attractive which increases its tactical use.

That whole bit you are having difficulty understanding started by quoting the above. I'm just using your own words here.

o, I don't get-off on belittling people, I just call a tool a tool.

Sigoroth, again with the insults but whatever...

And the contingent isn't based upon disagreement, it's based on delusions of adequacy. You think that you're "arguing" whereas you're not. Despite showing just how implausible your "sit back and spam" idea is you hold to it. Despite showing mathematically and axiomatically how negligible the difference is of overall utility of AC you hold to the "encourages AC fleets" idea. Despite being shown how it makes it possible for a gunfleet to hold its own without carriers now you still maintain that they'll be required to take more.

I have nothing more to say to you on this subject because you refuse to entertain any point of view but your own. If that point of view is attacked it is easy to discount the opposition as "not arguing" and "prove" your point when you decide unilaterally that their argument is invalid.

[Sigoroth]

I never said add tactical options, I said add tactical depth.

Actually... you did say tactical options:

If the Voss cruiser becomes balanced, even if just by reducing its cost with no other change, then wouldn't this increase tactical options? Even though people could have bought it before, it now becomes attractive which increases its tactical use.

Ah, well yes, I did say options once. However, your opposition to the concept of added tactical thinking (which is how I've phrased it in my list of positive, neutral and negative impacts) long predates this, and, to be fair, I myself didn't notice the fine distinction till just last post. Either way, the change would necessitate an increase in tactical thinking. Or if that's too abstract, an increase in tactical play regardless of what you (the putative player) may or may not have previously thought.

That whole bit you are having difficulty understanding started by quoting the above. I'm just using your own words here.

Eh? What am I having difficulty in understanding? The fine distinction you make between theoretical option and actual play? No no, I understand that just fine. I happen to disagree with you on that score too by the way, since you previously would have had the option of doing certain things but it certainly wasn't tactical to do so. If you want you can turn around and fly off the table as soon as the game starts, but unless there's some beneficial effect for doing so it isn't "tactical".

Nevertheless, I doubt that this was ever the real issue to begin with. It would be pedantic in the extreme to have argued against the concept of increased tactics with a counterpoint that could at most amount to a technicality, not a true barrier to understanding.

I have nothing more to say to you on this subject because you refuse to entertain any point of view but your own. If that point of view is attacked it is easy to discount the opposition as "not arguing" and "prove" your point when you decide unilaterally that their argument is invalid.

So you say. However, you could say this under any circumstances, whether it was you that were arguing sense and me ignoring your points or whether it was you with your fingers in your ears screaming "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalah". If you were around when they were arguing that the world wasn't flat your counter-argument to the argument that "since a ship sinks over the horizon the earth must be curved" would be "tosh, why don't I fall off then?".

In argument it is expected that one use reasoning. I have used inductive reasoning while stating my premises (at least implicitly) using mathematical and axiomatic categorisation of those premises. I have even tried numerous different examples and comparisons. But each and every time you either just say the same thing again or you say that I'm not listening. The truth is that you're not listening. I have invited you to bring an argument to the table and said that I would give fresh consideration to it (from whomever it came).

You are the one that won't give consideration to reason. You think I'm wrong? How? Saying "it'll encourage people to sit back and spam AC" is not an argument. It is a statement. You have yet to show any proof of this. Maybe you're right, but how would I know? You haven't supported your stance in any way! You said that the effectiveness of large waves gets bigger, and this encourages people to launch large waves. Yes. Stipulated. This is, in fact, the point. However, how does it guarantee that those large waves will make base contact with their target unmolested? With even a relatively minor depletion of just a quarter of the wave size (4 AC/torps being spent on the wave) the effectiveness of that wave will (mathematically proven) drop to below what a comparable amount of AC under the current rules would.

So we have a mathematical model of increased susceptibility to attrition and a modus ponens argument of greater risk should the AC heavy player try it. You have speculated that this will increase the amount of carriers in the game for both the ordnance player and a gunship player. I have stipulated that it might do so for an AC heavy player. My speculation is that since a greater proportion of the AC of an ordnance rich player will suffer an increased risk of being destroyed prematurely this will result in a lowered burden on the gunline player to bring carriers. Further to this, since bomber waves under this rule suffer greater value of attrition it takes less effort to reduce the effectiveness of more AC, therefore again a decreased need for AC for the gunfleet player. This is all the more salient as more guns = more spare firepower to target both the opponent's large AC waves and his carriers.

On top of all this you have assumed that an all AC fleet should not be viable. Why shouldn't it? If the player wants to take it and it doesn't invalidate a gunfleet (see my arguments above before simply declaiming "it does! it does!") then it should be a viable option for the player. Saying that the designers didn't want WWII style warfare is an utterly irrelevant point. I will state the two reasons for this again. The first reason is that WWII style battles came about because the "big gun" philosophy of naval warfare was redundant given aircraft carriers. Thus one side could not take all big guns and hope to achieve victory (though this was not clear to everyone at the time). Therefore, to avoid this scenario of WWII style all we need do is have gunships viable. If they're viable then they're not redundant and therefore it comes down to personal preference therefore we will not see the game devolve into WWII style fighting unless both players want that. The second reason is, of course, that there is no onus on us, the fans, players and present caretakers of the game to adhere to a philosophy that was a personal preference of some pom over a decade ago who has since abandoned the game. Screw that.

So this is a stance based upon a reasoned argument. If you want to argue your point then you need to show some point of logic or assumption on my part to be flawed, either mathematically or axiomatically. Alternatively, you could put forward an assessment that has not yet been covered.

Until you do so it's very much a case of the pot calling the kettle unilateral.

[Sigoroth]

Better yet, point out to me just one argument of yours that I've either ignored or dismissed out of hand.

[Mazila]

Dudes, this is not gona get you anywhere, you are wasting time with those arguments.

Sigoroth, I bet that people are not even bothering reading your poems since they are too long. Did you guys try using skype or icq instead of forum?

Sry but i am not trying to trol you, just feel like you all got off the point.

[RCgothic]

It is going round in circles. The problems with the current rule have been clearly stated, the arguments for TTS have been made clearly and strongly, objections have been aired, and alternatives have been discussed. What we need now is an HA to bring an end to the discussion with, if not a ruling, then at least a 'Thank you, we'll take this into consideration.'

[commander]

Playtested (no maths involved here, only dices) my brothers idea sofar. Also borrowed rules from proposals made on this forum. It 'feels' good. Playtesting will continue.

Max number of attack craft (AC):
- battleship: 3 x capacity of launch bays
- cruiser: 2 x capacity of launch bays
Each carrier must decide how many squadrons of each it has on board.
Can launch its total number of AC in successive rounds, eventually to form 'gigantic' waves of AC.
Fighter squadrons: additional rule: can shoot once at turrets against lowest armour value of target ship. Turrets that are hit, are taken off-line. This 'damage' can be repaired as normal.

F vs F: 1 / 1 basis removal. For each fighter involved, roll a D6. On a 4+ the fighter survives and can be re-used next turn.
F vs B: 1 / 2 basis removal. For each fighter / bomber involved, roll a D6. On a 4+ the fighter / bomber survives and can be re-used next turn.
F vs AB: 1 / 1 basis removal. For each fighter / AB involved, roll a D6. On a 4+ the fighter / AB survives and can be re-used next turn.

B vs Ships: (D6 - turret value target) attacks per bomber. Fighters can reduce the targets turret value by taking turrets off-line. Those that survive turret fire can be used again. Others survive on a D6 roll of 4+.

To reduce carriers in the game (just a proposal; not all fleets included; those with more experience can put forward a better parameter):
IN: 1 carrier in 5 capital ships involved in a battle/raid
Chaos: 1 carrier in 4 capital ships involved in a battle/raid
Tau: 1 carrier in 3 capital ships involved in a battle/raid

[horizon]

IN: 1 carrier in 5 capital ships involved in a battle/raid
Chaos: 1 carrier in 4 capital ships involved in a battle/raid
Tau: 1 carrier in 3 capital ships involved in a battle/raid

Eh... no.

GW Tau:
Explorer carrier (8 or 4)
Hero carrier (2)
Merchant non-carrier

FW Tau:
Custodian carrier (6, hopefully 4)
Protector carrier (1)
Emissary carrier (1 fighter)

So, impossible limits.

[commander]

Maybe not ships then but number of launch bays. Not worked out yet but some restriction is necessary to reduce the amount of AC and get back to (most) gunnery.

[horizon]

Nah, if you keep the current 1:1 launch bay limit it isn't needed.
Check the exp.ordnance thread I started (Nate's idea) for a total different approach.

[Trasvi]

Maybe it might be better if we look at it from a grass-roots level.
Why do we need turret suppression? Pick any combination of the below.
a) Because ordnance is too weak without it
b) Because we want our escort fighters to do something other than look pretty while the bombers do all the dirty work
c) Because we want the feeling that we can actively increase out bomber's offensive power
d) Because ordnance is too weak (completely useless) against high-turret ships.
e) Something else

What is the end goal of turret suppression? What do we want to give the most damge?
a) Always best results with all bombers
b) Best results with all bombers + token fighters
c) Always best results with all fighters + token bomber
d) Best results with 50/50 split
e) Send the appropriate number of fighters for a particular target

Why exactly is it that people want to reduce the number of carriers/fighters? I think it adds depth to the game and allows for different types of fleets: otherwise you're just kind of stuck with the 'lance fleet' and the 'gun fleet'.


Personally I think the problem is that a Turret 6 ship is 100% immune to bombers, no matter how many you send. Sure, a small wave of bombers should be decimated by the turrets, but if you somehow manage to put together a wave of 50 bombers, they should be able to leave some kind of mark by overwhelming the enemy. Whilst turrets don't suffer from being overwhelmed, we're always going to get situations where either bombers do enormous amounts of damage or too little damage.