BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Diminishing field of fire, inability to traverse fast enough, and a target rich environment all play a part at allowing bombers to break suppression at close range and are a good argument for suppression being independent of turrets.

Increased number of turret fire, forcing the target to jink at ranges much farther out until the bombers get into point blank range and so mess up targetting runs and again more turrets shooting at the bombers all play a part in suppression of the bombers. Sorry but turrets will suppress bomber runs in addition to shooting down bombers.

If we followed your idea then the cruiser would also have to have its turret suppressing weakened to 1 since that is the lowest amount of turret available in a cruiser. Why? Because we can then say I don't think a regular cruiser would have more turret density than a light cruiser. So now we're going to say a bomber attacking a battleship would be rolling at (D6-1)? Uh...NO!

Just makes things more terrible. The existing rules are fine. It would and should be a suicide run for bombers to deliberately attack battleships and even if they do get to attack there would still be that measure of difficulty.

[Sigoroth]

It's not only density. Battleships will have much more turrets and more powerful turrets than an Escort. More turrets means more chances of shooting a bomber down.

It is about density. Turret weaponry is pretty much the same as 40k weaponry. There would be no difference in size of turret between an escort and a battleship. BBs would not have more powerful turrets. While they would have more, they would also have a lot more blind spots. They're over 5km long.

So no, they wouldn't force the bombers to jink from further out. No there wouldn't be more firepower coming at the bombers.

[lastspartacus]

I think this just is being said that future designs dont have to have 4 turrets?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

It is about density. Turret weaponry is pretty much the same as 40k weaponry. There would be no difference in size of turret between an escort and a battleship. BBs would not have more powerful turrets. While they would have more, they would also have a lot more blind spots. They're over 5km long.

So no, they wouldn't force the bombers to jink from further out. No there wouldn't be more firepower coming at the bombers.

5 km isn't that all a big distance when it comes to weapons. It's about as flat as one can get on a ship and this means on a battleship, one would have around twice the number of turrets vis a vis a cruiser available and so more firepower would be coming at the bombers. Even the turrets farthest from the prow can target a bomber coming in on the area of the prow and blind spots while existent can be covered until a bomber gets underneath the turret's threat axis.

Note also that ordnance can be engaged from a hundreds of kilometers out and can extend further on a battleship's big base if we follow the ratio of 1 cm=1,000 km.

[lastspartacus]

I wouldn't hold base size as maximum turret threat range.  Though turrets would have a more effective range in space, I think 5km sounds about right.
Turrets would be limited by their own swivel joints, but I could see more being able to be focused at incoming bombers.  Still don't think they would count as double.  I think its best to agree that both parties are right, size doesnt equal density, but we just accept that battleships are very valuable and packed to the teeth with turrets.

Now extra turrets on carriers, that I dont get.

[Sigoroth]

Well, ships in Gothic just aren't all that flat. There are crenellations, buttresses, towers, folds, etc. Also, we are talking 40k weaponry here, burst cannons, lascannon, autocannon, multi-lasers, etc. That gives them a range of, like, a couple hundred yards! I really don't see BBs being more protected than even an escort, let alone a cruiser. Maybe if you're going for a lot of AA then the turrets/km² could be upped to a rating of 3 I suppose.

I just don't see ratings of 4, 5 or 6. I suppose it's possible, if the ship is just bristling with AA guns. But if we're going to be using the whole "d6-turrets for attack runs" thing then I think that the most well defended anti-ordnance ship should be 4 turrets. Bonuses to hit or re-rolls to hit and/or being able to fire at both torps and bombers are possibilities, but give bombers a chance to overwhelm a target.

[RCgothic]

If we followed your idea then the cruiser would also have to have its turret suppressing weakened to 1 since that is the lowest amount of turret available in a cruiser. Why? Because we can then say I don't think a regular cruiser would have more turret density than a light cruiser. So now we're going to say a bomber attacking a battleship would be rolling at (D6-1)? Uh...NO!

Sorry, what sort of weird logic is that? A BB has twice as many weapons, but has twice the surface area, therefore its turret density and suppressive ability remains the same. IIRC, Cruisers are 5km long (FFG numbers), and thunderhawks are 26m long, up to 7 million times smaller. There are going to be blind spots.

Turret lethality scales with number of turrets, whilst turret suppression scales with turrets squared. An increase to 5 turrets from 4(to 120% lethality) would only be an increase to 110% suppression. On the other hand, a difference between -2 and -3 modifiers is a drop of 40% for the bombers. How is that fair? 4,5and6 turret ships are also effectievly invulnerable to bombers.

It makes far more sense to go for a flat D6-2 attacks. This makes BBs just as vulnerable to bombers that survive the initial flack wave as cruisers, which is how it should be.

Now on top of that, you can add in a couple of modifiers. +1 if the bombers are attacking a crippled ship, +1 for surviving fighters in the wave, -1 for ships in BtB contact. +/- 1 for particularly well defended/poorly defended ships, which would be noted on their profile special rules. These similtaneously provide a risk/protection trade off - increased vulnerability to bombers vs invulnerability in close formations vs risk of taking direct fire.

It could even be D6-3 attacks base, in which case a bomber wave would need fighters to help it break through suppression, even in the case of lone ships. It's a very star-warsy feel, which I find very appealing.

[horizon]

I don't care. Keep it as is.

Honestly.

The game is already dominated by ordnance (check Adepticon for example).

This idea will make ordnance stronger once again.

[RCgothic]

It does nothing to harm most cruisers, whilst at the same time providing tools to make give those same cruisers additional defensive powers.

EG, a Dominator with 3 Cobras in base contact encounters a S8 wave with 3 fighters and 5 bombers. The Dominator/Cobras mass turrets, and shoot down 2 fighters.

Under current rules, the bombers then get D6-2 each, +3 from the fighters (IIRC there was no neccessity for fighters to survive in FAQ2010). That makes an average 11.3 attacks.

Under proposed rules, the bombers get D6-2+1(surviving fighter)-3(cobras in contact) for D6-4, and 0.5 attacks each, 2.5 attacks.

Similiarly, an Emperor in the same situation would be no different than at present. Life would actually get easier against ordnance heavy fleets.

[horizon]

Ya, you are adding your idea of turret suppression to it. That makes a difference. Say so

Under current rules, the bombers then get D6-2 each, +3 from the fighters (IIRC there was no neccessity for fighters to survive in FAQ2010). That makes an average 11.3 attacks.

Between 3 - 7 attacks.

Under proposed rules, the bombers get D6-2+1(surviving fighter)-3(cobras in contact) for D6-4, and 0.5 attacks each, 2.5 attacks.

Between 0-2 attacks.

Given, official rules should be surviving fighters only as well imo (your example would be (D6-2)+1 =  between 1 - 5 attacks

But in your idea you must have escorts in contact thus hamper their tactical uses to soley one role.

[RCgothic]

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

Also, I don't agree with your figures. 3-7 attacks? I make it min of 0 per bomber, plus max of 4 per bomber, +3 from fighters, 3 - 23 attacks, with an average of 11.3

New case, again, min of 0 per bomber, max of 2, 0-10 attacks, average 2.5.

How are you calculating those?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Well, ships in Gothic just aren't all that flat. There are crenellations, buttresses, towers, folds, etc. Also, we are talking 40k weaponry here, burst cannons, lascannon, autocannon, multi-lasers, etc. That gives them a range of, like, a couple hundred yards! I really don't see BBs being more protected than even an escort, let alone a cruiser. Maybe if you're going for a lot of AA then the turrets/km² could be upped to a rating of 3 I suppose.

I just don't see ratings of 4, 5 or 6. I suppose it's possible, if the ship is just bristling with AA guns. But if we're going to be using the whole "d6-turrets for attack runs" thing then I think that the most well defended anti-ordnance ship should be 4 turrets. Bonuses to hit or re-rolls to hit and/or being able to fire at both torps and bombers are possibilities, but give bombers a chance to overwhelm a target.

Having seen a lot of footages where battleships can throw up almost a wall of flak, I would still believe a battleship can throw off a bombers attacks much better vis a vis a cruiser. However, I can agree to battleship types getting capped at (D6-4) with cruiser types getting capped at (D6-2) meaning change the modifier to "Type" rating rather than "Turret" ratings. Escorts at 1, cruisers at 2 and battleships at 4. There would be a problem with the Light Cruiser though. Would it be a 1 or 2?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

If we followed your idea then the cruiser would also have to have its turret suppressing weakened to 1 since that is the lowest amount of turret available in a cruiser. Why? Because we can then say I don't think a regular cruiser would have more turret density than a light cruiser. So now we're going to say a bomber attacking a battleship would be rolling at (D6-1)? Uh...NO!

Sorry, what sort of weird logic is that? A BB has twice as many weapons, but has twice the surface area, therefore its turret density and suppressive ability remains the same. IIRC, Cruisers are 5km long (FFG numbers), and thunderhawks are 26m long, up to 7 million times smaller. There are going to be blind spots.

Your idea states that because of turret density, a battleship should not have not much more turret suppression than a cruiser. I just showed you that the Light Cruiser, a Dauntless, only has 1 turret. So basically that's the baseline that you should be following. So you should be rolling at (D6-1) for bombers attacking battleships. That's what my logic is about.

Turret lethality scales with number of turrets, whilst turret suppression scales with turrets squared. An increase to 5 turrets from 4(to 120% lethality) would only be an increase to 110% suppression. On the other hand, a difference between -2 and -3 modifiers is a drop of 40% for the bombers. How is that fair? 4,5and6 turret ships are also effectievly invulnerable to bombers.

Which is why I would agree to subject the modifier to "Type" rating rather than "Turret" ratings but I wouldn't agree that a battleship can only do a -2 for turret suppression. I would cap Type: Battleships to a max of -4, Type: Cruisers to -2 and Type: Escorts to -1. Crippling halves this to a min of modifier of -1.

It makes far more sense to go for a flat D6-2 attacks. This makes BBs just as vulnerable to bombers that survive the initial flack wave as cruisers, which is how it should be.

No it does not make sense as battleships have more turrets, even if they have similar density, to suppress bomber attacks.

Now on top of that, you can add in a couple of modifiers. +1 if the bombers are attacking a crippled ship, +1 for surviving fighters in the wave, -1 for ships in BtB contact. +/- 1 for particularly well defended/poorly defended ships, which would be noted on their profile special rules. These similtaneously provide a risk/protection trade off - increased vulnerability to bombers vs invulnerability in close formations vs risk of taking direct fire.

And this is what I do not like. To add more modifiers that you have to figure out what total modifier one needs which will just interrupt the game more.

It could even be D6-3 attacks base, in which case a bomber wave would need fighters to help it break through suppression, even in the case of lone ships. It's a very star-warsy feel, which I find very appealing.

I don't find it appealing. I find the current rules ok but changing the modifiers to the way I suggest would increase the bomber efficiency but not add any need to add or subtract modifiers or making bombers too powerful (and D6-2 or even -3 would make them too powerful) against battleships.

[Sigoroth]

Having seen a lot of footages where battleships can throw up almost a wall of flak, I would still believe a battleship can throw off a bombers attacks much better vis a vis a cruiser. However, I can agree to battleship types getting capped at (D6-4) with cruiser types getting capped at (D6-2) meaning change the modifier to "Type" rating rather than "Turret" ratings. Escorts at 1, cruisers at 2 and battleships at 4. There would be a problem with the Light Cruiser though. Would it be a 1 or 2?

Ah, well this is probably where the confusion stems from.  Current day ships are much smaller in comparison to the size of a turret than what we're talking about. Factor in the rather open plan of a BB and the range of the weaponry and you get more and bigger AA guns with more coverage on battleships compared to destroyers. Whereas in BFG the size of the ships means you're already using the largest size turret, which are much smaller in comparison to the entire ship. Also the size of the ships means that there just isn't the same coverage. The range of the weapons would be unlikely to even cover from one end of the ship to the other. Combined with all the LoS blockages typical to BFG ships and you're looking at density of turrets being a greater predictor of AC defence, rather than overall number of turrets.

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.

[skatingtortoise]

how about a small alteration to current rules to represent density: maximum turret suppression -2, OR bombers get +2 to their runs vs battleships. this makes BBs better at shooting bombers down, but no better than cruisers when suppressing.

possibly add in a caveat to make escorts slightly better vs ordnance (better massed turrets?) and you would get more escort squadrons solely for the purpose of protecting BB's.