Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression

[Phthisis]

Im not accusing you of anything.  I'm trying to find an alternative to the turret suppression mechanic, which is what this thread is about.  I knew you wanted bombers to have a shot at BBs.  When we talked about it a couple of weeks ago I relented on my assertation that BBs should be near invulnerable to bombers because I was the only one who seemed to think that way.  But at the time you said you didn't like the turret suppression either.

I don't like TS for a few reasons. First the rules are counter-intuitive, complex and confusing.  Second, they increase bomber effectiveness against everything, not just BBs. Third, the new rules still make FBs superior bombers vs anything T3 or greater.  Fourth, it encourages fighter escort on bombers but not adsault boats.

My alternative allows attacks on BBs without causing any otf the glitches I mentioned above.  The rules are straight forward and easy to remember.  Bombers aren't boosted vs low turret targets, but can effectively attack BBs.  FBs are never more effective than normal bombers, but still can dent BBs.  And fighter escorts are worthwhile for assault boats as well.

[horizon]

The turret suppression from the FAQ is balanced but should have the added rule that only surviving fighters (from turret fire) add an attack.

In the game of BFG some aspects are abstracted, thus turret suppression can be abstracted to.

[Taggerung]

I agree it should only be surviving fighters

[RCgothic]

If turrets hit on a 3+, what would happen if natural bombers rolled D6 and fighta-bommas rolled D3?

D6 is an average 3.5 attacks average each - that's more than double the current 5/3 attacks each.

I mean how would it affect on a more strategic level since 3+ turrets would let you shoot down more bombers than normal. So say a 4 bomber wave vs 2 turret ship using original rules vs your proposal vs what would happen if it was D6 and D3 for bombers and fighta bommas respectively?

D3 for Fighta Bombers would be the same as Bombers under my proposed - 106% effectiveness for a wave of 4, 114%  for a wave of 8, 120% for a wave of infinite.
D6 for Bombers would be 186% effectiveness for a wave of 4, 200% for a wave of 8, or 210% for a wave of infinite.
D6 without turret really is too powerful to contemplate.

I do think D3 is within the realms of acceptability, especially given the negating effects of increased effectiveness of turrets (which carries over to turret massing), increased effectiveness of fighters, reduced incentive to launch waves of pure bombers, and the ability of turrets to fire at both torps and AC.

So let's put this in perspective:
If all these unquantifiable aspects have a total nerfing effect on AC of just 10% then the net effect will be -4% for a wave of 4 to +4% for a wave of 8. These are negligible deviations from the current ruleset. Am I overstating these effects at 10%? Well launching just 1 escort fighter in a wave of 8 nerfs that wave by 12.5% instantly. The figure is 25% for one escort fighter in a wave of 4. So yes, it is plausible to say that Turrets hitting on 3+ with D3 attacks per bomber and Resilient fighters are no more powerful than the current system.

Does it even unbalance for fleets without a defensive carrier? The increased effectiveness of turrets carries over to turret massing. A T2 ship with 1 supporting vessel will now be 4.2% better protected against a wave of 4 than the same situation at present, whilst with 2 supporting vessels it's just 6% more vulnerable against a wave of 8 than in the same situation at present. These are again negligible differences.

To cap it all off, Battleships are still much better defended than cruisers (being just 50% as vulnerable to waves of 4 or 80% as vulnerable to waves of 8 for a T4 battleship) but not to the point of ridiculousness. This is a far better situation than at present where they're 5 times less vulnerable to a wave of 4 bombers than cruisers are.

Yes, raw bomber output is increased by 20%. But it's not as if that's the only change. The tools to deal with that have been provided. Give 3+ turrets, D3 Bombers and Resilient Fighters a chance.

[Sigoroth]

The turret suppression from the FAQ is balanced but should have the added rule that only surviving fighters (from turret fire) add an attack.

In the game of BFG some aspects are abstracted, thus turret suppression can be abstracted to.

The original turret suppression rules were better than the FAQ rules. It should simply be each surviving fighter reduces the ships turret value by 1 when calculating the number of attack runs bombers in the wave make.

[RCgothic]

The turret suppression from the FAQ is balanced but should have the added rule that only surviving fighters (from turret fire) add an attack.

In the game of BFG some aspects are abstracted, thus turret suppression can be abstracted to.

The original turret suppression rules were better than the FAQ rules. It should simply be each surviving fighter reduces the ships turret value by 1 when calculating the number of attack runs bombers in the wave make.

That is the intuitive way to play turret suppression, but unfortunately we keep coming back to the fact that D6 with modifiers is broken. D6+T-F also suffers from exponential adjustments, so that 3F&5B vs a T2 target will do 50% more attacks than 8 bombers will at present.

[Sigoroth]

That is the intuitive way to play turret suppression, but unfortunately we keep coming back to the fact that D6 with modifiers is broken. D6+T-F also suffers from exponential adjustments, so that 3F&5B vs a T2 target will do 50% more attacks than 8 bombers will at present.

That's fine by me.