November 01, 2024, 03:29:26 AM

Author Topic: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression  (Read 32501 times)

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2011, 12:44:24 PM »
I'd rather get rid of the 'roll to see how many attacks you get' step all together.
Its the most confusing part of the game for some.

What about 2 or 3 dice per bomber marker, so long as one fighter remains in the wave after turrets shoot.  Otherwise, 1 dice each.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2011, 03:43:39 PM »
or:
Bombers get 2 attacks each so long as surviving AC in the wave outnumber the turrets. They get 1 attack if they don't, and 3 attacks if they more than double the number of turrets.

Fighters count as 2 for purposes of determining outnumbering.


Offline Phthisis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 279
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2011, 06:42:41 PM »
But still there is no reason to escort attack craft.  What about RC's idea for single fighter squadron wiping out waves if they are unescorted?  I keep bringing it up and nobody addresses it.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2011, 05:40:07 AM »
What do you mean no reason?  They get more attacks.

Offline Phthisis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 279
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2011, 06:06:36 AM »
Sorry, I meant assault boats instead of attack craft.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2011, 07:19:22 AM »
Had another idea....


Bombers have 1 attack each. Each fighter in the wave (after turrets kill them) reduce the armor value of the vessel by one.


Or each fighter would make one bombers attack auto-hit.

Offline commander

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2011, 09:15:27 AM »
All of the ordnance work following the same principle. So, all should be 'revised' not only fighters and bombers or only torpedoes.
All 'old' AC worked on the principle of a squadron/salvo ocupying a certain amount of space.
Torpedoes are changed to a fixed amount of space for any salvo strength; all others are left as they are.
Now trying to make fighters and bombers more powerfull.
Assault boats?
Better to redesign the ordnance as a whole.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2011, 09:28:12 AM »
@commander, I agree. Which is what I plan to do. Except every bomber proposal gets shot down for one reason or another. It's difficult to keep them at the same effectiveness (or close) while making them simpler without someone not liking some aspect.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2011, 12:03:50 PM »
Phthisis, my idea for A-boats was getting +1 on the crit roll if a fighter survived, as fighter coverage allowed them to pick a more favorable landing zone.

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #39 on: February 11, 2011, 08:05:56 PM »
or for each surviving fighter (up to the number of a boats), you may choose which *weapon system critical* to inflict upon the target ship.
explanation as above. fighter cover allows choice landing zone.
and aren't people tired of running 8 a boats into a ship only to severely knock out the weapons systems on the WRONG BROADSIDE!

I like the 2 attacks per  surviving bomber. total attacks - turrets. 1 auto hit per surviving fighter (up to the # of bombers). fighter bombers get 1 attack, and any FB may forgot its attack to act as a fighter (see above)

explanation: fighters guiding in the bomber's missiles/ screening bombers on attack runs.

*note, this is just off the top of my head and seemed like a good basis of an idea.

Offline Eldanesh

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #40 on: February 14, 2011, 03:10:07 AM »
Had some weird ideas, but they worked pretty well, if you use them all.

1. turrets shot down Ordnance on a 2+
- +2 for fighters
- +2 for torpedos
- +2 for resilent aircraft
So e.g. a fighter or resilent bomber is shot down on 4+, a resilent fighter on 6+ etc.
Roll never gets better than 2+ or worse than 6+.
(you can later include more modificators for races, quality, elite-pilots etc. if you want)

2. Escort batteries can shot at Ordnance like they were turrets. The downside is that these guns can't inflict critical hits.
(If you want a background explanation: escorts lack the power/calibre to do heavy damage, but their smaller guns have better targetting arrays/can be readjusted faster)

3. Escorts don't need to be in base contact to  protect a capital ship with “massed turrets”, instead they can do this if they are up to 5cm away.

4. fighters remove other fighters on a 1:1 ratio, but up to 2 markers of any other ordnance. But if they remove any enemy marker, they are also removed
E.g 2 fighters attack 2 Bombers - 1 Fighter and both bombers are removed.
If these 2 fighters attack a wave of  3 or 4 Bombers (or two Bombers and 1 fighter) all markers are removed.

5. Bombers do D6  attacks each.  The number of turrets is only subtracted once. So if 4 bombers attack a cruiser with 2 turrets the wave does 4D6-2 attacks.

6. If a mixed wave of of ordnance (means: different result to hit them needed) turrets are rolled one by one. You have to beat the best value before you move on to the next one.
E.g. a wave of 1 fighter (hit on 4+) and 3 Bombers (hit on 2+) attacks a Battleship with 4 turrets.
You roll for the first turret. If it shows a 4+ the fighter is removed and the remaining 3 turrets shot down a bomber on 2+. If you don't roll a 4+ the fighter is still alive and you roll for the second turret.
There is no turret suppresion and suriving fighters don't cause any damage.

These rules are also used if a escort shots with its batteries at a mixed wave.


SO what do these 6 rules do? 
Basically they give escorts a dedicated role: they protect capital ships from Bomber raids: activly by shooting them down and passivly by ading turrets to the ship they protect.
The enemy really wants to get rid of them before he can send in his Bomberwaves.

Unprotected captial ships can now take heavy damage from Ordnance if not protected by escorts and/or own fighters on CAP

On the other hand waves of Aboats/Bombers are very vulnerable if not protected

→ works well on regular sizes, but I admit that it gets impractical if wavesizes get higher than 8 (combined wave of two emperors andsuch things) or if you max out launchbays, because the infliced damage can be very high. So probably you'll need a wavesize and/or launchbay limit (8 or 10 wavesize 4 lanchbays per 500 points or something like this...). But I haven't tried it in such sizes always used “regular” fleets.
But in regular 1500P games it works fine: you'll really want to have some escorts now, even as Chaos.

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #41 on: February 14, 2011, 05:37:46 AM »
seemed neat until your last paragraph (no offense intended).

splitting the horns:

bombers 1 attack each, but +1 attack per surviving fighter (up to the number of bombers). this *should* get plax's 1.5 attack average.

some similar (or +1 to roll) for AB's

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #42 on: February 14, 2011, 06:10:54 AM »
So I have a few thoughts on Ord that I wan't you guys to think about before I do my long post (Ugh)

Now the thing is that I want Bombers to be useful against bbs, ordinance to be less confusing and ABs to be at least decent.

We could make bombers slightly better (D3 system) but then make fighters take out D3 bombers (or all) in a wave if there are no fighters escorting them.

Turrets could get better I suppose, hmmmmm.

Yes, Ideally bombers would have 1.333-1.5 attacks. Or some other system (such as the fighter escort allowing auto-hits or whatnot) that would result in the best case scenario of 1.333-1.555 eq attacks.

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2011, 07:44:02 PM »
^^ and without marginalizing fighterbommaz

i'd help but another exam tomorrow...

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4201
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression
« Reply #44 on: February 14, 2011, 07:54:47 PM »
So far I did not see a single idea which I would want to see replace the official rules.