Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression

[Phthisis]

Ships can only have a maximum of 3 turrets. Ork fighta-bommas always make one attack per squadron regardless of turrets because theyre half suicidal anyway. 

There, now BBs are vulnerable to bombers without effecting the way they work vs anything else. 

The fighters escort bombers if you have to break through CAP, but do nothing once the bombers reach their target (except absorb turret fire).  There isn't any historical analog or example in fluff for fighters suppressing turrets.  Its just a fetish for some.  There is no reason to force people to take fighter escort in game if there aren't fighters in the way.  Same goes for assault boats.

This turret limit effects torpedos as well. Lets say you can fire turrets against bombers and torps in the same turn. 

There.  Simple rules that we can do on the fly.  BBs are not invulnerable anymore.  Ordnance isn't more powerful against other targets.  Ordnance gets a very slight nerf overall to account for there being no more invulnerable targets.

[RCgothic]

2 problems: Turrets make bombers worthless, and there's no reason to escort bombers with fighters.

Turret Suppression was introduced because there was no reason ever to escort a wave of bombers/assault boats with fighters. Your version fixes bombers, there is still no reason to ever escort bombers/assault boats with fighters.

Fighters have to be more lethal if bombers/assault boats are ever going to be threatened enough to make escorting them worthwhile.

[Phthisis]

Why do bomber waves need an escort?  Why do we have to change the rules so that bomber waves require an escort? 

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Because the rules of the game are such that an all bomber wave and mixed bomber/fighter wave are pointless because there is no difference in the results. If a fighter jumps a bomber wave, they remove the same number of bomber counters as the fighter counters that attack the wave. If there is a mixed wave, then the number of counters removed are still the same.

Personally, this is a problem of not having attrition in the game. There's no reason for fighters to escort bombers because it doesn't hurt. Bomber counters are lost? No worries, there's more where those came from. Even if one uses a 2:1 ratio, still wouldn't ignore the fact that bomber counters can still come out.

I personally think its time attrition rules for AC counters and even torps should be introduced.

[Phthisis]

Why is that an issue?  Fighters have very limited ammo, light armor and limited fuel.  Bombers have heavier armor and are bristling with defensive weapons and fly in tight formation.  Shooting down bombers isn't a milk run.  Why should one squadron of fighters be able to take down many times their number in bombers.  They never were able to historically.  Shooting down waves of bombers took many squadrons of fighters and even then lots of bombers tended to survive to make their attack runs.  Or in naval aviation, fighters had a hard time shooting down torpedo bombers until they were stuck making an attack run.  Bombers aren't sitting ducks and one squadron of fighters probably shouldn't be able to take that many of them down.

In WWII, the allies tried several methods of escorting bomber waves.  Including fighters in the wave worked sligjtly better than no escort at all, but once the fighters reached the bombers it was very difficult to keep them from making attack runs and we lost figjter escorts to friendly fire from the bombers defensive weapons.  They eventually started sending up deep escorts to clear the air of enemy fighters before the bombers got there, which was the most reliable way of keeping bombers alive.  The current system of sending individual fighters to clear the way and deal with CAP before moving bombers in reflects this strategy very well.  I see no need to change it.

As for attrition, its realistic but it would be a real pain determining which squadrons were dead and which just went back to rearm.  And keeping track of it would be no fun either.

[horizon]

But when fighter markers can only take down one marker what is the use of fighters in the whole game?

Giving them an extra when escorting bombers is needed.

[RCgothic]

I think the simplest solution is giving fighters a save. 4+ standard, 3+ resilient. Other doesn't have a save, or a 4+ when resilient. That way a mixed wave intercepted by fighters is tougher than a bomber wave intercepted by fighters.

If you allow the save against AC and Turrets, but not against Main Weaponry or Torps, then you no longer need turret suppression, as turrets will shoot down fewer AC and that too gives a benefit to an escort, both for Assault Boats and Bombers.

[Phthisis]

Of course fighters are useful.  They defend your ships from torpedos, bombers and assault boats.

The problem is you want them to defend bombers and assault boats from enemy fighters too.  Perhaps the problem isn't with how the fighters work, but rather with how the bombers or assault boats work.  Instead of making fighters capable of wiping out multiple squadrons of bombers, how about a wave of bombers with close fighter escort in the same wave gets a 4+ save.  A failed save removes a fighter escort and an attacking fighter.  A successful save just removes an attacking fighter.  Once the escort fighters are gone, no more save, its just 1 to 1.
The wave doesn't get a save against turret fire. 


So this gives a real benefit to escorts within waves, but its not so good that you can ignore deep escort. But its not so strong that you can't defend against it. It doesn't make it appear that fighters are attacking ships and doesn't increase bomber wave strength.  Maybe it also makes long range bomber strikes a bit more viable.  In some ways it evens out a marked disadvantage to fleets with fewer launch bays than their opponents.   And the rules are simple and easy to understand.

Combine this with limiting turret values to 3 and making Ork fighta-bommas 1 bombing attack only.  How does this system look to everyone?

[Taggerung]

I really don't like that system Phthisis.

Your examples of fighters shooting down bombers works well and good for pre missile technology. However, those numbers change greatly when considering missiles. With modern technology, a squadron of fighters could easily shoot down a squadron of bombers even twice it's size due to the potency of weapons, and much larger range. If you notice that modern bombers from pretty much any nation don't even bother with defensive guns, because the day of carpet bombing like we saw in ww2 is gone.


I personally like the idea of fighters taking down bombers 2:1 as I can imagine one fighter carrying enough missiles to take down at least 2 bombers.

Or we just get rid of the system over all and go back to how the system was before, and especially with fighta bommaz...I liked ignoring  up to 3 turrets lol.

[Phthisis]

But they don't have guided missile technology.  I think Tau do.  Im not sure about Eldar but I don't remember seeing anything suggesting they do.  But Imperials, Chaos and Orks just have dumbfire rockets that they use for ground targets.  40k aeronautics is just like WWII but with jets and lasers.

Aside from fluff, does the mechanic acheive the desired effect?

[RCgothic]

They do have guided missiles. On Lightnings and Thunderbolts they're called Skystrike Missiles.

[Phthisis]

News to me.  Ive never heard of them before.  My Apocalypse book has a Thunderbolt in it but no options for 'skystrike' missiles.  Double Eagle by Dan Abnett has not a single mention of any guided
missiles in the whole book.  Who made them up and is there any confirmation they can be used on Furys or in space even?

[RCgothic]

Imperial Armour Apocalypse II, Aeronautica Imperialis, Aeronautica Imperialis Tactica Aeronautica.

They are AA mounted, and the guidance system allows re-rolls to hit against flyers.

Furies are barely mentioned in fluff, but Lightnings are used in Space Superiority by Dan Abnett. It's proof that seeker missiles do exist, and that they are equipable by Fighters usable in a space superiority role.

[Phthisis]

Fair enough.  Back in the 90s when BFG was released, that wasn't the case.  It was all autoguns and lascannons.  Wish I had enough $$ to buy all those books and keep up.

So if guided missiles exist, then all the defensive weaponry on the bombers are for nought.  Shouldn't fighters be able to take out many times their number in bombers then?  And how can you expect fighters to defend against guided missiles in close range support?  Missiles make close escort completely worthless.

And doesn't guided missile technology make the turret suppression rules rediculous?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Missiles do exist, in real life and in BFG, but there hasn't really been any concrete proof yet that bombers are that vulnerable because bombers themselves are advancing in tech, either through Stealth or other defensive systems like chaff or ECM and they themselves are shooting ship killer missiles from farther out where fighters can't just engage them.