Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression

[Phthisis]

When BFG came out, the state of aeronautical combat was strictly WWII era.  The game mechanics reflect that era of aerial warfare. 

I'm not in favor of increasing the attack power of fighters.  Removing multiple unescorted bombers and assault boats will make attack craft virtually useless and make multi-use craft like fighta-bommas comparativelt way better than anything else.

I don't know of many who like the turret suppression rules.  My gaming group isn't happy with them either.  It seems to be a comprimise where nobody gets what they want.  The consensus is that bombers need to be usable against BBs without making them more powerful against other targets.  The current suppression rules make bombers more powerful against everything.  It doesn't even make bombers effective enough to really bother with against BBs.  The other reason for turret suppression was to give incentive to use fighters to escort waves.  It doesn't do this well either as enemy fighters do exactly the same damage to waves, the extra attack for fighters against ships is awkward and not really much of an incentive to take fighter escorts either.  Whats worse is nobody will agree on a new solution.

There is no way to make bombers effective without also making them better against everything else.  Reducing the turret values of battleships is the only way to make them more vulnerable without boosting bombers vs all targets.  I think people would take fighter escorts if they actually protected the wave they were defending. A saving throw does that.  Making fightabommas 1 attack each and no saving throw makes them behave as they should, as fighters that can bomb opportunistically.
Ive never understood why turrets had to choose between torpedos and bombers.  Each turn is supposed to be several hours of elapsed time.  The turret gunners likely have enough time for tea and possibly a nap between the bomber attacks and torpedo salvoes.  Eliminating that limitation helps keep the power of ordnance in check  and eliminates some cheesy tactics.

Or, I'm also happy with going with the original rules without suppression.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Saving throw isn't the only way. Limit the number of AC counters per type per ship. Then you'd see fighters protecting bombers.

Limiting the number of bombers would then allow for them to become more powerful against everything but still not be in a position to dominate unless the opponent's fighters are taken out first.

And Turrets should also be allowed to shoot at both incoming ordnance.

[Phthisis]

Ok, that could work too, but a saving throw is easier and faster.  We already keep track of damage points, whether ordy is reloaded or not and critical hits.  I can see how some would like the added dimesnsion of squadron selection and attrition.  But doing so would double the amount of record keeping required to play.  I don't know about you, but when my friends and I play BFG we have a few beers and BS.  After a couple of beers I'm not going to want to have to keep track of any more than I have to or watch my opponent to make sure they are tracking their squadrons fairly as well.  More record keeping means more mistakes, on purpose or not.  I am usually short on time as well and more record keeping means the game will take longer.  Plus we would robably have to reasses carrier point values due to decreased effectiveness of AC and invent an entirely new mechanic to determine victors in dogfights and attrition.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Playing Warmachine Hordes now, I think keeping track is not that hard of a problem, esp noting if a carrier has RO'd successfully.

We don't even need to worry about number of AC on the table. Launch everything if you want. Just have a sheet of paper detailing what ordnance you have and cross out the appropriate AC marker when removed. With AC being removed, the number of AC markers will go down round after round. Later on just ask for how many of what type of AC he has left. The faster you egt rid of his AC the less you have to monitor.

Re-assessing the carrier's points won't be necessary if one improves the bombers (improving vs high turrets) and ABs (opening up the entire crit table) to compensate.

We eat and drink as well when playing.

[Phthisis]

Do, if a Devesataion carrier loses 1 bomber to fighters and 1 to turret fire during a bombing run, the Devestation can then only launch 2 squadrons of any type after it reloads ordnance?

[RCgothic]

The number of AC would require fine tuning. I think there are also issues with combined waves from multiple ships in a squadron.

[Phthisis]

A lot of things would need fine tuning because we'd have to design a new ruleset.

I can't say I hate AC attrition.  It would be fine in a smaller scale game like Privateer.  It would allow midway style battles. But in BFG it would shift focus onto ordnance over cruisers.  Also the larger the scale of the game, the more difficult and time consuming the new AC rules would be.

Why don't you come up with a substitute ruleset for attack craft that players can choose to use if they like.  I probably won't, but others will.

My focus is on creating a quick and dirty modification to the rules to replace Turret Suppression and better allow for bomber runs on BBs and fighter escorts.  Many may not like my solution, but it cuts to the heart of the matter and does exactly what we wanted suppression to do, but cleaner, faster and better

[RCgothic]

Quick fix:

Bombers do D3 attacks regardless of turrets.
Fighter Bombers do 1 attack regardless of turrets.
Turrets hit on a 3+ instead of a 4+.
Turrets may fire at both torps and AC.
These changes equate to a 6% buff overall for a wave of 4 bombers vs T2, but being able to fire at torps as well cancels this out to a degree. It evens things out a lot more for T1 and T3+ whilst still providing strong incentive to have good turrets. +1 turret is +1AC per wave shot down, which is pretty decent.

Turret Suppression is discarded.
Fighters have a 4+ save against Turrets and AC interactions, but not torpedoes or Main Weaponry.
This provides incentive to escort bombers and ABs as well. Resilient Bombers/ABs also have a 4+, whilst resilient fighters have a 3+.

Job done.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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

On the attrition rules, will try to come up with rules. How many squadrons per ship though? x2 or x3? I think x2 would be ok but others might prefer x3.

[Phthisis]

RC, I have some questions with your version and see some problems.

What score do you need to hit Eldar with?

I get an 18% increase in effectiveness for a wave of 4 bombers vs T2.  Can you confirm its only 6%?  What's the math?

You give a 4+ save for fighters vs turrets.  How does this function if a successful save is made?  What is the point of giving fighters saves vs turrets?

Do fightabombers get a 4+ save as they act as fighters?

How do we account for the nerf to torpedos because of the 3+ turret hits?

Without the turret reduction for the attack roll after turrets, doesn't this system make waves of 6 or 8 bombers rediculously powerful?

Would you consider my proposal?  It only effects bombers vs battleships and leavs everything else identical.  Fighters are the same as in your proposal, but without a save vs turrets.  What was wrong with mine that you rejected it?


@Admiral
It depends on whether we have to declare how many squadrons of what type we have on board each ship before the game.  If I have to say I have so many fighter squadrons and so many bombers, I'd say 3x the number of launch bays.  Nimitz carriers fit 90 fixed wing aircraft below decks, so holding 3 squadrons or more per bay in a gargantuan starship should be easy.  If you don't have to declare before the game 3x would not likely be any kind of limit, so 2x should be the rule.

Just a thought...  By itself, how does this encourage players to take fighter escorts?  Don't you still need a rule that lets fighters protect other attack craft?  Otherwise you just save your AC for close range and use fighters to suicide and soak turret shots.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

You encourage it because once a fighter counter takes a bomber counter out, the bomber counter is gone from the game. Fighters would still engage fighters first in a mixed wave, just the way real life would happen. So would you still send an all bomber wave vs a fighter wave knowing that once the bomber counter is removed that you've lost it for the rest of the game? That your carriers are now going to be doing basically nothing?

I'm still figuring things out though and will present something.

[horizon]

RcGothic's proposal plays harder on fleets designed to do layered/multi attacks. Especially Tau will feel this. But also Imperial Navy carrier fleets.

[Plaxor]

I like it. Although I think that it hurts Orks more than IN, as most IN lists don't use carriers offensively like Orks do. Especially with the fact that fighta-bommers have half as many attack runs as normal bombers.

Of course you would have them have 5+ res saves.

Interestingly I had a thought along Admiral D's lines, that carriers had some limit of every type of ordnance (say 12 of each) and for every 4 ordnance types that they launched in the previous turn you would 'recover' D3.

I am a fan of Warmachine, and there is quite a bit of things to keep track of in that game (MK.1 was terrible with out of turn actions). It would be nice to see some more community things developed for the game, for record keeping, I would kill for ship-profile cards that I could mark hits, criticals (even multiple criticals) similarly to how Warmachine does it, with dry-erase markers.

[horizon]

I like the limited orndance approach as well. Also check here for a principle on the orndnance pool.

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/sg/forum/index.php?topic=1849.0

[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.

What score do you need to hit Eldar with?
Whatever is balanced. 6+ would be a 20% buff, 5+ would be a 9% buff , 4+ would be a 2% nerf compared to current.

I get an 18% increase in effectiveness for a wave of 4 bombers vs T2.  Can you confirm its only 6%?  What's the math?
Bombers do 2/1.6667 = 120% damage output. However, only 67% of the squadron will survive, as opposed to 75% now. These effects average out at a 6.7% increase.

You give a 4+ save for fighters vs turrets.  How does this function if a successful save is made?  What is the point of giving fighters saves vs turrets?
To give incentive to escort bombers/ABs even when you have space superiority. This is a part of the rule that I'm not wedded to.  I can see there would need to be some sort of hit allocation, but you really need this anyway for resolving interactions between AC with a save. The current resilience rules are a mess, and a flat 4+ save to everything makes multiple fighters in a wave redundant.

Do fightabombers get a 4+ save as they act as fighters?
I don't see why not. They're only half as effective as regular bombers in the bombing role, so I don't see this as game breaking.

How do we account for the nerf to torpedos because of the 3+ turret hits?
For a wave of 6 torps, this nerfs by 6.7%. Combined torp waves are less affected, which incentivises trying to make them work.

Without the turret reduction for the attack roll after turrets, doesn't this system make waves of 6 or 8 bombers rediculously powerful?
Waves of 8 get a 14.3% increase after turrets. It is certainly an increase, though I think it's a tolerable one. Only a couple of ships can pull off a wave of 8 by themselves, and I don't see anything wrong with incentivising combined waves.

Would you consider my proposal?  It only effects bombers vs battleships and leavs everything else identical.  Fighters are the same as in your proposal, but without a save vs turrets.  What was wrong with mine that you rejected it?
I rejected it because it was merely a patch to a bad system. To take an over the top example, if the gunnery chart had no multiples of 5, then that would clearly be a bad system. We could alter the ships to never use a multiple of five (analogous to your solution), or we could alter the core rules and add extra rows to the gunnery chart. I don't think modifying the profiles of battleships to have fewer turrets really solves anything and makes the ships much the same.