Alternative Proposal to Turret Suppression

[horizon]

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.

This is still a main issue to me. I think it increases carrier spam in an already (at times) ordnance dominated game.

[Phthisis]

@Plaxor
Who's proposal do you like?

@RC
The mean average for bomber attacks per squadron vs T2 is 1.5, not 1.6667.   That translates into a 18.5% increase in effectiveness for your system.

With D3 attacks per squadron, there is a MAJOR increase in the effectiveness of bombers vs all targets.  Waves larger than 4 become devestating.  Waves are more powerful overall vs everything over T1.  This is exactly what we were trying to avoid.  Its not a fix.  It breaks the game in the opposite  direction.

Your explanation of why you rejected my proposal made no sense.  You rejected the repair because you think the system needs to be repaired?  Gunnery table, what?  Didn't you just try to use the Chewbacca defense?  Reject my proposal on its own merit, not on the merit of a fictional gunnery table issue.

One problem brought up was BBs near invulnerability to fighters.  The reason for this is the very highturret values on BBs.  Solution:  lower turret values on BBs to reasonable levels.
The other issue was there was no benefit to escorting bombers.  The reason is a fighter in escort died just like a bomber in a wave, making taking out waves predictable and easy.  Solution:  give fighters a defensive bonus when used as an escort like a 4+ saving throw.  This system even makes multiple fighters more wlrthwhile than a single squadron.  And ot works for assault boats too.


@admiral
How are we determining winners when fighters vs fighters?  Im assuming fighters auto-win vs all other ordnance.

Can we launch all squadrons simultaneously?

As a player that uses AC aggressively, all I think attrition will do is force me to deploy AC only when I'm in range to reach the target in one ordnance phase.  Any attempt to send waves long distance will telegraph how many fighters they ned to launch to destroy all my bombers and that would cripple my attack power for the rest of the game.  Better to play defensively until I get close and then dump massive waves of bombers to overwhelm them.   Once again, offensive attack craft become more powerful.
I dig the ability to fight air battles Midway style, but it has to be done right otherwise it can be easily abused.  
Actually, my idea of fighter escorts giving waves a saving throw may go a long way to make that feasable.

[RCgothic]

@RC
The mean average for bomber attacks per squadron vs T2 is 1.5, not 1.6667.   That translates into a 18.5% increase in effectiveness for your system.

The possible results are 0,0,1,2,3,4, total 10 from 6 options. Mean 1.666667.

How do you get 1.5?

Your fix doesn't address the real issue, which is that D6-T attacks for bombers is broken. It artificially limits the number of turrets a ship can have and requires re-writes of every profile involved. The core issue is that D6-T is broken. Let's not mess about with work-arounds, let's change the core problem.

[Phthisis]

You get 1.5 by taking 3.5, the mean average for a d6, and subtracting 2 for turrets.  Which effectively counts a die roll of 1 as a -1 instead of 0 and skews the mean average downward slightly, giving me an incorrect average.
If I see that I'm wrong, I admit it.

This is an artificial game system with artificial rules and artificial fixes set in an artificial universe.  The games designers didn't accidentally make BBs effectively impervious to bomber attack.  That's why they have so many turrets.  The players don't like that and so have been trying to change the game.  Turrets are designed to keep bombers from being effective.  So if theyre the problem, remove them.  You could just as easily say turret values above 3 are artificially high since there are only 4 ships in the original fleet lists with 4 turrets or more.  Your fix has more claim to being artificial as it changes core mechanics.
My fix means changing one piece of info on a few ships and adding a blurb to fighters.  Your fix requires rewriting an entire section of the rulebook.  Don't fault my idea for its implimentation when yours is much more difficult.

On top of that, your system boosts bombers to being immensely powerful in larger waves and nerfs torps.  Those are two things that an alternative to suppression can't do.

How is D6-T broken exactly?  We have been using it for years, and other than on battleships there hsan't been a problem.  What about it makes the game unplayable?

[Taggerung]

Bombers = D6 - Turret Value

Fightabommaz = D3 - Turret value, but you ignore up to 2 turrets.

Fighters = Do nothing to help bombers on bombing runs, however fighters when intercepting bombers, remove 2 bombers per fighter.


Both old and new rules...This doesn't allow fighta bommaz to be way more effective against large targets than bombers, but aren't worthless. Bombers can still bomb the crap out of stuff, and if fighters escort bombers into a bombing run, then they can be shot down instead of bombers.


Someone do the math and tell me what ya think, because I personally hate both of the systems put forth already.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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?

@Phthisis:
There will be some mechanics involved in fighter vs fighter combat. Personally I prefer a dice off on who wins and the loser's counter is eliminated but that is one option. Another is saving throws. But will see. Am still thinking about it first.

[Phthisis]

@Tag

I have 2 problems with that system.

First, fightabommers are 20% better than regular bombers against targets that have 2 turrets, which is by far the most common turret value in the game.

Second, fighters take out bombers at way too fast a rate.  It makes it impossible to launch successful AC attacks at anything beyond reach in one ordnance phase.

Of course, if you allow fightabommers to act like fighters they will be by far the best AC in the game.

Whag don't you like about my system?  Fightabomma waves get an even shot against BBs as IN or Chaos in my system.  You always say they should behave like crappy bombers.  In my rules they act like crappy bombers that can pounce on other ordnance.  They act just like fluff would suggest they should.

[Taggerung]

Easy fix...

Fighters have a 5+ resilient save when attacking fighta bommaz. Fighters which have resilient get a 3+ against them.

Fightabommaz should be less effective (Shitty) against ships, and having half as many as attacks makes them exactly that. You making them only get 1 attack makes them completely worthless. If they act like suicide craft like you have stated, then shit...they should act like giant ass torpedoes and do a suicide ram so should always wound on a 4+ if they only get 1 attack.

As they sit now, they are half as good as regular bombers, but slightly faster, and the same as fighters just slower.


How about this...

Bombers have 6 attacks, Fightabommaz have 3, get rid of the dice rolling on it. Still use turret suppression rules, but fightabommaz can't suppress turrets, but they still get 1 attack each for each being fighters as well as bombers.

So with a wave of 4, of each type hitting 5 turrets...
Bombers = 4 attacks
Fightabommaz = 4 attacks


Wave of 4, of each type hitting 2 turrets..
Bombers = 16 attacks
Fightabommaz = 8 attacks.

Assuming nothing is shot down..

With this, they are exactly the same as regular bombers as large craft, however they are half as good against regular bombers.

[RCgothic]

Fightabommaz should be less effective (Shitty) against ships, and having half as many as attacks makes them exactly that. You making them only get 1 attack makes them completely worthless. If they act like suicide craft like you have stated, then shit...they should act like giant ass torpedoes and do a suicide ram so should always wound on a 4+ if they only get 1 attack.

Does not compute. D6-T gives 1.67 attacks for bombers. 1 attack each for Fighter Bombers is more than half of that.

[Phthisis]

@Tag

16 attacks for 4 bombers vs T2 is unhinged.  So is 8 for FBs vs the same.

A 5+ save vs FBs doesn't come near to fixing the problems associated with fighters taking down 2 AC per.  If fighters are that dominant, just scrap ordnance alltogether.

I don't see what all your fuss is about.  1 automatic attack per FB is a fair shake better than they got before Turret Suppression was introduced, is more than the 'half as effective' benchmark that you set, and is comperable to what you're getting in the 2010 FAQ.  If this makes FBs completely useless, you must believe them to be completely useless now since weve been playing with the 2010 FAQ for a while now.

[Taggerung]

Lol except with Turret Suppression I can cheese it out to get at least 2 if not 3 attacks for each FB.

With the 2007 FAQ they were even better because they ignored up to 3 turrets.


At least with my system they are almost always getting half the amount of attacks as bombers. If you guys don't like it, then fine, but I won't be playing with the rules you guys came up with, and since both Plaxor's and the 2010 FAQ are what we use anyways, and the FAQ is more or less official, I don't really have to worry about Fightabommas' being worthless.

[Phthisis]

The Ork FB suppression rules in the 2007 FAQ were broken, which was one of the driving factors behind the 2010 FAQ.

And how exactly do you manage 2 or 3 attacks per FB under the 2010 FAQ by 'cheesing' it out?

[Taggerung]

I can use FB's to suppress turrets.

4 FB's attack a two turret ship.

2 FB's suppress = 2 attacks

2 FB's attack = 2 attacks for being FB's, and if I roll a 5 or 6 for their amount of their attacks thats another attack

Total for two FightaBomba's that attacked : minimum 4 attacks with the possibility of 6 attacks, and it doesn't matter if the other two are shot down because they are suppressing, and thus already giving me the bonus attacks.


Also, don't try and say Fighta bommaz were the "Driving factors" behind the 2010 FAQ because your just making that up. It was an issue that needed to be addressed, but they changed a lot of things.

[Phthisis]

I said it was one of the reasons, not the only reason.  Nevertheless, its an acknowledged mistake and was corrected.  I don't want to make it all over.

That's 1 to 1.3333 attacks per FB, not 2-3.  For the whole wave, you get 4 minimum and a small chance of 5 or 6.  In mine you'd get 4 minus anything you lost for turrets.  Theyre comparable.  Is it really that 1/3 potential of an adfitional attack that has you digging in your heels? Thaf sliver of probability can make them go from useful to worthless?  Yes, you can lose attacks for squadrons getting shot down now, but so does everybody else.  That happens when you eliminate turret suppression.  

[Taggerung]

and I am saying that Turret Suppression isn't broken and I personally like it. Not only because I play orks because you know I have an Imperial Fleet now too. I like Turret suppression because even fightabommaz have an chance to hurt a BB, and regular bombers have an even higher chance.