Possible Squadron bonus

[Xyon]

I have an idea,  squadrons now have 2 formations available to them.  The first, loose formation,  provides the same bonus or lack of bonus as squadrons do now, with the same coherency requirements.   (or if someone wants to define anything new, hey, its possible)

And then tight formation, new requirement of 5cm coherency, and needs to have 3 or more ships in the squad.  Possible bonuses for tight formation could be +1 ld (ships closer together so easier to transmit/coordinate/relay commands), or  ignoring of blast markers for purpose of LD for command check, shared turrets without being in base to base (or if not completely shared turrets, then a bonus to turrets somehow, like +1 turret strength for every 3 ships, or maybe being able to reroll the turret dice). 

The basic idea is to spread the bonuses from having bases stacked or touching to a wider area, but only for squads where there are enough ships in the tight coherency where it makes sense that they can overlap enough nearby area to help their squad mates.

[lastspartacus]

Hey, thats neat, anyway.

[Xyon]

I was thinking about it.   Came up with a bonus for both formations, to let people choose which they'd prefer.

Loose formation, coherency between 5-15 cm.  May ignore -1 ld from blast markers because of being able to coordinate radar/telemetry data from all ships in the squad from wider angles than squads in tight formation, allowing for the interference from the blast markers to be ignored. This shared information also allows for +1 LD when attempting lock on orders.

Tight formation, coherency between 1-5 cm.  Ships not in base contact but in coherency gain +1 turret for each ship left in the squad (each ship in a squad of 4 ships would gain +3 turret).   Ships in base contact (and in a squad) would  combine their actual number of turrets ( squad of 2 cruisers in base contact, each with base of 2 turrets, would then combine to 4 turrets each.)

I think this adds some flexibility and benefit for being in squads for both offensive and defensive purposes, but not both at the same time.  With these squadron formations, I think it would also be pointed out that I would have it be possible for all classes of ship (other than defense platforms) to squadron with each other.   Battleships with escorts,  transports and cruisers, etc.

[Sigoroth]

I would simply alter the current squadron rules. I would have it such that individual capital ships in a squadron may attempt to brace for impact without it affecting the rest of the squadron at its own leadership value. In fact, I would have squadrons attempt orders against the leadership of each of its constituents. So the downside to squadroning would be that all ships must attempt the same order (except for brace) and the upside would be that those that fail do not break the Chain of Command if at least one passes, as well as combined fire.

Example: A squadron of 3 Devs with Ld 9, 8 and 6 attempt to reload ordnance. The roll comes up 8, so the Ld 9 and 8 vessels pass and reload their ordnance, but the ld 6 ship fails and so has no AC this turn. Since at least 1 ship passed its test, the controlling player may now continue issuing orders to the rest of the fleet.

If I were going to differentiate between close formation and dispersed formation then I would apply the above to dispersed formation and use current squadron rules for close formation. The rationale is that close proximity of ships allows better sensor sharing and communications, with the problem that the close proximity is more dangerous should one ship explode (so highest leadership, one brace all brace).

[horizon]

I totally agree on the BFI subject. It is the main reason I never squadron unless my carrier has Ld6, and even then I am hesistant.

[BaronIveagh]

I was thinking about it.   Came up with a bonus for both formations, to let people choose which they'd prefer.

Loose formation, coherency between 5-15 cm.  May ignore -1 ld from blast markers because of being able to coordinate radar/telemetry data from all ships in the squad from wider angles than squads in tight formation, allowing for the interference from the blast markers to be ignored. This shared information also allows for +1 LD when attempting lock on orders.

Tight formation, coherency between 1-5 cm.  Ships not in base contact but in coherency gain +1 turret for each ship left in the squad (each ship in a squad of 4 ships would gain +3 turret).   Ships in base contact (and in a squad) would  combine their actual number of turrets ( squad of 2 cruisers in base contact, each with base of 2 turrets, would then combine to 4 turrets each.)

I think this adds some flexibility and benefit for being in squads for both offensive and defensive purposes, but not both at the same time.  With these squadron formations, I think it would also be pointed out that I would have it be possible for all classes of ship (other than defense platforms) to squadron with each other.   Battleships with escorts,  transports and cruisers, etc.

Hmm... this is an interesting idea.  I think it should be playtested.

[Xyon]

I like those ideas about non shared leadership and bfi for individual ships as well, i think they'd be interesting along with my ideas as well.

Maybe even let ships in base to base contact combine shields as well, but as soon as the shields are knocked out, they're out for both ships.

[fracas]

since BFI is the odd SO anyway, i am good with Sig's suggestion that for Squadron BFI
that one roll is made for the whole squadron but each capital ship success is dependent on its own LD

[Eldanesh]

I totally agree on the BFI subject. It is the main reason I never squadron unless my carrier has Ld6, and even then I am hesistant.

I'd never understood this hate for squadrons: this rule offers some advantages with only one drawback, BFI for all.

+ ld tests on higher value
+ less LD checks on higher value -> less fails -> less used rerolls  (OK, I agree: this is very depending on the size of the game, but I/my group prefer games around 3k per side. At this point you simply need Squadrons if you want special orders on all your ships)
+ on AAF the Squadron has the same speed
+ no targeting of individual ships, so by clever "rotating" you'll have a lot of minor damage but no real broken ship
+ you can protect more expensive ships with cheap cannon fodder

- same special rule for alle ships.

Yes, it surly IS a big disadvantage if the whole squad is on BFI, but if you remove this disadavantage the whole "optionality" of the rle is gone: without any real disadvantige there'll be no reason not to put your cruisers in Squads. And this thakes away a lot of planning/tactics. A good tactical option should always have both, pro and con. If there is only one, the whole rule isn't needed as you don't have to make a decision.

[horizon]

Squadrons cannot go wild on the manouevring. Individual ships can do tricky tricks.

[Eldanesh]

Hey, I play IN: 15cm speed under fire and 45° turning - they usually don't do a lot of tricks, be it in squads or not 

No, seriously, a massive "Block" of ships which stays together as close as possible (meaning ~3cm from each other) an pointing in the same dircetion is usually the best solution for IN (except ships like dauntless oder Cobras of course) in most situations. And under this circumstances Squadrons aren't that bad.