List of flawed ships

[RCgothic]

I would much rather drop turret suppression completely and go for D6-2.

It's simpler, doesn't preserve the exponential benefit of increasing turrets, and doesn't arbitrarily benefit bombers over assault boats - any change to assault boats we've thought of so far come across as convoluted and unnatural.

On resilience: I think it should be fought out in rounds. Both sides make their attacks, and if there are any survivors they attack again until one or both sides are dead. Fighters get saves, bombers don't. This meshes better with 'after the defending attackers are dead, attack bombers' than does conducting one round of fighter combat and then also attacking the bombers (which will by neccessity have multiple rounds anyway when the fighters survive against the non-resilient bombers).

With resilient fighters and no restriction on number of saves that can be taken, on average each fighter will kill 2 bombers/ABs. On average, 1 fighter will kill 1 fighter. This means it is worth it to take fighters in the wave rather than risk interception, and also gets around sending in 1 attack craft at a time until the CAP is dead.

In summary:
Make fighters resilient - this is pretty much the only way to make escort duty make any sense.
Allow unlimited resilience saves - this improves the average kills of a resilient fighter to 2 from 1.5 - important for incentive to escort.
Please drop turret suppression altogether - not required with above changes, complicated and not of much benefit.
Therefore only bomber system that's left that works is D6-2.

[Eldanesh]

Pardon me, but this solutin is a bad one

1. what do you do with already resilent fighter? Reroll? - that would be a bit too *awesome*

2. unlimited resilent saves... increases the "luck factor" - bad thing

3. permanent W6-2 regardless of turret streng makes turret upgrades (like in the current Bakka list) more or less useles/overcosted.

4. In generell: you are strengten AC in effect, without any "counter". This will totally shift the power focus away from gunships more to the carriers. In fact winning/losing will be a simple matter of AC. Because AC are a potent offensive weapon as well as the only effective defensive agiaansz it.


-> Any changing in the ules should keep in mind that AC should be "just another weapon system": with drawbacks as well as advantages. So if you increase the power of bomber/AC, there should be a "conter": ether they can be more easily killed by Escort or something like this.

And, -personnel taste- IF you change the power focus you should lower the influence of carriers. At all, they are already a much to dominant factor: even if you wanna play a "gunfleet" you'll need some of them (at least 4 hangars per 750P) otherwise you'll lose..

[RCgothic]

D6-2 does not increase the power of AC in general, except against T3+, which strongly deserve the nerf. D6-2 with scrapped turret suppression is the ONLY system proposed so far that maintains current power levels against T2 targets. TTS will allow a wave of 3f&5B bombers to score 17.5 attacks compared to a current average of 11.7 - that's an increase of 50%!

T3 under the D6-2 will still be 300% more protection than T1 - in other words BBs will remain better protected than their cruiser counterparts, so it will still make sense for carriers to target only the weak or crippled, whilst making attack runs against a BB a viable (if less effective than agaisnt cruisers) option, just like for any other weapons system.

Meanwhile, I am proposing to double the effectiveness of fighters, which will have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of bombers - they either die more frequently or are reduced in numbers by an escort.

Resilient fighters such as Eldar would get an improved save, such as 3+, which would retain their effectiveness at 50% more than standard fighters.

No part of my proposals buff carrier fleets generally - the weakest links in a gunfleet (T1) actually get stronger, whilst the most common target (T2) remains completely unchanged. Yes, T3+ get weaker against attack craft, but they are still stronger than T2 targets, so a carrier fleet focussing on attacking high turret targets could have done more damage targetting T2 or T1 targets instead. This is the same situation we have currently.

[horizon]

I dislike D6-2 out of princple
2 should really really be turret value of ship.

[Plaxor]

Horizon, with fighters reducing the number of effective turrets for all bombers it increases their 'damage' by about 1/3 overall.

Hmmmm.... maybe D3's -turrets, but you ignore as many turrets as you have surviving fighters.

However that would mean that your bombers wouldn't do anything against 3+ turrets, unless you had fighters abounding.

[horizon]

That's why I kinda still like the official version with the addendum that only surviving fighters add +1 attack run.
Balanced, clear and no need to add/rewrite a lot of things.

[Plaxor]

Hrmmm... so you're telling me....


Bombers do D6-T attack runs. For every surviving fighter the 'minimum' rolled becomes that number?

So a wave of 3F3B against a 3 turret entity, would mean that the Bombers would roll D6-3 attack runs, to a minimum of 3 (assuming all three fighters survived).

I like it. No if ands or buts. The 'remaining bomber/max turrets' stuff is wordy and unnecessary.

It would be interpreted that even if in the same scenario, the wave was going against 1 turrets they would still Roll D6-1 to a minimum of 3 if the fighters survived.

[RCgothic]

D6-2 is far preferable to D6-T and its exponentially reducing damage. Even with the cack-handed attempt at turret suppression it's still horrible.

D6-T & TTS equates to a massive buff in AC effectiveness, roughly twice the buff D3 attacks would be AND it still leaves ABs out in the cold.

D6-2 and Unlimited Resilient Fighters equates to a rough nerf in AC power (or unchanged if you can't put up defensive AC)
D3 and Unlimited Resilient Fighters would probably be no-change overall, though low-AC fleets would get harder to field.

D6-T to a minimum of F: Either you limit it to the number of T (in which case against a T2 target with 2 Fighters the results would be (4,3,2,2,2,2) with average of 2.5, or you don't limit it and you could end up with 4 F against a T2 target scoring (4,4,4,4,4,4) with an average of 4. One is obviously more broken than the other, but either way, it's a strong buff against T2 targets. It's also a strong buff to large wave sizes, as they can abuse the mechanic to a greater degree.

[horizon]

No RcG
D6-2 is daft compared to D6-T.

[Plaxor]

It's relative to how many survive.

3 fighters and 3 bombers against T2 in this situation would result:

2.54 Damage

2F4B:
2.72

1F5B:
2.77

6B:
2.77

So not really of any use unless against higher turret targets.

[Eldanesh]

D6-2 does not increase the power of AC in general, except against T3+, which strongly deserve the nerf. D6-2 with scrapped turret suppression is the ONLY system proposed so far that maintains current power levels against T2 targets. TTS will allow a wave of 3f&5B bombers to score 17.5 attacks compared to a current average of 11.7 - that's an increase of 50%!

T3 under the D6-2 will still be 300% more protection than T1 - in other words BBs will remain better protected than their cruiser counterparts, so it will still make sense for carriers to target only the weak or crippled, whilst making attack runs against a BB a viable (if less effective than agaisnt cruisers) option, just like for any other weapons system.

Lol made my day.

This the the proof that numbers (wrong numbers, but that doesn't matters here at all) can't replace a valid argument.  Your system simply screws up every basic game mechanism. You won't see anything others than carriers under this rules.

Your 17.5 attacks equals 
- a Firepower of 24,5 against 30cm closing capitalship,
- a firepower of 34,5 in the third column (capital ship moving away)
- a firepower of 49,5(!) against a 30 abeam capital ship/moving away over 45cm etc.

Even if you consider lock on that doesn't change much - AC are than the superior weapon system in every aspect.

There is absolutly NO reason to favor a gunship over a carrier under this rules. They are already a very good weapon system.  Their only downside is, they lose performance/are useless against high turret values.

Don't get me wrong: you CAN abandon turret surpression. You can even say that every suriving bomber does D6 attacks or even 6 attacks. No big deal.
But you have to introduce some counter-mechanism that allows a player with the inferior number of AC to, well...counter them.

- let turrets hit on 2+
- fighters remove Bomber on a 1:2 or even 1:4 ratio (this allows viable defensive tactics with inferior number of AC)
- Escorts hit a have on 3+
- etc.

It doesn't matter what you do, but if you improve AC in such a way, you need a counter.

I'm with you that the current system is not elegant, but your proposal is simply too strong.

[RCgothic]

You could not have missed my point any further. I am against True Turret Suppression (TTS). The number I posted were for TTS, demonstrating how overpowered TTS is. It is TTS gives you 17.5 attacks. I am vehemently against TTS for exactly the reasons you have just posted. We do not disagree.

Someone proposed current system (D6-T), but with TTS. That is the system that is overpowered. That is what I'm arguing against.

I suggested D6-2. D6-2 is identically equal to the current system (D6-T without TTS) at T2, and AC become weaker against T1. AC become better against T3+, but they are still weaker than against T2.

[Valhallan]

imo the simplest solution yet is d6-t min 1. gives the lil advantage vs high turrets but same-ish vs lower turrets.

[RCgothic]

It's not same-ish.

D6-T to a minimum of 1 has the same average value against T2 as a D3, which is a 20% buff.

[RCgothic]

One thought:

Bombers get either 2 attacks or D3 attacks. Either way, they get an average of 2 attacks each.

Ships then get a 6+ "Turret Save" against each attack run (say the turrets are desperately trying to shoot down the bomber-launched anti-ship missiles).

The final number of attack runs that roll against armour will be equal to 1.67, identical to the current system. If you want to push the boat out, battleships could get a 5+ save to represent their increased defences.