More Detailed Attack Craft Interactions

[Thinking Stone]

Hello everyone,
I have been thinking about attack craft (as I'm sure many have) and I have seen many of the ideas posted in other threads. I am raising the idea that perhaps a new, more detailed, system for attack craft could be developed. I have only occasionally felt the excitement of an epic attack craft battle, and even then it was with either Thunderhawks or very large wings of attack craft. Also, the current rules have only one method of representing elite starfighter formations, the Resilience rule (4+ save for attack craft to remain in play after an engagement). My thoughts are that attack craft battles could be made much more interesting and exciting by introducing a system involving characteristic based combats. To explain that rather vague statement, what I suggest is that attack craft markers have a strength statistic and a resilience statistic, and battles are resolved by rolling dice (e.g. rolls to wound in Warhammer 40K). This would allow the possibility of an heroic bomber squadron evading all of its pursuers (against the odds!) and commiting to the final bombing run that saves the day (by crippling a battleship, etc.). It would also allow the possibility of an elite fighter formation really causing fear in its enemies, being capable of driving off far greater numbers of enemy attack craft.

Although I am aware that some members of the forum dislike the addition of more chance to Battlefleet Gothic, this is one area where I feel chance will add to the game experience and to your tactical choices. A system like this could potentially eliminate the problems of turret suppression and improve roles of fighters (espec. protecting assault boats) without necessarilly being a burden on the game system. Of course, any system like this will need to be particularly elegant and streamlined so that it does not detract from the game.

After that long introduction, any ideas on making attack craft battles more epic?

[Eldanesh]

Won't sound unfriendly but AC should not have a bigger focus in BFG.

At all they have already too much focus, really. BFG would be IMO a far better game if they never introduced them to the game in the last phase of development.
Yeah, I know a lot of people love fighter battles, but this is star wars then. Carriergroups and such things neither really fits in the Warhammer 40000 background nor does it fit in the historic antetype of the game, the Jutland Battle.

[Thinking Stone]

Hello Eldanesh,
No unfriendliness detected.
I think that, rather than removing the 'much-loved' ordnance of BFG, it would be better to make other styles of fighting more rewarding and powerful. I think that, despite the historical archetypes behind BFG, there is no reason why warships in the far future, in space, would not have extensive carrier capabilities. I would suggest that the WH40K background is not so much 'anti-carrier' but is more 'anti-carriergroup'. That is, fleets 'historically' have more gunships than dedicated carriers in the 41st millenium because gunships are better for fleets (i.e. they kill more stuff). Attack craft battles are all over the fiction of WH40K, too (can't remember any specific titles, but most land campaigns of the Imperial Guard have extensive air support, much of which is not very different from the space-faring craft and is deployed from such orbital support in cases).

 I think that, although they have their attendant problems, attack craft (AC) battles are an intrinsic part of BFG, especially because they offer an alternative to gunships versus gunships (a system which would become quite dull in the current rules because you have only a few choices: 1) fast or slow ships; 2) lances or weapons batteries or torpedoes). Also, though torpedoes definitely make gunship battles more interesting, attack craft are not so much different from them that they should overcomplicate and dominate the game. My solution is to make other aspects of the game more interesting, and not to focus more on attack craft but to revamp them to be more interesting (which I believe already happened in the original rules with the introduction of 'Resilient' AC and Eldar bombers). See the other post you made for more ideas, I have too many!

Thank you, I value your opinions. I am interested primarily in whether such a more detailed system could work (perhaps as a balanced, optional system).

[Valhallan]

the most easily incorporated idea that i can see is adding crew skills/refits to allow AC squadrons from specific ships get better in campaigns. more so than the 'this ship gets resilient fighters' or 'reroll bombing runs like eldar'.

like options for some bomber squadrons to get +1 to hit, or some (orc!) bombers getting extra attack runs in some way. perhaps fighters with extra speed? varying it up would help out interest, but still detract from the large scale engagement. (hey the first complaint of my group was that bfg was too simple with only 4 types of weapons: lances, guns, ac and torps; so maybe i'm wrong).

however i believe that if you want to make the ordy war half of the game more complex then your going to have to make the ship-to-ship half (WB and lances) more complex too. and thus this is really a discussion for the BFG advanced (bfg skirmish) thread.

[BaronIveagh]

Won't sound unfriendly but AC should not have a bigger focus in BFG.

At all they have already too much focus, really. BFG would be IMO a far better game if they never introduced them to the game in the last phase of development.
Yeah, I know a lot of people love fighter battles, but this is star wars then. Carriergroups and such things neither really fits in the Warhammer 40000 background nor does it fit in the historic antetype of the game, the Jutland Battle.

Again, Jutland was actually the first occasion that a carrier was involved in a battle at sea, despite it's very, very minor role. 

Despite some people assertions, BFG has less to do with Jutland and more to do with Trafalgar.  Hell, despite Andy's protests to the contrary, he basically just transplanted Man O'War to 40k. 

[Thinking Stone]

Not to seem unpleasant or offensive, but the aim of this thread was to generate discussion on an 'Advanced Ordnance' system that could be used with large-scale engagements (not just with skirmish BFG).

[Thinking Stone]

The Ordnance doesn't have to become more powerful, and in fact a system of 'resilience' and 'defence' could actually make it easier for ord. versus ship battles to be resolved (conceptually, that is; you still have to roll extra dice, but the player can actually see the effect of their fighter squadrons protecting their assault boats and bombers). It also makes the roles of fighters more standardised and could standardise ordnance in general. I don't believe that such as system would be any harder to use during a game since a similar amount of time is taken up by turret fire and calculating the number of runs bombers can make, etc., as well as CAP ordnance. The intention isn't to make ordnance detailed to the level of a skirmish game (in which case, Valhallan, you are quite right, that should be in the Advanced thread, so I will direct people there to here), but rather to keep ordnance at a similar level but with some modifications to make ordnance just detailed enough that there is a real interest in ordnance battles, not because they are a devastating tactic to use but because they are an interesting tactic to use.

Of course, if ordnance becomes more interesting and fun to play (by having a more dramatic, 'cinematic' feel), people will tend to build fleets with ordnance simply because they like to play that style. My suggestions for changing the way gunship-type vessels interact in BFG are that gunship tactics are equally effective and as interesting as ordnance tactics (for example, when you fire upon an enemy vessel with a well-manouevred group of ships, you achieve a rewarding result as actual damage is sustained by the target. Target priority is a very satisfying skill to master (and is appropriate theme-wise for BFG), so players will also tend to construct fleets to make use of the interesting and fun gunship tactics available).

[RCgothic]

I've been thinking along these lines:

All fighters have a 4+ save against other AC, representing the chance it has of surviving an engagement with enough fuel and ammunition to remain effective. Fighters that eliminate their opposition and pass their save may continue on to attack other targets. All fighters involved in a combat attack at once, but only bombers/assault boats that are directly attacked may fight back. Resilient Fighters gain a 3+ save. Other Resilient Ordnance gains a 4+ save.

How this will work:

Eg1: 2 fighters intercept 3 fighters. Each fighter makes 1 attack, so the intercepting fighters have to make 3 saves, and the defenders make 2. Any survivors then attack again until one side or other are dead.

Eg2: 3 Fighta Bommerz intercept 1 Starfury Fighter and 3 Starhawks Bombers.

The Starfury is attacked 3 times, and rolls 4,6,6, passing all its saves and survives. The 3 Fighta Bommerz are attacked once by the Starfury and roll a 2, so one of them dies. As both sides have survived, another round of combat is fought:

The Starfury is attacked 2 times by the surviving Fighta Bommerz, and rolls 3,3, and is destroyed. The additional failed save doesn't carry over onto the bombers. The Fighta Bommerz roll a 5, and so are fine. There are still markers on each side, so the fight continues, but as the escort is dead, the Starhawk Bombers are now attacked.

2 Starhawks are removed, as bombers have no save. The 2 Fighta Bommerz roll 3,5, leaving one Fighta Bommer. Both sides still have markers, so a fourth round is fought:

The last starhawk is removed as it has no save. The last fighta bommer rolls a 4, and so survives and may continue to move and attack a different target.

[BaronIveagh]

Hmm.... that would lead to a lot of book keeping though...