Ordnance - another idea...

[AndrewChristlieb]

Why wouldnt the ceiling for the current rules (4 bombers vs 2 turret ship) be 16? its extremly unlikely but it could happen.
Horzions version would see a ceiling of 2

prehaps with a formula of "highest d6/bomber+number of bombers over first-turrets=dice to hit" or 1-6 + 3 - 2 = 2-7 dice to hit, skewing to about 6/7 on average (70.37% chance of getting a 5+ on 3 dice).

with the current rules you have anywhere from 0-16 dice to hit, skewing to about 4/5 on average(4bombers - 1 average from turret fire = 3; 3d6 average 10/11 - 6{each d6- turrets} = 4/5. note at 67.58% (closest average to above) the swing for this is 8/13-6 = 2/7

This was based off of 4 bombers attacking a 2 turret ship with one bomber lost to turret fire average

on a t3 "highest d6/bomber+number of bombers over first-turrets=dice to hit" or 1-6 + 3 - 3 = 1-6 dice to hit, skewing to about 3/4 on average (50% chance of getting a 3/4 on 2 dice).

on a t4 "highest d6/bomber+number of bombers over first-turrets=dice to hit" or 1-6 + 3 - 4 = 0-5 dice to hit, skewing to about 2/3 on average (50% chance of getting a 3/4 on 2 dice).

The current rules:
(2d6 average 7 - 6{each d6- turrets} = 1. note at 44.42% (closest average to above) the swing for this is 6/8 - 6 = 0-2 vs t3

(2d6 average 7 - 8{each d6- turrets} = 0. note at 44.42% (closest average to above) the swing for this is 6/8 - 8 = 0-0 vs t4

with the current rules theres a 72.18% chance you will have 0 attacks on a t4 off of 2 bombers (the average to survive 4 turrets) and a 61.07% chance of having 0 attacks vs a t3 off of 2 bombers (also the average to survive 3 turrets, rounded up)

This formula keeps the same average # of dice @ t2 and adds quite a good bit to the average for T3/T4

Vs standard (msm) eldar or dark eldar holofields could double their armor rating (8 or 10 for the DE cruiser)

[AndrewChristlieb]

@Pthisis, you are right about the math, and it would need to be modified to a more 'accurate' system. Possibly D3xbombers+1xfighters(max=bombers)-Turrets+armour.

Ships which rely solely on holofields no longer exist in BFGR, or MMS1.9

With what Horizon said 4x surviving bombers would do .5 hits vs t2, less than their expected 1.5 from normal.

However it was always RCgothics & My vision that turrets would only affect bombers by destroying them, rather than removing attacks off the back end. So it would seem sensible to do just an armour subtraction. (D6+4)-5 would grant an average of 2.5 hits. Pretty reasonable, and in fact if you don't count the first bomber, then (D6+3)-5=1.5 hits, an identical thing.

It was always a hole in the game that made Bombers vary so widely against varying turretted vessels, and it made for no reason to have vessels with more than 6 turrets. Turret suppression is a complicated thing, and this would be nice to fix as well.

I'm not a huge fan of limited numbers of AC, as it is unknown territory, difficult to balance and there is some question of the value of it compared to the cost of the increased need for notes.

However, you could potentially say that there is limited ordnance like Horizon has, and that prior to the game before deploying you note how many AC of each type you have in your launch bays.

AC are destroyed when they run into fighters or are shot by direct fire weapons as normal. Fighters escorting bombers or assault boats would 'prevent' either from being destroyed by turrets, as they are able to suppress them long enough for the bombers to survive. Naturally in this case bombers would likely be 'disabled' first, saying that they weren't able to deploy their bombs successfully.

Fighter-bombers would simply do (D3+X)-A, and would never be 'destroyed' by turret fire. Overall I like it quite a bit, but it would need more analysis.

I believe the idea of an "ordnance pool" was that you actually started with a pile of ordnance to represent all of your fighters/bombers/etc and as they are destroyed you simply remove the token from your "pool" easy enough to keep track of

[Phthisis]

@AndrewC
Yeah, the ceiling is 16 and his ceiling is 2.  But my point about Horizon's system completely obliterating the effectiveness of bombers stands.

So your system is (highest dice score on # of dice equal to the number of bombers) + (# of bomber squadrons -1) = # of attacks...  then roll vs armor?

This gives bombers the same potency against an escort as it does against a BB.  Is that something people are willing to live with?

@Plaxor
The math on this system is all over the place.  With the turret deduction, bombers are worthless.  Without the turret deduction, bombers become much more powerful.  Mean average hits for 3 surviving bomber squadrons vs T2 is 1.66666666, so that's the same.  But the likelihood of getting more hits is much greater.  In the old system, you'd have about a 4% chance of scoring 4 bomber hits on a T2 ship with 3 surviving squadrons, but in this new system it's a 16.66% chance.  Also, this scales up faster.  Usually an additional squadron of bombers averages an additional .55 hits, but an additional squadron in this system averages another .83 hits. Also, without turrets, bombers can cause the same amount of damage to BBs as they would to escorts (or any other ship).  This is a fairly substantial increase in the threat that bombers pose to BBs.  If this were the system I were using, at the moment I'd load up on carriers.

Even without the deduction for turrets, all 4 fightabomma squadrons will have to make it past the turrets to have even a hope of damaging their target.  4 bomber squadrons have a 1/3 chance to cause one hit but anything less can't even damage an escort with 5+ armor.
Also, this is a pretty big boost to Eldar who, I'm assuming, would get to re-roll the D6. 

I suppose it all depends on what you want to do the game.  With the turret subtraction, bombers are useless.  Without the turret subtraction they become superior to torpedoes and probably worth a lot more than they cost.  You could possibly re-balance the game so that gunnery was still more points efficient, but you'd probably have to reprice every BB and carrier in the game to work that out.

[Plaxor]

A simple fix would be to allow the option of either a combined attack or individual attack (after surviving turrets). The combined attack would be the (D6 (or D3) +X)-A

The individual attack would be the bomber/fightabomber rolls 1 die against the lowest armour value. Causing 1 hit if successful.

[horizon]

Pretty nice to see that something I written 'on the fly' is discussed this much. Good.

And I cannot take full credit for the idea since I just tried to translate the FFG RT rules into BFG.

I'll see if I can find a better ceiling/average. Because it was indeed very low.

[Phthisis]

I don't think that you can play BFG for a while without finding fault with the way bombers work in the game.  Too bad Andy C and his design team only tossed in AC as an "afterthought". 

Still I'd rather not reinvent the wheel.  The existing system can be modified to produce just about any desired effect.  We wanted to lower the ceiling, raise the floor and keep the locus the same.  That way BBs are threatened more without making bombers more powerful against low turret targets.  That's what we did. 

[AndrewChristlieb]

actually it subtracts the # of turrets from the attack dice also, so there should be 2 less dice on average to hit against a bb, 3 less on emp, oberon.

It does give a boost @ all levels, but your still looking @ about 2 on t2, 1.5 on t3, and 1 on t4. and actually taking into account the previously submitted rule,

Attacking Squadrons

When attacking squadrons Bombers and Assault boats may "roll over" their damage to any ship within their movement distance that is in the same squadron. To help offset this squadrons may count their turret value as +1 for each ship in the squadron that is in danger of the attack, If they choose to do so the squadron may NOT receive an additional bonus due to massed turrets.

Example: 4 swords are attacked by a wave of bombers the bombers are in range of 3 of the swords so the swords turret value would be equal to 2 (the base for a sword) +2 (one for each additional sword that is being attacked, *note* The 4th sword is not adding a turret to the value because it is outside of the bombers range) for a total of 4. Unlike massed turrets since the bombers are attacking all 3 ships the bonus value IS added to the armor value. In this case the modified armor value would be 5(base)+2(turret base)+2(additional ships being attacked) total of 9.

Attack craft are not required to attack the whole squadron and indeed it would be foolish for any but the largest of attack craft waves to take on capitol ship squadrons in this fashion, they may however still attack individual ships, but note those ships do not receive any bonus to turrets for squadroning.

this would make the typical escort squadron around a t4 and larger squads up to a t7, something very fitting imo, as escorts should be more difficult to kill (gunnery chart for example)

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I think the rules are fine for now. How would changing the rules like this fare:

1. Bombers and Assault Boats attack. Once they have attacked, they are not automatically removed from the table. They have to get back to their carrier, if it is still operational, or another carrier if it has been destroyed. Once they land, then the carrier has to use Reload Ordnance SO.
2. Turrets on Escorts hit on a 3+ compared to cruisers and battleships which hit on a 4+.
3. Ships can use their turrets offensively against ships within 5 cm of the base.

Some of the ideas floating on the top of myhead.

EDIT: Another idea which may or may not encourage mixing waves:

1. Ordnance must be in waves of 2 to 6 unless there are no carriers left with more than Str 1 LB.

2. This next idea is variant of a previous proposal for mixed wave attacking a ship. When a mixed wave attacks a ship, fighters roll a D6. On a 4, 5 and 6 fighters can suppress turrets used for calculating the number of attacks bombers get. So in a mixed wave of 3 fighters and 3 bombers attacking a battleship with 2 fighters getting 4+, bombers now roll D6- 2 per bomber token that survives.

3. By survives, I mean it has to survive the turret attacks. Turrets rolling vs fighters in the mixed wave will hit them on a "4" and "5". A roll of "6" means a bomber will get hit instead in a mixed wave. So if the battleship fires 4 turrets vs the aforementioned mixed wave and rolls a "3", "4", "5" and "6", this means 2 fighters are removed and 1 bomber is removed. So only 2 bombers will roll for number of attacks at (D6-2).

4. If a purely bomber wave attacks, normal rolling of 4+ turrets is followed.

5. Assault Boats can also be used in the mixed wave but they don't really have any advantage other than a higher chance of getting to the target.

[Vaaish]

1. Bombers and Assault Boats attack. Once they have attacked, they are not automatically removed from the table. They have to get back to their carrier, if it is still operational, or another carrier if it has been destroyed. Once they land, then the carrier has to use Reload Ordnance SO.

While interesting, I think this is a bit more complicated than needed. I'd wager this idea was tossed around during development of BFG but cut since it's much more streamlined to just remove the ordnance and ignore all of the mechanics about the AC getting back to a carrier.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

1. Bombers and Assault Boats attack. Once they have attacked, they are not automatically removed from the table. They have to get back to their carrier, if it is still operational, or another carrier if it has been destroyed. Once they land, then the carrier has to use Reload Ordnance SO.

While interesting, I think this is a bit more complicated than needed. I'd wager this idea was tossed around during development of BFG but cut since it's much more streamlined to just remove the ordnance and ignore all of the mechanics about the AC getting back to a carrier.

I don't think it is that complicated. Not so complicated that it would make things too confusing for the game. You just have to put a counter on it that it has attacked, then try to get them back to the carriers. Fighters can also now attack them on the way back. Of course this would be a better for a ruleset that has limited number of ordnance per carrierone can put in play.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I think that would work better in a smaller scale version. Maybe something character based with one or two ships, or squads of escorts on each side. Actually that sound kinda familiar...

[skippy01]

Horizons idea is interesting, but maybe another idea, taking it from the battle of midway moment when the japanese had to change from land bombs to ship bombs (i think that is how it went). What about the player having to predetermine the first say 5 reloads of ordnance. That is say 3 fighters 1 bomber first, 4 bombers next etc. This can only be changed on a successful leadership roll. This might create the need to preplan and having either to wrong or right ordnance at the right time.

just a thought

[horizon]

As an add: I do like the FAQ2010 rules with the addition only surviving fighters add the +1. That balances them rightly vs battleships.

No hassle, no shizzles.

[AndrewChristlieb]

How would that change much of anything? Dropping on average what 1 or 2 dice to attack?  Unless your attacking with several carriers worth of attack craft in a wave you shouldn't see much difference. In a typical game your looking @ waves of 8 tops which would mean no more than +4 max from fighters, that's dice to hit, not actual hits so your looking at 1 or 2 hits against 5+ armor? Take a few of those away and what's the point of using fighters at all? The 4 bombers you could replace them with will likely bring about as many dice to attack anyway.

[horizon]

A lot.

The biggest complain about the current rules is how fighters add to waves vs battleships. That it is too strong. The small change balances it.

Now all fighters add. Even if destroyed. So vs Emperor: 3 bombers + 5 fighters = always 3 bombers left + 5 attacks. Max~, at least 5.

If only surviving fighters the +5 is reduced to / +3 or +2 on average.