Escorts-Do's and dont's of squadron composition

[AndrewChristlieb]

? He says nothing of the sort. He talks about random leadership if thats what your refering to, but although he mentions that escorts would typically have better crew than say a battleship due to their greater experience there is no mechanic for it. Im not saying that they should get different leadership than capitols or even something like the ork clans list where they get a +1 modifier for "lotz", but a random crew skill would go along way to representing an experienced crew (or commanders) without taking away from the general randomness of the leadership structure.

[Sigoroth]

Thats another one I never agreed with too tho. Hit and run attacks should only destroy an escort on a roll of 6 imo with a 1 still failing and a 2-5 disabling their weapons systems. Give them all the ability to automatically repair one crit a turn due to their (typically) more experienced crew.

I disagree. Firstly, a-boats are currently pretty shit. They don't need the nerf. Secondly, it just makes sense that a hundred heavily armed men being let loose on your boat could do significant damage. Either to capture (unlikely), destroy (possible) or disable the ship for several hours (more likely). An even chance seems about right.

[AndrewChristlieb]

That is true and given that you can brace against H&R now theyre even worse :/.

[Talos]

All valid points, but a hundred armed men shouldn't really have the ability to wreak total chaos on a typical escort crew of 25,000 men. Even if we use the most conservative ratio ever listed, which is 10% of the crew being non-disposable criminal scum and whatnot, you are still left facing, after officers being sidelined, 2200 very pissed off men that have been awaiting your arival on the other side of that bulkhead for thirty minutes. Of course realistically only a couple of hundred would muster in time for the fight, but still...its only multiple a-boats that are really dangerous...

[horizon]

I disagree with the disagreement.

Hit&Run vs high armoured targets is always a good idea.
And Assault boats which can kill escorts on a 2+ is crap as well. (With Marines it is auto-kill, even worse).
Thus the FAQ2010 change to them is good. It was one point why people never took assault boats.

BFI doesn't change this noodle aspect.

/
Andrews version would be good with me as well.

[Sigoroth]

Hit&Run vs high armoured targets is always a good idea.

No it's not. You need multiple a-boats just to overcome turrets, chance of missing and repairs, and even then you're not guaranteed to take out a system that makes a difference, and when you compare this to the actual damage done by bombers, a-boats are just shit.

And Assault boats which can kill escorts on a 2+ is crap as well. (With Marines it is auto-kill, even worse).
Thus the FAQ2010 change to them is good.

Well, we're already talking about H&R attacks destroying escorts on a 4+, not 2+.

It was one point why people never took assault boats.

Sorry what? One reason why people never took assault boats was that they killed escorts on a 2+? That was why people actually took a-boats.

Andrews version would be good with me as well.

May as well take a-boats out of the game then.

[AndrewChristlieb]

So... It sounds like you think a-boats are broken. How would you fix them to make them a viable alternative to bombers?

[horizon]

Sorry,
I meant: lots of people never took escorts as they where so easily destroyed by assault boats.

But the 4+ is fine to you?

1 bomber won't have a high chance of damaging a 6+ vessel, 1 assault boat has more opportunity to harass such a vessel. So, you need to swarm with bombers and assault boats to do real things, so no difference between the two.
Swarming a Strike Cruiser with assault boats is a good tactic.

And I never knew you felt so bad on assault boats.

[Sigoroth]

Sorry,
I meant: lots of people never took escorts as they where so easily destroyed by assault boats.

Ah, yes.

But the 4+ is fine to you?

Yarp. Marginalises a-boats even more but makes escorts less marginal so meh.

1 bomber won't have a high chance of damaging a 6+ vessel, 1 assault boat has more opportunity to harass such a vessel. So, you need to swarm with bombers and assault boats to do real things, so no difference between the two.
Swarming a Strike Cruiser with assault boats is a good tactic.

Well, 3b1f  against a Strike Cruiser is an average of 0.93 damage, 0.47 if braced. 4 A-boats will do 0 damage and 2 crits, 1 if braced. And there's a 2 in 3 chance that that 1 crit will be repaired before your opponents next turn anyway, making the a-boats completely useless. I'd rather have a 50/50 shot at 1 point of damage than a 33% shot of one non-damaging crit that could be completely unhelpful even if it doesn't get repaired.

Let's consider the chances of a single bomber vs a single a-boat doing something against an undamaged and un-braced Strike Cruiser. First, they both have to get past turrets, 25% chance of that for either one. Then they have to hit. The bomber has a 33% chance of no attacks, 17% chance each for 1, 2, 3 or 4 attacks. Each attack has a 17% chance of causing damage. So the P(at least 1 hit) = P(1A1H) + P(2A1+H) + P(3A1+H) + P(4A1+H) = 5% chance of at least 1 point of damage. An a-boat has a 67% chance of causing a crit, which then has a 33% chance of going un-repaired giving a total of a 5% chance to cause an un-repaired crit.

So sending a single bomber against a Strike Cruiser gives a 1 in 20 chance of causing at least 1 point of damage. This could actually be 2, 3 or even 4 points of damage and could cause one or more crits which could also cause more damage. There is even the possibility, slim as it is, of destroying the Strike Cruiser. On the other hand, sending in a single a-boat gives a 1 in 20 chance of causing an crit that will persist till the end of your opponent's next turn at least. This crit may or may not be useful. A prow crit (1 in 4 chance) would be useful. If your opponent will be able to manoeuvre to fire both broadsides next turn then any crit would be useful, otherwise it depends upon whether you'll be on the left or right of him. If you'll be on the right of him then a starboard crit (1 in 2 chance) would be good, if on the left of him a port crit (1 in 4 chance) would be good. If your opponent can manoeuvre to be able to fire either broadside (but not both) then neither port nor starboard (3 in 4) would be at all effectual.

Give me the bomber any day.

And I never knew you felt so bad on assault boats.

Oh really? I have always thought that they were pretty useless. Their only function was to destroy escorts or disable a very high turret target when used en masse and only when you've got no other targets for your AC. Consider: given the quantity and quality of SM AC and their natural defences against enemy ordnance they should really dominate in ordnance phases, assuming a-boats are anywhere near as good as bombers. They don't. So a-boats are crap.

[Sigoroth]

So... It sounds like you think a-boats are broken. How would you fix them to make them a viable alternative to bombers?

I wouldn't. They're not viable alternatives except in the most specific of situations and that's how they should remain. If they were as good an option as bombers then SMs would kill in the ordnance phase, and that's just not right.

However, I certainly wouldn't nerf them any further. A bomber has a 10% chance of destroying a 2 turret, 5+ armour unbraced escort. An a-boat in the same situation has a 12.5% chance. When in a wave of 2, the a-boats have a 43.8% chance (23.4% braced) of destroying the escort, whereas 1b1f has a 45% chance (26.4% vs braced).

Roughly the same chances, but that's against a 2 turret, 5+ target. Against 1 turret and/or 4+ armour the bomber gets better, so there's no reason to nerf a-boats at all.

[Talos]

I do agree with sigoroth about power level; assault boats should not be as destructive as bombers, ever. However, I diverge in opinion with regards to their overall utility. Assault boats should be a viable alternative, just not in damage output. Assault boats should be good in a variety of roles, just not as many. Consider the following two possibilities:

1) Fighter Supression: With turrets suppresed, it is easy to imagine that an assault boat could board closer to its intended target, maximizing its utility and allowing it to attack more vulnerable points. Assault boats could benefit from supression, either by adding +1 to the result (allowing results past six) per fighter OR allowing a reroll of the critical result (making them more reliable).

2) Fighter resilience: IN have vanilla ordnance, and a shark assault boat has over two and a half times the armor of a fury interceptor, along with the same engine strength and almost three and a half times the directional firepower of a bomber. Other races have (presumably) even better assault boats. What if assault boats count as resilient ordnance? You could give them a weaker save (5+ or even 6+) to allow them a chance of surviving fighter interception.

In either of these cases, although bombers are capable of much greater havoc and are more lethal, a-boats are more reliable and more effective at extreme range, sort of like batteries vs. lances. I am not saying these are rules that necessarily should be implemented, just that these are oversights that the current rules don't cover, explaining the general lackluster nature of a-boats. As for SM domination, losing an attack rating point to gain thunderhawk annihilators is quite worth to the ordnance heavy SM fleet.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I dont think i have ever used attack ratings... Assault boats gaining something for fighter suppression seems like a good idea.

[Talos]

I personally think the attack rating is a piece of crap myself, and i'm glad you think so too. Thunderhawk annihilators are arguably the best attack craft in the game, and the only drawback is a silly little restriction. Which of the two fighter suppression mechanics do you think is best? I may volunteer the idea for BFG:R2.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ya SM bombers are stupid. Why is it that they are fighter bombers but still get a full D6 attacks? I think the +1 to the result of the hit and run would be reasonable but only if all of the turrets are supressed or if it was something like with bombers where you only get a +1 to one assault boat for each fighter + turret. So 1f3a against a 2t target and assuming that the assault boats all survive then you would have 1 with a +1 and 2 as normal. Taking the same scenario with 2f2a then both boats would get the +1.

[Sigoroth]

Ya SM bombers are stupid. Why is it that they are fighter bombers but still get a full D6 attacks? I think the +1 to the result of the hit and run would be reasonable but only if all of the turrets are supressed or if it was something like with bombers where you only get a +1 to one assault boat for each fighter + turret. So 1f3a against a 2t target and assuming that the assault boats all survive then you would have 1 with a +1 and 2 as normal. Taking the same scenario with 2f2a then both boats would get the +1.

I don't think that there should be any bonus to a-boats for turret suppression since there's no penalty for a-boats if there's turrets. For example, if a 1 turret ship gives up +1 to the H&R roll when it is "suppressed", what does a 0 turret target give? In essence, the more turrets the defender has the greater the potential bonus to the H&R attack, which is just absurd.

I also think SM bombers are absurd. Too powerful and uncharacteristic.