Re: FB Fighter Questions (longish)

Jeff wrote:

> >Up to six attack turns, yes - but if you manage to shoot this many
times
> >without losing your fighters, your enemy is doing something seriously
> >wrong IMO :-/
> 
> Well, you're probably right on that count, but it did create a serious
> questions regarding play balance.
 
> The Terrans (NSL) player had purchased several squadrons of attack
fighters
> and stationed them in various key systems along with his handful of
ships.
> Exactly how many and where they were was unknown, since we are using
> "bogey" movement.  

Makes life a lot more interesting, it does :-)

> The Vilani (FSE) player had managed to divert most of
> the Terran ships chasing off scouts and decided to launch a probing
attack
> on a key system, expecting it to be lightly defended.
 
If it is a key system, it shouldn't be lightly defended... <g>

> His main fleet, a Jerez, two Suffrens and four Ibizas jumped into the
> system.  Total point value of the force: 899 points.	The defenders
had
6
> squadrons of planet-based attack fighters; total value: 144 points.

Ah, that was what happened. Not too strange, then - the fighter costs,
both in MT and FB, assume that you have already had to pay for the
carrier (which increases the cost of each fighter squadron by at least
39
FB points - and that's in a Fragile-hulled orbital base with no engines.
If you want thrust-2 and FTL, you're looking at 48+ pts support systems
per squadron instead.).

[battle summary snipped]

> Now, in our after-action debrief the Vilani player admitted that he
does
> not usually play with fighters and so did not have a real sense of
what
he
> was up against.  He said that if he had, he would have jumped as soon
as
> the fighters were spotted.  Since he did not, he came in "fat and
happy"
> and got reamed.

Going up against an enemy which you basically can't hit tends to be a
rather bad idea, yes...

It sounds as if the FSE/Vilani player flew fairly slowly though, or at
least didn't maneuver much. I don't remember what movement system you
used, but the FSE ships are fast - all the ships in this battle are
Thrust-6. Under Cinematic movement, this is quite enough to force the
fighters to spread out if they want to hit the enemy fast even with the
endurance-burning secondary moves; under FB movement you have to place
the fighters carefully to ensure catching the enemy without burning
combat endurance on flying rather than shooting. If the fighters in
addition have to protect their base (which they didn't, in this case),
they can quickly find themselves in trouble.

> Now there are several factors going on here and we're taking steps to
> remedy some of them already.
> 
> First of all, none of the "representative ship designs" of the FSE
> presented in the Fleet Book have any AFDC assets, so it really
wouldn't
> made a difference if these had been standard fighters.

No. Well, the battle might have taken a turn longer, but that's no real
difference - 6 standard squadrons kill a Jerez in more than half of the
cases, and cripples it in the rest..

>  While it could be
> argued that the FSE are supposed to bring along those big carriers and
lots
> of their own fighters, this kind lopsided battle begs the question of
why
> they should even bring ships (other than carriers) in the first place? 

Because their carriers are darn expensive, and rather vulnerable to a
more balanced force with decent ADFC coverage. The FSE doctrine is to
use
fighters against fighters (and against SMs), and to be the supreme SM
user - and given that their main "historical" enemy is the NSL (with few
fighters and missiles), it works. Against pure fighter forces which gets
its "carrier" for free it doesn't.

> And how can a small force that can't afford a carrier compete?  

Against ground-based fighters, force them to  pay for the ground base as
well as the fighters themselves. If the base is destroyed, the fighters
die from lack of maintenance - even if they manage to kill the
attackers...

Small forces shouldn't be able to compete with large forces, though -
they should have to withdraw out of weapons range, or die...

> And what about
> those of us who want to have fighters as part of a balanced force but
don't
> want to recreate the Marianas Turkey Shoot in space?

Balanced forces is what I usually fight with, both in FT and FB... apart
from regularly outflying the fighters (when cruisers usually run around
at speed 20-30, fighters just couldn't keep up) prior to the FB changes,
I've had very few Turkey Shoot situations where the fighters are
massacred without accomplishing anything.

> Second, there is the Imperium play balance question; fighters are
useful in
> Imperium but not overwhelming.  Part of that is the "screening" rules
in
> the game which would prevent six of anything from singling out one
target
> at a time and destroying it.

Equally important, you can shoot at them from afar - and a Vilani CA
kills a fighter squadron on a D6 roll of 4 at long range (or 3 at
short),
while the Terran fighter squadron can only kill it on a 7 at long range
and 6 at short - so if this had been an Imperium battle, at least
one-third of the fighters would've died before they had had a real
chance
to shoot back :-/ 

The best use I get out of fighters (and scout ships) in Imperium is
tying
up enemy units so my heavies can gang up on the dangerous foes - in FT,
it's the other way around :-)

>  While this isn't really a problem for ships
> since any ship can fire at any other ship in range, fighters can ONLY
be
> fired upon by the ship they are attacking and ships within 6" which
are
> equipped with AFDC.

Yep.

> This is one of the reasons I made AFDC standard on all of the v.2
ships
I
> just finished designing recently.  

Good thinking, especially considering how SM-heavy (and slow, in the
Terran case) the designs are. Compared to the amount of missiles flying
around, you may still find that the ships are a bit light on PDS.

> Third, there is the question of generic play balance.  Are attack
fighters
> as a system more powerful than is warranted for their cost?  Is a mere
24
> points fair for that kind of killing power?  

Add in the carrier as well. Is 63+ points fair for that kind of killing
power (equal to an SML with at least 3 shots, and about as hard to
defend
against)?

> Does it seem lopsided in comparison to standard or even torpedo
fighters? 

Not really.

Standard fighters eat Attack fighters for lunch in a dogfight, and
aren't
bad against ships either  Torpedo fighters are specialised against
heavily screened and defended targets, and are very effective if they
get
to shoot - lots of damage fast, unless your dice are cursed. I think the
relative costs between these three are quite OK.

> Lord knows, it wouldn't  be the first time something from MT got
declared 
> "unbalancing" now would it?  ;)

No. In this case, though, I don't think it is that bad - not compared to
Kra'Vak or MT missiles, anyway <g>

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@nacka.mail.telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry