 April 4, 2010 - 1:25pm | Has anyone come up with some good rules that would simulate the fighters diving in on star destroyers as in Star Wars? The way I see it there are a few things to adress: 1. Minumum size of ship for this sort of action; should it be based off of Hull size or MR or ADF? 2. must keep it simple so how do we incorporate this into the game without bogging it. 3. Might as well adress dogfighting as well since one defense against fighters doing this is other fighters intercepting. 4. what is the advantage of do this? I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 November 9, 2010 - 8:46pm | What the U.S. spends on defense is way out of proportion when compared to even other developed nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures - the U.S. spends 6.7 times as much as the next highest spender, China). It is a poor gauge for determining what one can afford to pay for a super freighter, much less a militia or a confederate defense force (which is what the UPF is). Few have the means for that type of spending and it would be inappropriate to assume that every planetary government could spend like the U.S. We can assume based on militia strength for the SWII board game that Theseus and Dramune try to spend in that manner, but the rest simply don't have the means or have other priorities. Mega-corps can probably afford the big atomic super frieghters because they have the economy of scale (i.e. tons of business partners signed to exclusive contracts, etc.) and the threat of corporate war to push you into bankruptcy if you don't play ball with them. The vast majority of frieght haulers will build and use the cheapest ship they possibly can to maximize their return on investment. This includes the hiring of gunners. When I ref, most frieghters don't even carry a gunner, letting the automated system handle the weapons. Only when hauling highly sensitive materials would they hire a gunner from a security contract firm. If the cargo is very high value and the route dangerous, they may even hire an escort from that same security firm, if it doesn't make too big of a dent to the bottom line. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of
the strong. * Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi |
 November 9, 2010 - 11:00pm | This includes the hiring of gunners. When I ref, most frieghters don't even carry a gunner, letting the automated system handle the weapons. Only when hauling highly sensitive materials would they hire a gunner from a security contract firm. If the cargo is very high value and the route dangerous, they may even hire an escort from that same security firm, if it doesn't make too big of a dent to the bottom line. I usually lean to at least a first level gunner on any armed civilian ship. I figure if the owner goes to the trouble of equipping it as such, he might as well staff it. At the very least, a crewmember may pull double duty, such as an astrogator/gunner (re: Gollwin graduates with LVL:2 starship skill plus LVL:1 gunnery skill, granted most Gollwin grads stick with SpaceFleet) who mans the guns in "red alert" situations but is otherwise stationed elsewhere during normal travel. But that is a very feasible plan you present, I can see that happening in the corporate mindset...or even with a "starter" ship. I've had players with one or two PCs buy a small ship (HS:3) and staff it with just themselves --- a pilot/astrogator and an engineer or engineer/gunner. As they earn more credits, they hire on the additional crew (or more PCs). One player went so far as to have a scout class ship with forward firing and rear firing pod lasers, and his solitary crew member was a pilot/astrogator/engineer (applying the pilot bonuses to the FF and RF weapons, although his flanks were basically defenseless until his offensive movement phase). Another had a solitary crew for a similar ship with a remote bridge operated laser battery. I ruled that his solitary crewmember (with all four skills) could either maneuver or shoot in a given phase, but not both. I have even gone so far to allow combat robots to apply a +5%/level bonus to battery weapons (just like appropriately skilled PC bonuses, limited to the combat robots' LVL:2-4 range), assuming the appropriate robot management, installation security, and bureaucracy (linking the robot mngmt to the alarm and IS programs) programs are in the mainframe and a laser or rocket battery operation program installed in the robot. Just goes to show there are many scenarios where a gun can be unmanned, or at the very least occasionally manned. |
 November 10, 2010 - 9:37am | It's funny that you mention robots, as gunnery officers. Over the years in my campaign robots have always taken a back seat to human/non-human characters, with the exception of my best friend who had a small (hullsize two) courier classed starship, crewed by himself, and his medical robot. but thinking about it, robots could be a cheap solution for many things. I mean why put a human/nonhuman pilot in a fighter which doesn't have a great chance of survival in combat, when you can use a robot, or for that matter turn the fighter into a drone. Or like you suggested, having a civilian ship owner fill gaps in his crew with robots rather then flesh and blood crewmates to keep costs down (less money spent on life support maintenence), and who pays a robot...except W00t that is...W00t seems to always get paid. Anyway, you've given me something new to think about. "Hey guys I wonder what this does"-Famous last words "Hey guys, I think it's friendly." -Famous last words "You go on ahead, I'll catch up." -Famous last words "Did you here that?" -Famous last words |
November 10, 2010 - 8:00pm | No doubt that robots make for a fair substitute. Is it beneficial? Well, the up front cost of a single robot can hire a skilled organic lifeform's wages for nearly two months...and then there's the programming. None of the standard AD programs would permit starship operation functions, so there would have to be specialty programs installed (re: laser battery operation at say...5000Cr/robot level). Then there's the aforementioned computer programs needed, a LVL:4 robot management program would be needed for LVL:4 combat robots forn another 16,000Cr (not to mention the bureaucracy program to coordinate the robots with other ship functions). Put into perspective, a LVL:2 combat robot (standard body, Attack/Defense program, and Type I parabattery --- no personal weapons w/ammo added yet, just the base robot) costs 7600Cr or 63 days worth of a compatible LVL:2 energy gunner, and doesn't take into account the additional programming for the computer and robot (another 28K or another 233 days worth of LVL:2 energy gunner wages). Lest we forget --- Life Support costs the same for one crewmember as it does for two, the same for three as it does for six, the same for 7 as 12, etc so more often than not adding another crew member does not tax the system. It gets pretty expensive pretty quick to replace an organic skilled being, but in the long term it pays off (it takes 296 days by the basics listed above, enough time for that gunner to earn some XP and possibly hit LVL:3 mind you). Of course, it also helps if someone onboard knows a thing or two about both computers and robotics or it's all for naught.  As far as replacing pilots in fighter craft, it's still cheaper to equip the fighter (most have no LS anyways, the pilot relies on the spacesuit LS) with an escape pod/cockpit module than to upgrade the electronics to host an equivilent robo-pilot. Make it a two-seater craft at no extra charge and you get the benefit of a rocket gunner assisting with the AR system...pilot skill + gunner skill + base chance to hit is far better than a single robot can pull off. Of course, the robot will never be able to decide to stop firing unless overridden by the mainframe. It simply does what it's told to do until told otherwise. Say your lone pilot/engineer/astrogator has a scout ship that encounters a pair of pirate ships and gets involved with combat. The pilot may be too busy piloting the craft (re: evading an inbound assault rocket) to instruct the robot gunner via computer to stop firing once he/she realizes one of the two pirate ships is actually an undercover local militia (or worse, Star Law) vessel...meanwhile the robot gunner just keeps on firing at both targets without prejudice and inadvertently puts you the lists of the Frontier's Most Wanted. But it's certainly feasible and within the realm of rhyme & reason of any corporate bean counter. As far as the long term goes, one could automate an entire freight hauler entrusted with non-risk loads on a chartered route. The up front costs would be huge over a standard crew, but after a few years it would pay off...as long as there's no decision process needed along the way. |
 November 11, 2010 - 4:28pm | I'll have to look up the exact figure when I get back home but IIRC, the Morning Glory (I need to move that to the wiki), which is a HS 20 Freighter, dialed in at just around 10 million credits. I almost want to say it was 13 million but I think that was the battleship design. The numbers are sitting in a folder on my shelf. I don't have an electronic copy handy :(. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 November 15, 2010 - 9:06pm | I would say that since Star Fleet's ship are purely military the cost would be higher due to extra equipment and they are built tougher. The engines put out much more thrust than civilian version and they have more hull points. Not to mention they will have more weapons in weapons lockers and bulkheads designed to keep the ship from coming apart when receiving damage. There may even be more specialized equipment in the list. |
November 16, 2010 - 11:52am | That goes without saying. Even for my civilian ship rules with armored hulls, the hull cost doubles with each level of armor: 50K Cr x HS for a standard hull (HP = HS x 5) 100K Cr x HS for light armor (HP = HS x 6) 200K Cr x HS for medium armor (HP = HS x 7) 400K Cr x HS for heavy armor (HP = HS x 8) Each consecutive grade costs one ADF or MR point --- of which I also allow to reclaim one point by doubling the number of drives, with an 8 drive maximum...so a civilian scout ship of HS:3 can have a medium armored hull and 8 atomic drives to retain stock performance, but that costs quite a bit over the standard hull with two atomics. So by that premise, a civilian HS:20 freighter would double the price of the hull just to have the same hull points as a battleship (120), but suffer ADF:1 and MR:1 with ion drives (can't take away from the ion drive's ADF of 1 so MR gets knocked) --- or pick ADF or MR to drop from 2 to 1 with atomics. And it still won't stand up to a battleship in terms of weapons and defenses...that's just what it takes to get battleship grade HULL POINTS. The canon battleship would easily cost in excess of 25 million (and that would be a bulk price...single unit construction would be even higher) compared to the 5-10mil civilian ship of the same size. Just for reference, a tricked out atomic-driven HS:20 freighter in my game cost about 16-18 million, although I added a fighter bay for a squadron of six craft to assist the guns so each of those craft added up to that total (which was at least 4 million --- 400K 8HP hulls plus 300K atomic drives = 700K right out of the gate for a single fighter hull and powerplant) and cargo was reduced a couple units as a result. While that was just one of those "bigger is better" moments, a gunned/fighter equipped HS:16-18 freighter would have pretty much gotten the same job done while costing considerably less. And by that same token, a more modern heavy cruiser design (re: the HC in canon is an old design) could get the battleship's job done to the same degree for a lot less. Realistically speaking, the only reason to have a HS:20 ship is for pride and/or a motivational public display of awe (and this is coming from someone who penned HS:20+ Dreadnaught Rules LOL). Well...there is at least one tactical reason. As carriers, you can bring more fighter craft to the battle field. If a HS:14-17 Assault Carrier can carry "5-8 fighters with the largest carrying 12 or more" (taken from the KH rulebook), it stands to reason the HS:20 carrier can carry well above that "12 or more", meaning at least 18 fighters. Dreadnaught super carriers could feasibly bring assault scouts to the field, allowing the fleet to make more than one jump without waiting for the scouts to overhaul their A drives each time. |
November 16, 2010 - 4:46pm | That is a strange way to do that, I am not saying it is bad or anything nor am I saying anything else about it. I am just saying I have not seen it that way before. I think I have seen something like somewhere else on the site. I am not sure I personally agree with it because of how the canon rules handle getting more hp add to a ship for the ADF/MR lost. I go with the abilty to add 20% or remove 20% that adds 20% to the price either way and only lose/gain 1 ADF or MR. I do have rules for armor and other additives for the hull. Ablative armor, spray on armor, reinforcing armor, absorbtion armor, and reactive armor that can be used that are cheap but a pain to maintain because they are in direct fire of weapons damaging them. Against certain weapons they perform excellently but against other weapons they do not fare so well. However, they do not stop the hit, they just reduce the damage and if your armor is reduced to half the affectiveness is reduce to about third. I have a formula/table to calculate the exchange of damages. the repair/replacement of these armors is not cheap either. We did drop them from the game because we wanted the come up with te perfect armor but could not see one without a disadvantage, although, the spray on armor was kept because of its cheapness and had its own disadvantages that were acceptable if it does not get laid on too thick. |
November 17, 2010 - 9:46am | Dreadnaught super carriers could feasibly bring assault scouts to the field, allowing the fleet to make more than one jump without waiting for the scouts to overhaul their A drives each time. Why not use a jump tug to tow in a handful of assault scouts? That has to be an even cheaper, though more fragile option I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
November 17, 2010 - 6:47pm | I appreciate teh canon "modifying ships" rules too, although they can be a bit clunky at times. For example, a player can construct a HS:3 scout ship and add a MHS:1 pod laser system with no penalty. By the modification rules, you can nix that pod laser in favor of one ADF or MR point. Then you can nix that one ADF or MR point for an additional 20% more hull points.* And then go add the PL system (back) to it at no penalty, albeit with better hull points now. * depending on how a ref interprets the modification rules --- re: "Armed civilian ships can increase their ADF or MR by removing weapons and defenses." (then it goes on to detail how this applies to military ships - so it presumes one weapon or defense on a civie ship = one ADF or MR point?) or if the ref permits the obverse of "any ship can gain one ADF or MR point by removing 20% of its hull points." I simply wanted to have options during the construction phase, albeit options that come with a heavy price. It works out perfectly (disregarding performance penalties) for most of the canon warships...a fighter has 8HP (heavy armor @ HS:1), frigates w/40HP (heavy armor @ HS:5), and destroyers (HP:50...a couple more bonus points than my formula...heavy armor @ HS:6), and battleships @ 120HP (light armor at HS:20). Now I disregard performance penalties as the military ships have heavy contracts for such performance (re: ADF of 5 for the HS:3 assault scouts, higher than permitted on a civilian ship, or 4 on the frigate, again higher than permitted for civilian craft --- I just presume the destoryer gives up possible additional performance in favor of rounging up the HP to 50). Granted, any civie that constructs a HS:5 craft with heavy armor can always ditch 20% of those 40 hull points and/or ditch a weapon system or two to regain some of the lost performance suffered by the heavy armor. But that's the beauty of it, the whole thing is fairly flexible. A party that manages to ransack a pirate frigate can end up with a killer civilian craft with the whole deal, althouh in my game pirates and civies rarely have assault rocket or torpedo weapon systems (banned by law in my campaign, and seriously - what system is going to rearm a pirate's rockets or torpedoes anyways?) so a typical pirate frigate in my game has a LC with either a pair of LBs or a single LB and RB(x4) and as such is considered a civilian ship with ADF/MR:3/3 (or 4/3 if the pirate ship has PGC Eureka drives :wink: ). Even if a party manages to capture a full on military spec pirate frigate, the modification rules permits removing the two torpedoes and one of the rocket battery salvos for an additional ADF or MR point, thus making it either ADF/MR:5/3 or 4/4 for a very respectable performing yet still well armed craft with a buttload of hull points: whee!!! And then you can nix 20% of those 40 hull points for yet another ADF or MR point! (so --- can anyone tell me what is every player going to seek out during his next KH adventure now?  ) |
November 17, 2010 - 8:46pm | Why not use a jump tug to tow in a handful of assault scouts? That has to be an even cheaper, though more fragile option Not sure what the specs for a jump tug are...but in my game a super carrier would start out at HS:24 (700m long by 128m diameter) and would be capable of carrying 12 standard fighters, six heavy fighters (HS:2, or substitute another dozen standard fighters), and a pair of assault scouts (which, again can be substituted for six more heavy fighters or twelve more standard fighters...for a possible total of 36 standard fighters). And my dreadnaught rules go up to HS:50 or 3200m x 500m - almost as wide as a battleship is long  (yes, they're uber-pricy. The hull specification expansion lists details standard hull cost multipliers and above "C" class drives. All that can be found in the House Rules Wiki project here) So far the biggest ship in my game is a HS:35 freight hauler with multiple cargo holds, three capable of holding up to a frigate or destroyer in size and four smaller holds capable of containing an assault scout in each --- along with bays for defense fighter craft. Granted the holds typically have cargo in them, but still...it just demonstrates a hint of what a super carrier can do. I have that ship (Container Cruiser) specced over at the Online Ship Generator project. I specced out HS:24 & 32 carriers for my Dominion campaign, these are the captial ships used to overtake each system and are typically utilized to keep the peace on worlds that start up with the reigning government...park one of those in orbit and their scores of fighter craft tend to change minds quickly. |
 November 22, 2010 - 4:25pm | Sorry to say, but using KH rules as a block to making fighters no better at one distance than another was worn out ages ago. The KH system is fundamentally flawed in its inability to allow closer combat for fighters. I've been developing that system for a couple of years now, and rather than releasing it in SFman articles, like I originally planned, I will be releasing it as a KH add-on (read "revision"). Using fighters against capital ships requires scales. When your target is 2 meters wide and moving at 10,000 km/hr, "40,000 km" is not an acceptable range variable. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
November 22, 2010 - 5:02pm | Using fighters against capital ships requires scales. When your target is 2 meters wide and moving at 10,000 km/hr, "40,000 km" is not an acceptable range variable. I don't know, I actually don't have any problem with the range scale, if anything it is too short. We can hit the Apollo retroreflectors on the moon with today's technology. That's the equivilent of hitting a 1 meter target moving 100,000 km/h at a distance of 360,000 - 400,000km (depending on the moon's position in it's orbit). i.e 10 times the distance at 10 times the speed at 1/4 the target area. That's a target 400 times harder to hit than a KH fighter. Now granted that's on the moon with a fairly predictable orbit but still you've got a factor of 400 to play with just with today's technology. Throw in more advanced, faster computers, and years of experience building guidance systems and I don't see it as a problem at all. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 November 22, 2010 - 5:53pm | Not to disagree with hitting a 2 meter whomp rat traveling several feet per second at a distance of incredibly long range but I think the issue is game-play cinematics, not what technology can and can't hit. I would like the feel of x-wings weaving in and out of capitol ships while being chased by tie fighters. The only way the capitol ship will hit my ship is if I'm in the path of its large weapons or a point defense system (a system that wouldn't scratch the paint off another capitol ship). Gilbert is working on such a system with some input from me. If I had more time it would be finished and presented but alas, I decided to table it until a future date. |
 November 22, 2010 - 9:58pm | SF Capital Ships really arent all that big when you think about a Battleship having a crew compliment of 400. Just a thought. |
November 23, 2010 - 6:13am | I dunno...600 meters is still pretty big. More than six football fields, or twice the length of a modern aircraft carrier. But yeah, by comparison their crews are rather small. |
November 25, 2010 - 7:06am | I dunno...600 meters is still pretty big. More than six football fields, or twice the length of a modern aircraft carrier. But yeah, by comparison their crews are rather small. We can assume some automation for SF ships to minimize crew costs I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 November 25, 2010 - 12:58pm | I have gamed this using KH Rules Multiple times. It all boils down to a few simple tactics for the attacking fighters. 1: they have to be moveing so fast that they only are exposed to offensive and defensive fire for 1 turn only. 2: They have to fire thier Assault rockets at maximum range and then break away. 3: All the fighters in the group need to be targeting the same ship for maximum results. 4: All the fighter deliver thier ordnance on target; fly through. in and out of offensive/defensive fire from the capitol ships in 1 turn. Any slower than that and the casualties are not acceptable. 5: If Possable never approach the capitol ships head on.. avoid the high power forward firrieng Canons. 6: Turn around beond Battery range and do it again. Until all ordnance is expended or all fighters are knocked out. OR until the Target ship is destroyed. On the other hand. The closer or tighter the formation of Capitol ships are the more effective thier batteries will be at Knocking out the fighters. That being said dont make it too tight or you negate this and allow the fighters to get away. You have to take into account Range diffusion on the beam weapons. In other words you dont want your whole fleet in 1 hex. DO not deploy your fleet in a line formation of any type, That is asking for trouble. B = Battleship D = Destroyer H = Heavy Cruiser A F L = Light Cruiser L B C L F = Frigate D F A A = Assault Scout A C = Carrier The Above formation assumes that the Fighters are going for the the biggest Capitol ships Either the Battlewagon or the carrrier. You may notice that the ship compliment is equal to Strike Force Nova the small fighters are not shown. (personally I would not set up a task force with that compliment of ships) This Formation allows as many ships as possable to use thier batteries against incomming fighters. If you put your ships in a line such as this: A A F L B C L F D A only the ships in close proximity to the target will have effective beam fire those on the fringes will will have a very low chance of hitting anything. Again this assumes that the fighters Are gunning for the battleship or the Carrier. How fast are the fighters moving? To expose themselves to battieries from the capital ships for only 1 turn. They must be moveing at least 20 hexes faster than the target fleet. I like to go in between 25 and 30 hexes per turn faster than the target ships are moveing. I of course did not think of this Semi-circular formation for the task force to be in. The Navies of the real world did, it gives a reasonable protection for the big capital ships no matter what direction the fighters come in.... except in the case above, because strike force NOVA is way to small. Fighters or assault scouts should be away from the fleet in multiple directions to provide early warning. A force of fighters should be on alert in the carrier so that when the early warning scouts detect the incomming bandits they can scramble and intercept them. If you use the right tactics most of your engagements will be similar to the Battle of Midway in WWII. If not, the you will have a repeat of the Battle of Jutland In WWI. The bombing starts in five minutes. |
November 25, 2010 - 1:48pm | I like to break my fighters up and tackle the smaller capital ships. Let the friendly capital ships take on the bigger enemy capital ships. Send two or three fighters (two if they can team up with assault scouts, three if they can't) to engage an enemy frigate or destroyer per group, and that makes your friendly capital ships' jobs easier. That, and the frigate and destroyer have only one long ranged battery weapon to shoot at you with (two on the destroyer). Take out the fast boats and free up your friendly fast & slow boats go after the big baddies. It's just more punishing to take out the numerous support craft than concentrating on a single flagship. Then re-arm (if/when applicable), and assist your friendly capitals against the enemy cruisers. Once it's cruiser versus cruiser, the enemy ships tend to ignore the fighters... |
November 25, 2010 - 2:09pm | I should have kept the post shorter, but the main point is that the fighters need to come in as fast as possable to avoid batteries from the capitol ships. I was also using KH rules only so no pod lasers, but I dont know if pod lasers would make you change tactics all that much. I have gamed this over and over. And yes you could divide up your fighters with different targets, but I try to garrantee destruction on my enemy's most powerful ship... the battleship is primary. All else would be secondary. If you target the battlewagon with 10 to 12 fighters even using the advanced rules hit charts 8 out of ten times the first pass destroys or disables the battleship.... (this assumes you only allow 1 assault rocket per turn instead of volley fire all 3 at once.). After that I would split my force and attack the other capital ships. Cruisers and then destroyers. Another point... Knowing the layout of the star system where the battle takes place is important. How much detection/early warning equipment is out there for the defender to use. Its easier to ambush the enemy/agressor fleet if you know where he is. Question, knowing that the UPF has a task force in system, would they head straight for the colonized planet, or would they try to draw the defenders out and away to ambush them. But I suppose it depends on what the objective is. The bombing starts in five minutes. |
November 26, 2010 - 3:59pm | Right, I was invoking pure canon as well. The pod laser is more for an anti-fighter arena, and yes I only permit one rocket to be fired per turn as the rules state. I treat it as one launcher with three rockets in a magazine, fired once per turn. To fire two at a time would require a second launcher and computer program, and technically you could do that considering the mass allotment works out the same to have two launchers with one rocket each versus one launcher and three rockets (both chew up 40 cubic meters), only then would I permit two rockets fired together. Granted most wouldn't want to risk that so much, only taking one (double) shot and then being completely unarmed... But speed is irrelevent. The rules state a ship may fire defensively at any point during travel, not where the ship ends up at the end of movement on the map. Any time a ship moves within range of a weapon, that weapon may be fired at the ship. So you can come head on and veer off to attack from the side, but if you're within range of the laser cannon etc while coming head on --- that weapon may be discharged defensively. On the same token, you can come in from the side or rear, fire rockets, and veer off to end up "out of range" but as soon as the fighter craft comes within 4 hexes (maximum AR range) the target ship may defensively fire any weapons that can reach that point. The simple fact is once your fighter is in range to use its weapons, it will likely be in range of the target's battery weapons (this is why you hang out at 4 hexes instead of getting closer, you only expose yourself to any d10 damaging laser/electron/proton batteries rather than any 2d10 damaging rocket batteries that may compliment the energy weapons). Of course it gets tricky tracking all the flight paths in mass fleet combat as such...it's tricky enough for one on one scenarios. I simply allow targetted ships to return fire at whatever point the attacking craft fire their weapons from --- unless the attacking craft actually flies through the same hex then I permit point blank return fire regardless where the attacking ship fired from. Added to that, once that phase is over, the "side B" phase begins...any side B ship that can maneuver to intercept certainly can do the same in return. |
November 27, 2010 - 11:53am | If you think speed is irrelevent then you have missed the point. You fly in at high speed so that you only expose yourself to offensive/defensive fire from the fleet for 1 turn. Thus minimizing your casualties. You are in, rocket is launched, you are out. And yes, you took some fire. BUT it's a whole lot less than if you hang around at low speed. And you are forgetting about range and range diffusion. So yes they can fire anywhere along the incomming fighters track but let them fire when they have only 5% chance to hit, its thier loss. I am not flying in at high speeds doing circles.... It's in and out... The bombing starts in five minutes. |
 November 27, 2010 - 12:07pm | High speed or low, you can kill a lot of fighters in ten minutes. Just sayin'. " 'Beware the Beast, Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport, for lust, for greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death." |
November 27, 2010 - 3:08pm | I think it's a case of people not missing what they don't have. Once they experience being able to make pinpoint attacks with fighters, they're going to suddenly not comprehend not having them. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
November 27, 2010 - 4:08pm | If you think speed is irrelevent then you have missed the point. You fly in at high speed so that you only expose yourself to offensive/defensive fire from the fleet for 1 turn. Thus minimizing your casualties. You are in, rocket is launched, you are out. And yes, you took some fire. BUT it's a whole lot less than if you hang around at low speed. In that regard, yes speed is relevent. But when you said: fighters need to come in as fast as possable to avoid batteries from the capitol ships I thought perhaps there was a misunderstanding of the rules --- it seemed that you were claiming by swooping in at high speeds, they could fire without being fired upon. |
November 27, 2010 - 6:07pm | I have gamed this using KH Rules Multiple times. It all boils down to a few simple tactics for the attacking fighters. 1: they have to be moveing so fast that they only are exposed to offensive and defensive fire for 1 turn only. 2: They have to fire thier Assault rockets at maximum range and then break away. 3: All the fighters in the group need to be targeting the same ship for maximum results. 4: All the fighter deliver thier ordnance on target; fly through. in and out of offensive/defensive fire from the capitol ships in 1 turn. Any slower than that and the casualties are not acceptable. 5: If Possable never approach the capitol ships head on.. avoid the high power forward firrieng Canons. 6: Turn around beond Battery range and do it again. Until all ordnance is expended or all fighters are knocked out. OR until the Target ship is destroyed. LOL um no.. as stated above... trying to minimize getting shot at The bombing starts in five minutes. |
 November 28, 2010 - 12:07pm | Apples & oranges, it's a different economy. Unskilled labor in the
Frontier pays 20Cr/day, here it's easily $80/day. The farmers paying
undocumented workers shell out more than $20/day. The brand new SF
5000Cr ground car was cheap even by 1980s dollar standards... That, and I'd love to be able to sink only half my income towards the cost of living. The economy in SF is based on the SEU, unlike our current economy which isn't based on anything to make it easier to manipulate the value of the currency. If our dollar was still based on the gold standard our dollar would go much further. So this fact suggests the SF credit is more stable than our own, which would make starships and cars in SF seem much cheaper than in our current real world. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
November 30, 2010 - 5:21pm | Exactly. Like I said, it's an apples to oranges comparo. Although I'm not sure I'd say the SF economy is based on the SEU. SEU can be belted out just as easily as paper can be printed...all you need is a Type I generator and voila: you're producing 500 SEU every hour. |
December 1, 2010 - 12:29am | In Soviet Russia SEU is free of charge... The bombing starts in five minutes. |
December 2, 2010 - 7:45pm | In Soviet Russia SEU is free of charge... Yes and its also rationed and you dont want to be at the end of the energy line either or you'll go without. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
