I got to thinking in the shower this morning about fighters. Don't ask me why, just one of those random brain dumps as the ol' CPU fires up in the morning. Anyhoo, what I got to thinking about was adding a Combat Endurance value to fighters. Basically, this value would indicate the number of consecutive turns a flight could engage in combat before it would have to retire to its mothership to replenish. This value would represent fuel (which gets burned much faster in a dogfight than on patrol), ordnance, etc. I thought that this could be another mechanism to tone down the effect of fighters in the CSCR.
Thoughts?
'Fear God and dread nought'
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone
Interestingly enough I've made a similar suggestion to Jay earlier this week. I did not think about limited endurance but rather limited ammo for anti-shipping strikes though.
I think we're talking about different sides of the same coin, and a way to force players to think about when they commit their fighters. The bomber may only be able to carry enough ordnance for one attack run. The fighters may only be able to sustain a fight for two turns - do you commit prior to the bombers or escort them in and then cover the fleet against a potential counterattack? That kind of thing.
'Fear God and dread nought'
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone
Making them dependent on the carrier surely tone it down. After all, the carrier must be around every few rounds for them to land, refuel/rearm. Maybe the number of turn they can "keep" in combat is equal to DV? Maybe a separate stat is needed.
I also think a separate stat would be better since it allows more fine control during unit generation and you can somewhat simulate different doctrines.
I agree. However, basing that off the DV would be an easy way to apply such a rule to an existing ship list. Ultimately, the rule would be most effective as a separate stat, IMO.
'Fear God and dread nought'
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone
A fighter endurance rating sounds good to me. I would give the actual fighter flight an END rating based initially on size (larger fighters have larger fuel, atmosphere tanks and more hard points/ordinance capacity) and later modified by technology level or year or whatever the campaign is using to determine tech advancement (tech level 3 light fighters would be same END as tech level 1 heavy fighters for example).
Carriers would be able to "reset" the END rating based on a sortie rate (again based on size and tech of the CVs in this case, larger carriers carry more fuel and ordinance for their fighters). Non-carrier ships (like heavy cruisers or battleships that carry 1-3 fighter flights) would not be able to reset their fighter END ratings by themselves, a "natural" carrier (something with carrier rating or a base or friendly system with fighter basing capacity) would all be able to rearm/resupply fighters.
Endurance rule seems very appropriate. Assuming that after END turns, the flight must spend 1 turn in their carriers/motherships, if you have only END=1 (or DV=1) flights, then you prolly should launch half of them each turn.
Another way to limit flights may be assume a maximum group number. Ships are usually limited to 10 per squadron, why not limit the number of flights grouped too?
Rainer wrote:A hard limit only benefits heavy fighters and bombers and they already are very powerful. Currently there are too few incentives to use light units.
Maybe making the lighter units better at screening might help?
Perhaps the light units can grant a formation bonus to the larger units,
Or just absorb more damage on the turn they are destroyed (it might only take two damage to destroy a light fighter, but if they also absorb the next two damage on the same turn or something - it would have to be a fixed number or you could just use large units for this and they'd be better at it...)
I've often thought that smaller units should have much higher AF scores - they are usually interceptors after all... That might also help (perhaps with a commensurate reduction in heavy fighters AF scores)?
Rainer wrote:A hard limit only benefits heavy fighters and bombers and they already are very powerful. Currently there are too few incentives to use light units.
Maybe making the lighter units better at screening might help?
Perhaps the light units can grant a formation bonus to the larger units,
Or just absorb more damage on the turn they are destroyed (it might only take two damage to destroy a light fighter, but if they also absorb the next two damage on the same turn or something - it would have to be a fixed number or you could just use large units for this and they'd be better at it...)
I've often thought that smaller units should have much higher AF scores - they are usually interceptors after all... That might also help (perhaps with a commensurate reduction in heavy fighters AF scores)?
Good point on light units getting short end of the stick. Light units by their nature sacrifice firepower and defense for speed/agility and of course economy (less EP). Instead of higher AF scores for light units (the ordinance carried is key factor for AF/AS scores in my opinion), how about making them "agile" or whatever you want to call it (interceptor works good too lol) and able to be assigned to squadron CAP after enemy fighter flights on AS missions are designated?
This would reflect their superior speed/maneuverability attributes and allow them to fulfill the interceptor role Gareth is suggesting (keeping their endurance low due to small size so they don't dominate out of proportion with their EP value). Light bombers (AS is 1-2 while AF is 0-1) would simply be cheaper/smaller fighters (strictly an EP issue).
Another option is to have Different END costs for different actions.
ie assigned to local squadron (defensive) cost : 1
fights in AF combat cost: 2
fights in AS combat cost 4
assigned in opponents squadron (offensive) cost:2
(you could decrease AS/AF/DV for every minus END (similiar to ship OOS) or not allow negative END)
So an END 4 fighter can be assigned AF local for one round, and if it does not fight could stay out another round
a Bomber would have to have an END of 6 for a dedicated AS mission
a flight would have to have an END of 7 for an non-dedicated AS mission (4 for AS combat, 1 for AF Combat (if defending flights), 2 for offensive mission)
Carriers can reload a number of flights equal to 1/2 of their basing per turn ( or reload a number of END points equal to Basing * 4)
Crippled Carriers can only reload 1/4 of their Basing.
Surprised Carriers get 1/4 (-2 readiness) or 1/2 (-1 readiness) flights pre-loaded before battle.
Didn't Rainer's playtest game have a similar mechanic for limiting bomber heavier ordenances to a number of uses?
While I sort of like the idea of making fighters have to return to thier carriers to rearm, the idea loses its glitter when you consider high tech units that primarily utilze energy based weaponry or have engines with fuel to operate for years.
The other thing to consider is we would need to define how long a turn in combat really is for conversions. Is it a day? an hour? A minute? 10 minutes? 12 Centons?
On the other hand, this would add in some additional consideration about how or when fighters/bombers are deployed. Currently there is no reason to not have them running full steam all the time. Also the units are highly over powered in the current system, but I will not rant about that tonight.
I think this idea would work with a number of universes quite well, such as BSG and Macross. Though the Veritechs were said to operate years on a single power cell ... it was ammo they would run out of. Hmm, I may go try some ideas out with my Robotech conversions now.
I personally don't think this would fit the later Trek universe where your fighters were rather independant. Andromeda also seemed to have really high tech fighters as well.
Just me playing devil's advocate while I work on other projects.
mriddle wrote:Another option is to have Different END costs for different actions.
ie assigned to local squadron (defensive) cost : 1
fights in AF combat cost: 2
fights in AS combat cost 4
assigned in opponents squadron (offensive) cost:2
(you could decrease AS/AF/DV for every minus END (similiar to ship OOS) or not allow negative END)
So an END 4 fighter can be assigned AF local for one round, and if it does not fight could stay out another round
a Bomber would have to have an END of 6 for a dedicated AS mission
a flight would have to have an END of 7 for an non-dedicated AS mission (4 for AS combat, 1 for AF Combat (if defending flights), 2 for offensive mission)
Carriers can reload a number of flights equal to 1/2 of their basing per turn ( or reload a number of END points equal to Basing * 4)
Crippled Carriers can only reload 1/4 of their Basing.
Surprised Carriers get 1/4 (-2 readiness) or 1/2 (-1 readiness) flights pre-loaded before battle.
Nice Mike, I like these ideas I'l have to keep them in mind when I finally run my own VBAM campaign with my gamer buddies.
Anyhoo, what I got to thinking about was adding a Combat Endurance value to fighters. Basically, this value would indicate the number of consecutive turns a flight could engage in combat before it would have to retire to its mothership to replenish. This value would represent fuel (which gets burned much faster in a dogfight than on patrol), ordnance, etc. I thought that this could be another mechanism to tone down the effect of fighters in the CSCR.
