Unbalanced fighters should be revised in BoM

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Wed May 27, 2009 11:05 am

In the spirit of cooperation, here is an idea that might work.

How about ADB making available at Commander's Circle the Middle Years ship cards that have regular Federation Commander equivalents already posted there?

And in color, of course.

Set up a special button for Middle Years that takes the user to a new menu screen. On the Middle Years menu screen, put buttons for each empire.

1. Players who want to play with only the "best" ships wouldn't bother with these.

2. This wouldn't really be giving ship cards away for nothing. The newer equivalents of these ship cards would already be posted anyway.

I could live with this plan. I paid for Briefing #2 and use those ships almost exclusively now, but I would really like to have official versions of them in color.

[It is a bit of a hassle to modify existing ship diagrams to retro- them to Middle Years style with graphic editing programs.]

So, what do you think, SVC and company???

Requete · Post by **Requete** » Wed May 27, 2009 5:02 pm

Myself, I'd be happy to buy boosters of the "stock standard" Middle Years ships. At least one for the Alliance and one of the Coalition, if they did them that way.

What about the expanded fighters rules in the CC, though?

Democratus · Post by **Democratus** » Thu May 28, 2009 1:31 pm

So is Middle Years ships with the Y175 refits?

Post by **Steve Cole** » Thu May 28, 2009 2:18 pm

Why should we give away on the commander's circle what the poll on this site says people will pay for? Lots of work went into those, too much. If we give them away, you can pretty much guarantee that there will NEVER be another book like FCB2. About the only thing "saving" that product-concept is the idea of selling either short-run cards or PDFs. Give them away? No.

Middle Years is something like Y125-Y160 or so. it's a little fuzzy, but it's not Y175, no.

The problem with doing boosters is (so far) the only way to do that is to print them the same way other cards are done. The sales potential does not support that kind of print run. I am looking at alternatives, but I'm got like five different jobs and right now if it's not coming out at Origins then I don't have time to worry about it.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:28 pm

It may be a case of throwing good money after bad.

sssnake · Post by **sssnake** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:35 am

> ?BoM fighters can do damage to ships when they get close, but "getting close" is very difficult unless the target is slowed for some reason?

Is there a rule which states that Fighters are not to be used on Closed Maps? Or is everyone just better than me at avoiding speed 16 fighters on a fixed map? Probably.

Are fighters pointed differently depending on closed versus open map?

> The A-10 has 1 Ph-3 (FA), 1 Ph-3 (RA), and 1 photon.

Are there limitations on the A-10? Like no more than 6 allowed at once? Or very limited range on the photon? Or they're super expensive? Picturing 12-24 Photon armed fighters getting to range 8. Yikes!

What playtesting has been done regarding these points?
________
DUCATI 350 DESMO

terryoc · Post by **terryoc** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:49 am

Are fighters pointed differently depending on closed versus open map?

Yes. On a closed map, fighters are always pointed in the wrong direction.

I hadn't actually thought of that - the playtest scenario in CapLog is a location map around a fast-moving ship. So yeah, I guess fighters would be good on a closed map, but then drones and photons (and fusions, for that matter) are always good on a closed map.

A-10s tend to be limited in deployment, at least in SFB they were. If I see 12 A-10s at range 8, I'm using evasive maneuvers. And scout jamming too, if I have a scout. Try hitting on a 1-3 when there's a +3 die roll modifier in effect!!

sssnake · Post by **sssnake** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:46 am

Yeah ... they're pointed in the wrong direction. They always seem to be pointed at me!

But regarding the ... um .. number of points.

Do fighters need different point values depending on whether or not the map is fixed? Perhaps that is the reaon for the discrepancy. People who think they are balanced are playing on a floating map (or large map) and those who think they are unbalanced are playing on a fixed map? (42 x 30)

Going erratic when 12 photon-armed ighters are after you? I would be afraid they would just get closer wothout you being able to do anythihng about it. But I suppose you could say that about any Fed ship -- and we all know the Fed ship doesn't always catch you, so maybe that's not a concern? OK -- which has an easier time catching a Klingon on a fixed map? A speed 16 nimble little fighter or a Speed 24 CA-bathtub with a D turn-mode?

But again, I ask - has any of this been playtested? (photon-armed fighters ... or potential problems with balance regarding fighters on fixed vs. floating maps)
________
MAZDA MX-3 PICTURE

Requete · Post by **Requete** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:17 pm

If they do ever release drone-armed fighters for FC, you won't want to go erratic! A mixed wave of photon-armed and drone-armed could be pretty spikey in that case.

DKeith2011 · Post by **DKeith2011** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:24 pm

Thought I'd throw this in here just to see what some other people think.

Our local house rule gives fighters 8 points of power to spend on speed changes or evasive maneuvering.

Fighters are assumed to have a movement cost of 1 for Changing Speeds (2B2). All costs, benefits, restrictions and requirements listed in (2B2a) and (2B2b) apply.

Fighters are assumed to have a movement cost of 1 for Evasive Maneuvers (2D4). All costs, benefits, restrictions and requirements listed in (2D4a), (2D4b), (2D4c) and (2D4d) apply.

We're still debating costs and penalties for this ability but so far it doesn't seem overpowering without additional costs or penalties.

terryoc · Post by **terryoc** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:07 am

I wouldn't want to have to keep track of energy for a dozen fighters. Too fiddly IMO.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:08 am

I don't see anything wrong with the current shuttle/fighter rules. They're easy to use.

Post by **Steve Cole** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:15 pm

There is no problem with the existing rules, at least none that your house rule solves.

djdood · Post by **djdood** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:21 pm

DKeith2011 -
Not to pile on (but I am...), that doesn't appeal to me at all. I quit SFB to get away from that degree of record-keeping. If it works for your group, have fun. I just doubt it is going to catch on elsewhere.

DKeith2011 · Post by **DKeith2011** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:21 pm

terryoc wrote:I wouldn't want to have to keep track of energy for a dozen fighters. Too fiddly IMO.

We keep the fighters organized in groups of 3 (the most that can fire through a hex side) with an oddball if necessary to keep the math to a minimum. But yeah, it does add a little work.

Mike wrote:I don't see anything wrong with the current shuttle/fighter rules. They're easy to use.

Didn't say they weren't easy to use. Our problem is with the chosen implementation.

Steve Cole wrote:There is no problem with the existing rules, at least none that your house rule solves.

Other than restoring some of the threat fighters carried in SFB with a minimum of fuss. But that is our local groups purely subjective opinion.

We feel that when ships gained considerable speed with the removal of various abilities (EW, housekeeping, etc.) and lost relatively little fighter defense (no t-bombs chiefly), fighters were shortchanged with no comparable speed increase and reduced ability to avoid enemy fire (no EM, EW or small target mods).

But again, that is our purely subjective opinion and our locally agreed upon fix.

djdood wrote:DKeith2011 -
Not to pile on (but I am...), that doesn't appeal to me at all. I quit SFB to get away from that degree of record-keeping. If it works for your group, have fun. I just doubt it is going to catch on elsewhere.

Didn't expect it to, that's why I called it a local house rule.