Fighter comments and suggestions

[pixelgeek]

So after realizing that I had been playing the fighter rules incorrectly I had a read through them again.

There were a few things based on my own thoughts and some things that Daryl posted on Facebook.

1) Players should be required to fill flights when possible. So if they have 8 fighters they would be required to make two flights of three and a third with two fighters. This would be to make sure that people didn't try to maximize their activations by spreading fighters out into one or two fighter flights.

2) I totally understand that having fighters fire in their own combat phase is a result of wanting to stop activation funnies. I think that if players move and fire flights in squadrons that we can reintegrate fighters into the same combat phase. And perhaps into the main movement phase as well.

The main reason for this is to increase the number of choices that a player needs to make in their turn. Having to pick whether to move/fire with your fighters before an opponent can fire at them is another way to increase the tactical opportunities in the game.

3) If we use squadrons then we need to also make players fill them out with flights in the same way as fighters into flights. So if we say that a squadron is three flights then anything with 9 or fewer fighters only gets a single activation for movement and combat instead of two or three.

So in my last game the Klingons would have had two squadrons (one of three flights and a second of two) and the Hydrans would have had two squadrons of three flights.

We wouldn't need to have the squadrons remain within range of each other but just use it as a way to limit activations without limiting gaming options.

[pixelgeek]

Actually Wings might be a better term than squadron

[Steve Cole]

Squadron is what we use. Decades too late to change it.

[pixelgeek]

Squadron is what we use. Decades too late to change it.

I have played too many WWII air combat games. Wings is stuck in my head

[Scoutdad]

The way it should work is:

Player MUST fill flights to the extent possible.
So 6 fighters MUST be 2 flights of three.
7 Fighters would be 2 flights of three and 1 flight of one.

Fighters move last... that is written in Book 1.2 and Book 2 and cannot change.
Regardless of terminology (flight / wings / squadrons) they ALL move AFTER all ships.

Currently, All fighters attack AFTER all ships, because... balance.
When we allowed them to attack during the regular attack phase - it made them too overpowered.
If broken into squadron and attacking separately - it slows the game down tremendously.
If all are allowed to fire as one, at a convenient point during the attack phase - they are again overpowering. Allowing 9 Stingers to fire 18 Fusions beams at once is a death sentence for any single ship smaller than a Battleship.
Holding them to the end of the Attack Phase at least gives the opposing forces a chance to whittle them away.

Or at least that's the idea.

So far, we've not had any major issues from wither our group or the NY group using this method.

[Scoutdad]

... The main reason for this is to increase the number of choices that a player needs to make in their turn. Having to pick whether to move/fire with your fighters before an opponent can fire at them is another way to increase the tactical opportunities in the game.

+

Also... the point of ACTASF is to streamline combat...
Adding to the choices that need to be made only serves to slow down the game... especially if you have AP players.

[pixelgeek]

If broken into squadron and attacking separately - it slows the game down tremendously.

How so? The number of fighters you have to roll for is the same no matter what?

[pixelgeek]

Also... the point of ACTASF is to streamline combat...
Adding to the choices that need to be made only serves to slow down the game... especially if you have AP players.

AP?

Strategic choices aren't going to slow combat down though.

[pixelgeek]

If all are allowed to fire as one, at a convenient point during the attack phase - they are again overpowering. Allowing 9 Stingers to fire 18 Fusions beams at once is a death sentence for any single ship smaller than a Battleship

But can't that happen with the current rules anyway?

[Scoutdad]

If all are allowed to fire as one, at a convenient point during the attack phase - they are again overpowering. Allowing 9 Stingers to fire 18 Fusions beams at once is a death sentence for any single ship smaller than a Battleship

But can't that happen with the current rules anyway?

If they survive to that point.
We've never had that many fighters survive to the Fighter Attack Phase.

Between those engaged in dogfights and Offensive Fire, they tend to lose about 50 to 60 percent of the numbers available to fire in the Fighter Attack Phase.

[Scoutdad]

If broken into squadron and attacking separately - it slows the game down tremendously.

How so? The number of fighters you have to roll for is the same no matter what?

Yes, the total number of weapons to be rolled is the same... excluding those tied up in dogfights and those lost before the Fighter Attack Phase.

But the delay comes from players having to decide... do I attack with this flight of fighters, or this ship, or that flight, or that ship, or...

[Scoutdad]

Also... the point of ACTASF is to streamline combat...
Adding to the choices that need to be made only serves to slow down the game... especially if you have AP players.

AP?

Strategic choices aren't going to slow combat down though.

Analysis Paralysis

We have a couple of players in our group that can spend an hour determining which unit is the optimum unit to move or fire.

[pixelgeek]

If they survive to that point.
We've never had that many fighters survive to the Fighter Attack Phase.

Is that consistent with their survivability in SFB?

[pixelgeek]

But the delay comes from players having to decide... do I attack with this flight of fighters, or this ship, or that flight, or that ship, or...

I think this is just a difference in preferred play style then. I don't mind that sort of delay and I like thinking out my moves and how a game makes me have to prioritise an attack that might not be optimal but is beneficial in the larger picture.

[Scoutdad]

But the delay comes from players having to decide... do I attack with this flight of fighters, or this ship, or that flight, or that ship, or...

I think this is just a difference in preferred play style then. I don't mind that sort of delay and I like thinking out my moves and how a game makes me have to prioritise an attack that might not be optimal but is beneficial in the larger picture.

Lots of people do like this style... many others do not.
That's why ADB has several games with differing levels of detail/complexity.

The entire goal of ACTASF from day one has been to streamline the system as much as possible.
There are already too many decision points in the game as it stands, so I'm hesitant to just add others willy-nilly when one could just as easily play SFB and have all the decision points in the world.
Not that there is anything wrong with wanting more details and more decisions...