Federation Commander

duxvolantis wrote:
We clearly aren't going to agree and I see your points.

Personally I think most players will view Borders of Madness as a big book of optional rules---so put both options in and have some simple mechanism to make sure both are balanced (perhaps DF drones do 6, or 8, or whatever plays out to balance, while seeking drones do 12) and I'm cool with it even though I probably will not use it.

I accept that there are 2 camps on this, It is why I was indicating earlier that rather than try and create DF rules that work for SFB players, that they instead create DF rules that work for the rest of us. Then leave SFB players using the normal drones rules (or something closer to it). I have no problems with FC having noticeble differences to SFB, there are already a number of them. I can quite easily just see fighter drones as short range high velocity missiles and fighters lacking guidance ability for longer range drones (if I needed some 'reality' explanation, which I don't).

I also view BoM as just optional rules. Some I may use, some I may not.

Based on my experince so far I do see the current DF drones as being reasonably balanced for the reasons I've stated - difficulty of getting to launch compensated for by auto hits (which then face a form of aegis from allied ships as well), compared to normal rules which are ease of launching at long range compensated by ease of them being out manouvered.

Certainly in terms of the percentage of DF drones that actually end up doing damage I've not seen a higher rate than would be expected (I'd have to go back and check, but I think our previous fighter game saw 4 impacts and zero damage, this game with 6 impacts and zero damage). I don't off hand see a need to reduce the warhead strength the way they currently work. Removing the 'semi aegis' support from allied ships would simplify the rules a bit more and would warrant a reduction in warhead strength to compensate.

Not that I think the current DF rules have to be the DF rules, other DF rules may be better.


Using normal drone rules would certainly have made for a very different game the other day, I would presumably(?) have just launched 2 drone waves from long range over a turn break, going in along with the ships, 24 + 14 (from ships) and 20 overloaded photons incoming would have given the klingons something serious to think about. Apart from anything to do with counter numbers, that just feels like an exercise in shuffling drones forward and working out how to efficiently stop it, rather boring compared to actually trying to get to use the fighters at range 8 or less - that is purely subjective of course.

storeylf wrote:Using normal drone rules would certainly have made for a very different game the other day, I would presumably(?) have just launched 2 drone waves from long range over a turn break, going in along with the ships, 24 + 14 (from ships) and 20 overloaded photons incoming would have given the klingons something serious to think about. Apart from anything to do with counter numbers, that just feels like an exercise in shuffling drones forward and working out how to efficiently stop it, rather boring compared to actually trying to get to use the fighters at range 8 or less - that is purely subjective of course.

Note that the current playtest rules still restrict fighters to being at range 8 or less to even launch normal drones. So, either way, you need to get your fighters to range 8 to launch their drones.

mjwest wrote: Note that the current playtest rules still restrict fighters to being at range 8 or less to even launch normal drones. So, either way, you need to get your fighters to range 8 to launch their drones.

Presumably if they can't launch until 8, then they can't control beyond 8 either?

I must say I didn't like the Fighters in the Bats assault. Which I thought slowed the game down ( and map clutter)

This isn't sour grapes, as I was commanding the D6,D7 and C8. D6 suffered 2 downed shields and about 30/40% interal damage for which I destroyed all Fed Fighters. Which I think is a good exchange for me.

But having said this it was a large battle. Will have to see if I change my mind when part 2 of Bats assault happens (As we have Fighters, the Feds don't)

storeylf wrote:

mjwest wrote: Note that the current playtest rules still restrict fighters to being at range 8 or less to even launch normal drones. So, either way, you need to get your fighters to range 8 to launch their drones.

Presumably if they can't launch until 8, then they can't control beyond 8 either?

Really, it could go either way, but I have ruled that the control can extend beyond 8. It is the actual launch that is required to be at 8 or less.

The logic I was using is that if the fighter has, say, disruptors or plasma it doesn't have to stay close. It can get in, fire, and get out. This lets drones work the same as other munitions.

mjwest wrote:

storeylf wrote:

mjwest wrote: Note that the current playtest rules still restrict fighters to being at range 8 or less to even launch normal drones. So, either way, you need to get your fighters to range 8 to launch their drones.

Presumably if they can't launch until 8, then they can't control beyond 8 either?

Really, it could go either way, but I have ruled that the control can extend beyond 8. It is the actual launch that is required to be at 8 or less.

The logic I was using is that if the fighter has, say, disruptors or plasma it doesn't have to stay close. It can get in, fire, and get out. This lets drones work the same as other munitions.

The problem with the logic is drones don't function like disruptors or plasma. Plasma is self guided and disruptors are true direct fire. Drones are launcher guided (as the rules stand right now). So, if the launcher requires a range or 8 for "lock-on" and launch (which is essentially what the rules imply), then how are they able to maintain track beyond range 8 from the launcher? Unless we are saying that fighter drones are self-guided (which is not what the rules state).

Blammo wrote:The problem with the logic is drones don't function like disruptors or plasma. Plasma is self guided and disruptors are true direct fire. Drones are launcher guided (as the rules stand right now). So, if the launcher requires a range or 8 for "lock-on" and launch (which is essentially what the rules imply), then how are they able to maintain track beyond range 8 from the launcher? Unless we are saying that fighter drones are self-guided (which is not what the rules state).

True enough, but I didn't like the other choice, so went with this one. Remember: This is all playtest. If that is the wrong choice (and it well could be), then change it for your purposes and see how it goes.

There might be some tweaks that are needed along the process. Maybe it needs to be 12 hexes instead of just 8, and then that would be the limit of control, too. Or maybe there is no control limit, but "fighter drones" only last one turn instead of three. Or ...

The point is, that for the rules as they currently exist, I had to chose one way or the other and I didn't like either one. So, I took the one that was the least restrictive.

Whilst I haven't used those rules (and probably won't), I must say that using proper drone rules but with the range 8 launch does on the face of it make them appear extremely weak.

As I've seen from our playtesting, it is very hard to launch from range 8 or less in the first place and also hard to remain alive long enough for a drone to impact. It appears to me having to put them selves in to that amount of danger to launch proper drones which can then be readily avoided is pretty wimpy. Of course that wimpiness may make them less of a high priority target so they do get to launch a bit more often because of that.

Is the goal to give fighters the same relative effectiveness in FC as they have in SFB?

If not, then it might be okay to have fighters which are tough to use, tough to keep alive, just tough all the way around. They'd also cost less points.

JonPerry wrote:Is the goal to give fighters the same relative effectiveness in FC as they have in SFB?

To the best of my knowledge, no, it is not. The goal is to include them in FC without breaking or overwhelming the game engine.

If not, then it might be okay to have fighters which are tough to use, tough to keep alive, just tough all the way around. They'd also cost less points.

That is entirely possible. But, at the same time, you don't want to make them too weak or they become pointless and not worth using.

But, at the same time, you don't want to make them too weak or they become pointless and not worth using.

If they aren't worth much then you also do away with the concept of escort ships. If FedCom fighters are less valuable, and unlikely to survive their initial attack run, then there is no justification for escorts at all.

Escort ships are of no real relevance with the current DF drones either - as any allied ship essentially gets aegis like ability to protect the target anyway.

Then again, with standard drones launched from any range you have that issue, the allied ships will just shoot them down the way in.

At least in terms of DF drones you could make Aegis more relevant by treating drones as high accel missiles that only the target or escorts can engage in defensive fire, normal allied ships cannot help. That might actually allow DF drones to actually score a few hits against non-escorted ships.

I’m not going to say anything till game end, Wednesday;

But please all bear in mind this is not only a play test with the fighters but a PT with storelf’s campaign.

I am in complete agreement with Targ (which Must be a first!)

It seems to me that the entire debate about fighters involves drones. Yes, SFB fighters have drones, but that doesn't necessarily mean that FC fighters have to have drones.

I still think an option worth exploring is to give fighters a half-strength heavy weapon with limited range (8, 10, 12, 15?) and see what happens.

No drones. All direct fire.