Jump to content

We're moving to Discord!

Come join in the discussion here!

You can also still find out all the latest news on TWITTER and FACEBOOK

Thank you for your continued support, and we look forward to welcoming you shortly.

The Warcradle Team

S..Mike

3rd Edition Short Range Spacecraft (SRS)

Recommended Posts

Couple of questions. 

Has spamming of minimum sized Interceptor type tokens been tested to see what impact it has? (Attempting to emulate v2 PD mountain)

It is mentioned that Interceptors can join bombers for attack runs. I assume the choice of wording is deliberate here, they can't join assault boats can they? If so is this a balance restriction? Was it tried, could Interceptors join with repair shuttles?

Repair shuttles repairing HP, this implication has concerns, granted I don't know who has access to them but I am recalling the potency of shuttles on the v2 Tyrant.

Carriers with differing loadouts, does this mean there is the possibility hypothetically speaking that there may exist a "budget" version of some Carriers? For example a base Ares can only employ the light variants of SRS but you could purchase an upgrade to gain the heavy variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paladin21 said:

Is there any feedback on splitting Interceptors into as many different tokens as you get wings?  It seems this would allow you to have extremely fine-grained control over PD decisions throughout the turn, potentially negating much of the push for making PD mountain a strategic choice.  This would be particularly true in factions with large SRS representations.

Meaning, if my carrier has WC=6, I can launch up to 3 tokens with 2 wings each (2 per token being the minimum).   Yes, this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Paladin21 said:

Is there any feedback on splitting Interceptors into as many different tokens as you get wings?  It seems this would allow you to have extremely fine-grained control over PD decisions throughout the turn, potentially negating much of the push for making PD mountain a strategic choice.  This would be particularly true in factions with large SRS representations.

 Bullet point 3 of the initial post is that SRS tokens are 2 to 6 Wings each.

Ninjad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I foresee that unless Wing values are small, PD is still going to be an issue. I could easily have a dozen or more 2-wing Interceptor tokens in my Relthoza to provide torpedo-immunity on demand.  Maybe a limit on maximum tokens per turn of a single type from a single activation?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Meatshield said:

Has spamming of minimum sized Interceptor type tokens been tested to see what impact it has? (Attempting to emulate v2 PD mountain)

I don't think it would

PD mountain used to mean, my 6 interceptors add 12 PD to EVERYTHING MWHAHAHAHAHA

you can get very good granulated coverage, by splitting the token into 6 interceptors, but now those 6 interceptors  only provide 2PD over 6 attacks

the increased resistance is there (if it wasn't why would you have a carrier)  but the mountain is gone, 2 PD can be overcome, and if they still concentrate it to 12, they can only do so once a turn :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the problem coming in with the combination of launching as many tokens as you want (up to capacity, obviously) each activation and factions with lots of Wings.  Aquans, Relthoza, and Ryushi off the top of my head can probably afford to have at least a dozen or more 2-interceptor tokens perched as Escorts on your ships.  While using a big surge of Interceptors at once would deplete your reserve, you likely won't be facing so many large torpedo attacks that you're going to need a ton very often.  Torpedoes have to deal with shields and hull strength like every other weapon system, and then PD on top.  Considering their AD is generally pretty low, you don't need excessive PD very often to make them not do much.  When your ships finally get into Bomber range, you just recall and re-issue the bombers and consolidate Interceptors to escort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pretty interesting change. It does seem to give a reason to divide up the Heavy/Standard variants as well, since you'd be able to use that division to control how hard a carrier hits with its wings, since they aren't type-locked turn to turn. 

 

However, it does make me wonder- in this format, wouldn't it make more sense to include a generalist than it previously did? (Or maybe it makes less sense, since you'd be choosing the function each turn anyways... Haha, I think I just confused myself)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the ship load outs was already predetermined at purchase time though?

I.e.: you buy the carrier AND it's load out as one preset package. If they think a 12 interceptor (=6 2 wing tokens) carrier would be a problem they could...I dunno...just not publish one with that load out?

I also assume the heavy/standard will be tied in some way to dedicated carriers vs. battleships with capacity. An OSO Battleship for example can carry 6 wings but it's still a battleship with all those guns and hull etc. I'd assume it would be limited to the standard SRS not the heavies as it's not a dedicated carrier while a dedicated carrier would have some of the heavy SRS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:
  •  Tokens that are reduced in strength during an attack run do not result in a reduction in ship WC.
  • When a carrier type can use more than one category of SRS, the specific number of SRS taken are dynamically allocated during the game.  This means that a carrier with WC=6 and the SRS Contingent (Bomber, Interceptor) could launch 6 bombers one turn, 4 bombers and 2 interceptors the next turn, and so on.  Degredation in the WC comes only as the carrier is damaged (see above).

here is the new rules :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it wasn't specifically stated, If you pay attention to the sample given then a noticeable change has occurred.  13 successes off of a red 11 PD pool would presumably not be meant as an extreme example of hot rolling for only 6s to-hit.  If this hasn't changed, then that is one hell of a misleading example.  Thus, I'm guessing PD against SRS is on a 4+ to-hit now, with successes basically driving off wings on a 2 for 1 exchange.  Even a meager 5 PD should reasonably kick two wings off a standard full wing bomber token for a modest 8 AD attack against the target.

It feels like interceptors are going to be strangely important as ablative meat shields against PD fire, which really feels odd as a mechanic to me.  Regardless, since carriers lose WC to HP loss, it's hard to say if interceptors will eventually be less necessary for strong bomber strikes against damaged targets.  After all, presumably both players are dealing damage to important squadrons in a reasonably close game.  If a higher loss of PD compared to WC loss could be achieved, I suppose you might see less interceptors and more bombers getting launched to take full advantage of needing less meat shields for some degree of exponential damage dealing increase.

 

Now, let me pose this thought to you.  If Aquans get similar levels of WC in V3.0 as V2.0, would it make sense for most of these models to have regular or heavy versions of SRS?  My guess is, a reasonable move will see most Aquans launching only regular interceptors, which only provide 1 PD per wing.  An Oannes is very strong as a model on it's own, so I'd imagine it only gets to translate that 8 WC into 8 PD per turn, maximum.  Anything outside the Oannes 16 inch interceptor bubble, 20 inches potential maximum given potential reading of rules, won't be eligible for that coverage at all.  This isn't even to say everything within that range will be covered by that potential PD, and it can at most be split up into 4 instances of 2 PD.

PD mountain isn't +2PD over the course of a turn's worth of activations.  As low as torpedo potential damage currently is, +2 PD isn't enough on it's own to shut out torpedoes entirely.  If it was then the vast majority of Tier 1s out there have a built in 5 fleet point option to create their own personal PD mountain.  As a comparison, this example Oannes has what would be a 4 wing Interceptor token's worth of PD, in a smaller bubble, only usable once a turn.  This is big, it's not even remotely a small decrease to SRS PD coverage.  The only thing to honestly complain about here is that interceptors still have damned PD at all.

If you see every Aquan model with WC roll out with Heavy Interceptors and nobody else gets any, well, then you can definitely call shenanigans.  Until then, let's at least get the model stats in hand before seriously decrying SRS PD values as deep sixing any and all torpedo play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, azrael said:

Another that I am quite happy with. Deciding each turn what to launch and in what size tokens sounds good to me. The hp damage reducing the amount of wings it can launch is a good idea.

Can my isonades take wings please :P

Sorry, not enough room in the hull for extra wings. :(

They are harder to board though, and could be upgraded to more powerful beam weapons though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2017 at 8:01 AM, tansalus said:

I for one really like the changes made to the SRS. Is it safe to say that certain carriers will be allowed certain types of SRS tokens, (For example only bombers and heavy fighters or perhaps only assault shuttles)?

I can see this as a way to use old mods in a new way like the old Terran Zenith as a support Carrier. load the old girl up with support craft and keep her just in range of the heavy action. or full of assault craft for a boarding just a thought 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to go through specific quotes and names here. If you feel your post is mentioned, implied or otherwise, just leave a reply. Quote this, whatever. I'm actually pretty relaxed. 

Firstly specifically, to Spartan Mike. 

You have Spartan in your name. You're coming to the community with the definite, definitive changes to the game. You've been given half a script to work with and when things get heated, all you can say is 'I'm just trying my best.'

Well, sorry mate. Bollocks, pull the other one, it has bells on. This isn't about design, this isn't about making this the game I want it to be. If it was and I was in control, you'd have far less factions and far more scientific language in it. Not only that, fairly rigid tiers and a lot more thought into these ideas. You'd have fleets which have pretty clear limits on what you can bring and probably be using Crew scores as a measure of that. I could go on. 

What this is about, is trying to grok what Spartan is thinking, trying, aiming for. There's nothing you've provided, other than from what I can see is changes for the sake of changes. It's an ego thing, it's about making the game something other than what it was before. This relates to all of the changes made. I want you to prove me wrong. I want you to come with me and say things like 'we're looking at making SRS tokens a larger part and a more useful part, that you can't create PD mountains and that bombers are just as useful.' Or to say that you're looking at trying to improve the prospects of carriers, as they seem to be under represented in some of the factions. That it's possible to play a carrier based force. 

Still not been provided by anyone, especially yourself, which I don't think is an unfair question or expectation. Now, if I was to ask the importance of signal discipline, RADAR and AWACS, that would be unfair. Finer points of the outcome of the ATF fly offs. Definitely unfair. Debating the issues of the F35 with and without underwing pylons and what that means for the RCS, RADAR Cross Section, nothing to do with thrusters. That one is a real bastard of a question at the end of the day when you start talking what you can mount, how and under what conditions you might do it and what level of spectrum, airspace dominance you have. 

 

This part is for everyone. 

Now, here's a thing, I could cut nearly half your SRS types with a single MAR. Read below. 

Superior (SRS type) - SRS types listed roll an additional die when performing their main attack, action. 

Yeap, really that simple. Give that to the carriers and you can have the variety Spartan seems to want. At least not apart from the shuttles, which I also, still do not get. Why do you need to have one set use one set of mechanics and the other use a different set? It creates confusion. Again, you could answer this with a MAR just as quickly. See below. 

Limited/Small Cargo (SRS Shuttle type) - Shuttles from this carrier use the Heavy Mechanic, not the Exploding Mechanic. 

Between those two MARS I've just halved your list of SRS. Which I have to argue, is a simplification. I would also make an argument for a third MAR or the return of a multirole SRS. Not only could it be used to show the height of carrier based thinking between the factions, but it could also have some interesting implications for carrier load out. What and why makes the best load out. 

Coming to us, telling us 'this is what you're happening to the game you spent money on' and then expecting us to not have any reaction is pretty foolish, in general. To not expect some of us to have serious issues with such a complete, if necessary rewrite in this case for SRS, then come to use with a fairly blank work sheet and just have us swallow it? Again, foolish. There's a difference between communication and dictation, dictated to. I want to see people here feel they are having a conversation, having a part and that they are being listened to and specifically answered. Right now, this feels a million miles away. 

Again, I'm not asking for internal documents. Nor am I asking for the design bible of Firestorm. Not asking for tough, doctrinal discussions relative the.... say, splitting your carriers versus focusing your carriers in regards to launching strikes on targets. The big old question of depth of penetration versus width of penetration in regards to armoured warfare, proper screening formations and battlelines in WW1 naval formation and strategy. There's a deeply long list of things I'm not asking for. What I am asking is for clear, concise communications that communicates to us, Spartan to its fans, followers and otherwise interested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, murphy'slawofcombat said:

I can see this as a way to use old mods in a new way like the old Terran Zenith as a support Carrier. load the old girl up with support craft and keep her just in range of the heavy action. or full of assault craft for a boarding just a thought 

Yes, there will be these kind of carriers at some point.  Not saying that is the role of the Zenith, but this kind of support ship is definitely on the horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

Yes, there will be these kind of carriers at some point.  Not saying that is the role of the Zenith, but this kind of support ship is definitely on the horizon.

But the Horizon is an Assault Cruiser!

...sorry, terrible sense of humor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question. Can a non-SRS ship move to come into contact with or overlap an SRS token?

How far away from parent carrier can an SRS token sit?

Could you theoretically exploit the ability to split tokens up into lots of small ones combined with inability to overlap the tokens combined with Command Radius to make literal no-go zones where you can't move into? For example preventing RB1 focused ships ever getting into the range by placing enough tokens in that range so there is no room to place the ship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will any ships have the option of taking a "Hardpoint" to increase their SRS options. 

Like how the Corsair Racketeer comes with 4 SRS, but by taking a loss elsewhere it can get +4 and +2 SRS. Under the new system this should still be possible. 

Hardpoints and stuff adds lots of choice, and game flavour 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WestAustralian said:

Will any ships have the option of taking a "Hardpoint" to increase their SRS options. 

Like how the Corsair Racketeer comes with 4 SRS, but by taking a loss elsewhere it can get +4 and +2 SRS. Under the new system this should still be possible. 

Hardpoints and stuff adds lots of choice, and game flavour 

Yes.   The ship customization is one of the best features of the game.   I don't think we have any hardpoints that do a loss of one stat for gaining another, at this point at least.  But it could show up in the future, that is a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.