Jump to content
Jsiegel1983

Carriers and TFTs in 3rd Edition

Recommended Posts

I rarely had a game last longer than 3 turns.  A big question is if the squadron gets an activation the turn it is launched or not.  If they do then the distance you can place them away from the carrier adds to the threat range.  For example if you launch a squadron if 5 dive bombers and they can move 12 inches, but must be placed within 4 inches then the threat range is now 16 inches.  Just something to take into consideration.  If you can launch for 3 turns it does force you to start launching the first turn to get everything launched by turn 3.  Also, this would make people reconsider just launching squads of 3 for activations later in the game since it would take far too many turns to do so.  If the smaller carriers are only able to launch 1 or 2 times then they have the option of waiting and then launching or launching right away or possibly depending on numbers launching multiple smaller squadrons instead of 5 wing squadrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether they should start activated or not is another question...

Alternative 1:

You activate your carrier, then next action you activate your dive-bombers. Range: 4'' + 12'' = 16'' Partly reopen activation spam problem. Counterplay with fighters somewhat possible if you happen to have one close by.

Alternative 2:

You activate your carrier, and as part of that activation your launched dive-bombers may move up too 12''. No activation spam problem 1 round, range 4'' + 12'' = 16''. Then there are limited counter play abilities for anyone within 16''

Alternative 3:

You activate your carrier, launch, but dive-bomber activate next round. No activation spam problem 1 round. Counter play is possible. But it limits their usefulness.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think alternative one would work if there was a limit to the number of carriers you can bring. I think there should be a limit anyway.  Honestly the first couple of turns they aren't going to be in range of a whole lot of ships.  Unless you both sprint straight at each other.  I think if there was a limit to the number of carriers and/or carrier points you could bring based off the size of the game and not allowing carriers to be part of strategic deployment coupled with alternative one it would help limit carrier/tiny flier spam  while not limiting their usefulness in a game. 

The whole point is to balance everything out.  You don't want carriers to be too strong so they over whelm everything but also don't want them too weak so they aren't a viable option.  I think it would take a lot of testing to see how well it balances carriers out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2018 at 10:33 PM, fracas said:

Could you recover to rearm a wing and launch a new wing the same turn?

5 arrives as another 5 launch 

In my proposal, you have N carrier points (or launch points) which you could spend as you wish, including rearm & launch IF you have the points for it. Thus with 5 carrier points you probably would not be able to launch 5 AND rearm another same turn. You could however, if you wanted it, launch 3 & then spend the two ather points as you wish. If you create them with 6+ carrier points instead, you could...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 12:22 AM, Jsiegel1983 said:

I think alternative one would work if there was a limit to the number of carriers you can bring. I think there should be a limit anyway.  Honestly the first couple of turns they aren't going to be in range of a whole lot of ships.  Unless you both sprint straight at each other.  I think if there was a limit to the number of carriers and/or carrier points you could bring based off the size of the game and not allowing carriers to be part of strategic deployment coupled with alternative one it would help limit carrier/tiny flier spam  while not limiting their usefulness in a game. 

The whole point is to balance everything out.  You don't want carriers to be too strong so they over whelm everything but also don't want them too weak so they aren't a viable option.  I think it would take a lot of testing to see how well it balances carriers out.

I for one thing *HATE* artificial limits like 'max one carrier per 1000pt'.  If there are other ways, please use that option instead.  The main problem with carriers as I see it is carrier versus carrier fleets were in 2.5 it would is stupid to totaly destroy wings. More firepower might be a downside, as you don't want to destroy wings.

With my propose system, no more. Carriers could still launch new wings, but they killing of wings is a mighty good thing as it should be.  I think dystopian wars is one of the better balanced games, but it could be improved. I hope it is possible to balance carriers without going down the strict limits. Its better that the game it self restricts the usefulness of too many carriers.

 

 

18 hours ago, Asuo said:

A really simple fix would have been if the fighters were respawned activated, this would remove them from the spam pool and reduce the carriers damage output.

I have to agree. But not only fighters, all of them. Having the tiny flyers be launched activated would be a very nice fix in my opinion to. It would totally block the activation spam part of the carriers. Couple that with the ability to launch a limited amount of new wings each turn would change the mechanic on how they work.

It gives everyone 1 turn to react to any launching of wings.  And makes fighters a good counter too carriers...

 

My proposal can also make different carriers more different. Medium carriers could have a nice pool of carrier points, but very low capacity. The double-decker of USA could have very high number of launch points, so they spam out all their tiny tokens in round 1. Others could have a higher capasity but take longer time to send out. While also the difference between 5, 6 and 7 launch points could be noticed, without the later having more planes. With 6 you could launch 5, and have 1 points to spare. Or, you could launch wings of 3 + 3 in the same turn. With 7 you would have even higher flexibility. launch= 7, capasity=10 would be far better than launch=5 and capasity= 10 even though they bring the same number of planes to the battle.  Launch=3 and capasity=12 could also be a fun option.  Other CARRIERS could have special MAR to allow it to activate 1 (or more N) un-activated wing as the same activation as the carrier (maybe restricted to any wing within RB1).  Thus you launch 1 set round 1. In beginning of round 2 you could activate the carrier & planes you send out round 1 in the same activation if you want to.  Such a carrier with many launched and ready wings around it would be dangerous. 

 

 

Make the carrier part of the carrier more different from each other. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grand-Stone said:

I for one thing *HATE* artificial limits like 'max one carrier per 1000pt'.  If there are other ways, please use that option instead.  The main problem with carriers as I see it is carrier versus carrier fleets were in 2.5 it would is stupid to totaly destroy wings. More firepower might be a downside, as you don't want to destroy wings.

With my propose system, no more. Carriers could still launch new wings, but they killing of wings is a mighty good thing as it should be.  I think dystopian wars is one of the better balanced games, but it could be improved. I hope it is possible to balance carriers without going down the strict limits. Its better that the game it self restricts the usefulness of too many carriers.

 

 

I have to agree. But not only fighters, all of them. Having the tiny flyers be launched activated would be a very nice fix in my opinion to. It would totally block the activation spam part of the carriers. Couple that with the ability to launch a limited amount of new wings each turn would change the mechanic on how they work.

It gives everyone 1 turn to react to any launching of wings.  And makes fighters a good counter too carriers...

 

My proposal can also make different carriers more different. Medium carriers could have a nice pool of carrier points, but very low capacity. The double-decker of USA could have very high number of launch points, so they spam out all their tiny tokens in round 1. Others could have a higher capasity but take longer time to send out. While also the difference between 5, 6 and 7 launch points could be noticed, without the later having more planes. With 6 you could launch 5, and have 1 points to spare. Or, you could launch wings of 3 + 3 in the same turn. With 7 you would have even higher flexibility. launch= 7, capasity=10 would be far better than launch=5 and capasity= 10 even though they bring the same number of planes to the battle.  Launch=3 and capasity=12 could also be a fun option.  Other CARRIERS could have special MAR to allow it to activate 1 (or more N) un-activated wing as the same activation as the carrier (maybe restricted to any wing within RB1).  Thus you launch 1 set round 1. In beginning of round 2 you could activate the carrier & planes you send out round 1 in the same activation if you want to.  Such a carrier with many launched and ready wings around it would be dangerous. 

 

 

Make the carrier part of the carrier more different from each other. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be able to launch a new wing if tiny flier tokens would one wing have to be completely destroyed or would you only need enough tiny flier tokens destroyed to launch a new wing?  The reason I ask is the latter is what you need then you could run into the same problem of activation spam.   Lose a couple here and there and start making new squadrons.  If they are created with an activation token then you would have to wait a turn but you could still run into an issue with that.   I could be wrong but that is what I see as a potential issue.  Like I said before this would require testing to see how it worked in game.  Then again we could all avoid this if people just didn't spam tiny flier tokens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jsiegel1983 said:

To be able to launch a new wing if tiny flier tokens would one wing have to be completely destroyed or would you only need enough tiny flier tokens destroyed to launch a new wing?  The reason I ask is the latter is what you need then you could run into the same problem of activation spam.   Lose a couple here and there and start making new squadrons.  If they are created with an activation token then you would have to wait a turn but you could still run into an issue with that.   I could be wrong but that is what I see as a potential issue.  Like I said before this would require testing to see how it worked in game.  Then again we could all avoid this if people just didn't spam tiny flier tokens.

No! You don't need to destroy anything to launch a new wing. If your wing survives, good for you. Launch  a new fresh one regardless. The rule that you need one destroyed to launch a new one leads to a lot of crazy. Like, wanting to destroy a wing or SAS...

 

You do solve the activation spam problem round 1! Round one, none of your extra SAS can active if they are launched activated. From round 2, yes you do get an extra activation. And for round 3, you get 1 or 2 extra activation if your wings survive. But for activation spam, the problem is round 1. No more.

 

It does have to be tested of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure about the tiny fliers not being able to activate the turn they launch. There is a very good chance those planes will then never act. There are way too many fast small ships that would be able to rush in and ack ack them to oblivion, thereby relegating many of the carriers to worthlessness. Many of the carriers need those planes in order to deal damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jeldar said:

I am not so sure about the tiny fliers not being able to activate the turn they launch. There is a very good chance those planes will then never act. There are way too many fast small ships that would be able to rush in and ack ack them to oblivion, thereby relegating many of the carriers to worthlessness. Many of the carriers need those planes in order to deal damage.

That is a valid point, and a view I somewhat share. But it's striking that some fear that carriers are overpowered, others that they are underpowered.

However, it will definitively solve 'activation' spam, and technically I find it better to let the opponent be able to react. Fighters are suppose to be good at hunting torpedo_bombers and divebombers, and with 1 round to react they definitively are! Also remember that carriers still would have the ability to rebuild a wing. Give them 7 carrier points would allow a carrier to both rebuild & launch.  If you plan them nicely, you could also launch them last action of round 1, and use them first action of round 2. 

It is also possible to tweak the numbers you get to balance things out. Create new mars for carriers in connection to their SAS.

 

The big issue for me about delaying activation is that any SAS brought to the game in round 3 will have to wait till round 4 to activate. And round 4 is preaty late in the game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could always reintroduce some of the "old" restrictions (only one "type" of carrier action per flight deck, only battlecarriers can fire primary/secondary weapons when performing carrier actions, planes launched given activation marker unless carrier is an assaultcarrier, some carriers get different "control areas")

This would reduce activation spam, and give some thought requirements for the type/s of carriers being taken. Personally, I like most of the 2.5 rules (especially the "fighters only" local air support) but I preferred the 2.0 "shared CV" for carrier squadrons and its "flexibe wings" (eg CV6 being able to initially deploy either a squad of 5, or 2 squads of 3). They should have also kept the 2.0 recon planes, and just made it so they stayed attached to their parent model (being able to apply multiple spotter bonuses to improve indirect fire was a useful tool, and I used a lot of artillery support to help set up boarding actions.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the idea of different types of carriers functioning differently.   Having some carriers launch tiny fliers with activation markers and others not with activation markers.  Some carriers being able to launch more squadrons at once than others.  I also think a carriers focus should be carrier actions and not firing weapons or boarding.  Not saying they should not be able to fire weapons or board just not their focus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jsiegel1983 said:

I do like the idea of different types of carriers functioning differently.   Having some carriers launch tiny fliers with activation markers and others not with activation markers.  Some carriers being able to launch more squadrons at once than others.  I also think a carriers focus should be carrier actions and not firing weapons or boarding.  Not saying they should not be able to fire weapons or board just not their focus.  

I agree 100%  Having them different is one key. The other is to link them more to the carrier. Having them launch will make tiny fliers feel more part of the carrier.

 

19 hours ago, Wolfgang Jannesen said:

I love the idea of carriers that can launch several flights at once, especially for escort-styled planes this could help some fleets that need to choose whether  they're going to spend this turn on fighters or bombers.

With 6  launch points you could launch 1x5  or 2x3. What whould you choose :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, varnos said:

I wonder if it would be too much of a hassle to say that TF Wings activate just before their carrier (and, building on the idea by @Jsiegel1983, others after the carrier) ? Not entire sure of the most "graceful" fix of how to handle local air support, but it would solve the activation spam issue.

Or they all activate at the start of the "end phase" before rolling for damage control, drifting, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nazduruk_Bugzappa said:

Or they all activate at the start of the "end phase" before rolling for damage control, drifting, etc.

Maybe each carrier could active up to 'N' wings this way, where N could be 1, 2 or even 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they all must activate first inside their own phase, before all other moves. 

 

Carriers can still perform their actions on them, Or respawn them when they have been destroyed as normal. But they cant do anything until the next game turn and SAS Activation Phase.

 

It's not a complicated fix and doesn't need a full rework of the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Merlin said:

Or they all must activate first inside their own phase, before all other moves. 

 

Carriers can still perform their actions on them, Or respawn them when they have been destroyed as normal. But they cant do anything until the next game turn and SAS Activation Phase.

 

It's not a complicated fix and doesn't need a full rework of the rules.

Also possible :)  Would solve the activation spam. Or alternatively, they cannot activate before their own phase at the end of all other movements. The only exception is if a carrier have a MAR to activate them earlier as part of the carrier movement. That would link SAS to the carrier.

However, my 5 cents, carriers should be able to launch a limited amount of wings independently of how many wings are destroyed.  If you link respawn with destruction, you would benefit from getting your sas killed, which creates lots of really stupid scenarios. Especially in carrier versus carrier fleets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radical idea, related to the TFT discussion: what if you had to activate squadrons based on size to simulate smaller ships being more agile? It would encourage entirely different list building strategies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, varnos said:

Radical idea, related to the TFT discussion: what if you had to activate squadrons based on size to simulate smaller ships being more agile? It would encourage entirely different list building strategies.

Interesting idea, but probably too radical.  Smalls first then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue I see with having activations based off of size and starting with smalls is theoretically you could use a lot of smalls and mediums to gang up on a large/massive model while that model is unable to respond or defend its self.

You could screen with your small and medium models to protect your larger models.  Which I suggest anyways to protect larger models from frigates, destroyers and heavy destroyers.  The problem then is if they have longer range than you.  I just don't know what the over all effect would be.  If someone tries it out please post the outcome here so we can see it.  Not saying it is too radical.  I would be careful of unintended consequences.

5 hours ago, Grand-Stone said:

Interesting idea, but probably too radical.  Smalls first 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could always go back to a similar ruleset to 1st edition, where you have to "land" on a carrier to refuel/rearm/retask, and only the larger carriers can "respawn"

(I do still miss the d6 with the planes being fuel points where you had to burn fuel to certain actions, and AA of sufficient quantity could abort an attack-run.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nazduruk_Bugzappa said:

Could always go back to a similar ruleset to 1st edition, where you have to "land" on a carrier to refuel/rearm/retask, and only the larger carriers can "respawn"

(I do still miss the d6 with the planes being fuel points where you had to burn fuel to certain actions, and AA of sufficient quantity could abort an attack-run.)

Man, if there is anything I do not miss about first edition, it's the fuel consumption you had to add to your in-game accounting... Talk about fiddly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, varnos said:

Man, if there is anything I do not miss about first edition, it's the fuel consumption you had to add to your in-game accounting... Talk about fiddly!

Not as fiddly as it was when it was per plane. The tray already has a dice slot, so it could easily be used to track fuel/ammo for a squadron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

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.