GCW: Episode III Combat System

[SWSF Eidolon]

My only overall complaint with UCR would be some of the carry over into spec interpretation.  Many lower classed or bulky Starfighters have UCRs of 5 or 6 when an ISD or most heavy capship UCRs are 3.  A 3/5, 3/6 hit seems to me undesireable in gameplay mechanics.  UCR works in many applications but in others falls slightly short of getting a good mitigation of damage from large vessels to tiny vessels (fighters/aux).

I think this falls under "Size Modifiers" as you stated.

Maybe potentially CLASS distinctions based on general size of vessels.  And also somewhat relating to Weapons themselves.  Weapon emplacements on a Lancer (QLCs) obviously meant to engage SFs, shouldn't have same penalties as general Turbolasers on most cruisers might.  Also for instance, should a Starfighters general laser weaponry be able to even damage capital ship shields? (armor/hull in Bombing Run/Penetrating Beneath Shielding, yes)  Obviously ships like a B-Wing are purpose built for Capship engagement, their Ion Cannons are generally stated as being capital ship grade in most descriptions I believe.  Also comparatively, the A9 Vigilance Interceptor's cannon.  Etc. Overall this emphasizes more purpose use for all units.  With regards to Aux Craft, especially, Gamma, Skiprays and the like more tuned for attacking heavy ships, lambdas stripped of some combat relevance (a good move imo) etc.

I also think overall Aux should be classed as Starfighters in any basic "Size Modifier" distinction unless Size Modifier's themselves were to be more incorporated into overall UCR Values and Comparisons in which case it'd remain a spec by spec basis which is even better.

RE: Movie Moment Recreation, Death Star TLs never touch Rebel Starfighters, which are less maneuverable and larger than TIE counterparts even.



this handles the same concern i believe, if that's the way you want to go about capturing the dynamic, but i think it's relevant to all vessels in comparison to any other, i mean a Strike Cruiser get's benefit of Speed and Maneuverability, but should get Size benefit to?  Maybe Size Modifiers are canceled out for any "CapShip" classed unit to anotherwhen in same grid space, Adjacent only to simulate distance to size accuracy factor? ;p  more purpose use for Medium/Light Cruisers

isn't for all units but for starfighters. and Capital ships < 250m + Aux are 1/2 vuln.

[SWSF Hale]

Would some kind of size/class chart that modifies UCR be a worthy pursuit? Or something simpler:

We can go by a strict/blanket size-class dynamic, i.e. "Capital Ships get -1 UCR when attacking Starfighters and Auxiliaries."
OR
As you pointed out, a weapon-class dynamic, e.g. "Turbolasers get -1 UCR when targeting Starfighters, Ions get no modifier, Lasers get +1 UCR".
OR
"Large Capital Ships get -1 UCR when attack Small Units (anything under 250m, to include SF/AUX)."

Those are just some brainstorming ideas, but MY goal is to make combat a little more tactically nuanced while maintaining the current rules set (UCR, etc.). However, Greg is developing a system that works in its own right that leaves UCR alone that could essentially tweak out all the imbalances.. so it all comes down to what the community wants to do: work with what we got or build from scratch.

[Ramano]

I like the large ships get -1 UCR vs 250m and smaller. Easy to write into the rules, and reflects better the speed and manuverability of smaller ships over the big front line warships without having to redo a bunch of stats or remember which ships are which size.

[Dementat]

I like the UCR system we have and the idea of adding that tweak of +/- based on class.

An easy way to see where discrepancies are... look at what ships we did and did not field in battle in EII.

[SWSF Hoppus]

Well ships fielded had to do with how we did the CP cost as well and that fighters didnt contribute to CP based on class (a hold full of E-Wings cost the same in CP to field as Z95s for example). So you certain vessels just didnt make sense. Also with the new way we do CP there's just more room for more variety and ship cost and compliments get reflected pretty fairly I think. This is still being tweaked.

My problem with the UCR is that it just doesn't quite work out and mostly when it comes to TIE Fighters. These units should be able to be destroyed easily but can still pack an offensive punch. The AR/DR systems can capture this pretty well. Just using a UCR it seems to fail, as the damage output = laser cannons. An AR takes more into account than just what lasers it has. In the chart im working on there are AR/DRs as well for aux which are considered fighters for all purposes. They have decent ARs but poor DRs compared to other fighters. Fighters are also weaker - an X-Wing takes 12 damage, a TIE 4 I think..

More on that as I work things out with it.

[SWSF Hoppus]

And the UCR modifier by ship class is interesting. My thoughts with UCR is that we need to go beyond 1-10 scale to capture it. A TIE Interceptor should have a 1/7 or 1/8 "vuln" from ISD/MC80 Turbos in my opinion as it is a very fast interceptor and the only thing good for fighting them is fighters. Right now its 3/10 which means an ISD does twice as much damage to a TIE Int as it ought to really. If we can fix this scale issue with a UCR modifier for scale between targets. I just felt the only area that it really ought to matter is with SF and Aux, and it would also make combat between fighters better in the process by switching to the AR/DR system as TIEs and Ints can really tear it up, but they are weak for any damage that gets through, etc.

[Ramano]

The problem with the AR/DR system is im not using it, lol. If I have to go refer to a chart every time a fighter enters the battlefield, thats a no go for me. Feels too AE to me, and that is a ruleset that sorrily didnt work right. Tie Fighters became as powerful as an A-Wing and the Tie Intercepter becomes the strongest fighter in the galaxy. That ruleset also allowed an MC-90 to survive 5000 turbolaser, and another 3000 proton torpedo hits in a single round of posting. After that, I basically flee from anything modeled after AE.

I also disagree with the statement Tie Fighters should pack a punch. This is contrary to the movies as an entire squadron of Tie Fighters engaged a YT-1300 and were bearely able to drop its shields. The simple fact of the matter is Tie Fighters suck, its why they are free.

[SWSF Hoppus]

Wow every one of the comments you made about AE was totally incorrect and hugely exaggerated!

TIE Fighters arent the best but TIE Interceptors were quality fighters. The problem with the way things work now is their high UCR gives them some level of survivability but they do no damage to the fighters when they counter, which means you just stick TIEs on CSP and never take them off and its just a boring way to do things.

The idea is find a way that TIE Ints pack a punch IN DOGFIGHTING but are still relatively weak and die quickly, among some other items.

[SWSF Eidolon]

Greg's points are valid. I like UCR, it's nice to be able to streamline it across all classes like that with one simple calculation, but the calculation doesn't take some valuable considerations into account.  If we can tweak UCR with modifiers to work out a little better, I can see the desire/argument to stick with predominantly familiar system.

but the more I consider it, AR/DRs are niiiice.  It really is the best way to get fighter combat to come out the way it should imo.


My thoughts for now. . .  

  You make two classes of units, Starfighters (includes most Aux) and Capital Ship.

  CapShips engage Capships traditionally, UCR comparisons (possible arc incorporation?)

  SFs engage SFs with comparison of AR vs DR. For simplicity all SF class units, these ratings are listed in a chart.  The listed value can be per Squad (12) and per single fighter.  We say damage is compiled on a single ship for any squad over 51% strength, 50% and under damage may be spread, we say fighter class units can only be grouped in max of a squad (12) then tie in TIE SWARM ability and switch it up to maybe say that only a max of 2 TIE squads can combine to form SWARM, a SWARM then get's it's own AR and DR, a beefy AR, a measley DR.  TIE SWARMing then polices itself to an extent, it becomes valuable to lesser valued TIEs and detrimental to good stand alone TIEs

   Then you come to CapShips vs SFs which you have to get a little spicy on.  I think we should really expand the Bombing Run.  Make it more damaging, more useful, open to more units.  Say a fighter Squad on a Bombing Run suffers a DR penalty if engaged by other fighters.  But you could have CSP for fighters running a Bombing Run.  Also say, the only opposing fighters eligible to engage units on a Bombing Run of a vessel are those on CSP for it prior to the Run.  Say SF laser weapons do no damage to CapShip shielding unless stated otherwise in specs (i.e. B-Wing Ions, Skipray Ions, etc)

[Ramano]

Well, as to my statements being incorrect, I have the AEII rulebook in my possession. The Tie Fighter when calculating in AR/DR had an attack of 16pts and 48 hit points. The A-Wing had an attack of 18pts and 58 hit points. Again, this is adding in their DRs to the hit points. The intercepter was nearly twice the tie fighter... no way am I ok with those fighters carrying that kind of power, under no circumstance. I simply wont play, if you ok with that, thats cool, disappointing but ultimately its your game, and playing is a privilege not a right. But with an AR/DR starfighter chart system, I choose not to play.

As to the second part, at no point were those number exaggerated. Rounded off but not exaggerated. I had a whole team of people hit Lee's MC-90 and due to whatever loopholes exist in the fighter chart rules, it was ruled that MC-90 survived a slavo of nearly 5000 turbolasers and over 3000 proton torpedos, simply because a majority of them came from fighters and aux and AR/DRs get wacky in mass scale fighter vs capital ship combat. There was also some shit about shield rules in that ruling too but either way, the AR/DR rules blow ass and no, I do not exaggerate that battle. I had 22 people hit him with a combined assault, we crashed the damn boards for 2hrs with all the posts hitting at the same time. (Which was done on purpose to prevent counter assault, lol. 2hrs to move other people into position.)

And Tie Fighters did not pack a punch, thats the point im trying to make. In all ways, shapes, and forms, that fighter is not even worth producing. Like I said, go check the movies, 12 tie fighters could not even drop the shields fully on a YT-1300. Hell, the complete tie compliments of 3 ISDs couldnt bring down 1 measly light freightor, where is this punch you speak of? Imperial fighters are supposed to suck ass, its why your your ships carry so many of them, and still get so much firepower on top of it. You cant have your cake and eat it too in this situation.

However, I do agree the rebel fighters are either too cheap, or too powerful. Their cost / effectiveness ratio vs every other fighter in the game is completely off. I understand that is where all the rebel firepower is supposed to come from, but I think after watching what im doing with 8 squads of A-Wings, we can all agree this is imbalancing. Perhaps not so much a downgrade on them but a 50% increase in cost. That way, yes, the rebel fighters are still equally as powerful, but now they cost so much replacing a carrier compliment is like building a large cruiser, which is as it should be considering that fighter compliment is as powerful as a large cruiser.

In my personal opinion, which I feel should be instituted for Ep II now as well. The GR/NR should not get a free fighter craft, and the imps should get a larger free ship. Perhaps bump the imps up to carracks for free. This would better reflect the imperial power coming from their ships, and make it a bit easier to field a well rounded fleet, and removing the free cost of the Z-95s makes sure the rebel starfighter power is kept in check and you can actually hurt one of us. Its easy, doesnt involve any rule change, and involves maybe 12 spots modified on current stats.

[SWSF Hoppus]

Im referring to later generations of ae. No dr just ar. Ar is not used va capships.

[Ramano]

That was my point Hop. Because of stupid AR/DR rules and the way the fighters were set up into them, all that damage didnt matter because it came from craft that didnt receive any bonus vs capital ships, but their stats were dependent upon said bonus's. Because in an AR/DR system, a proton torpedo fired from a fighter does less damage then one from a capital ship, even though its the same weapon, same size, same power load out. Im sorry, but a torp is a torp is a torp. It doesnt matter what its fired from. Same with a turbolaser. If it did less damage because it was on a fighter/aux, then why would they call it a turbolaser and not something else like an auxillary laser or light turbolaser?

[SWSF Hoppus]

Its a fact that turbolasers/lasers/etc didnt all do exactly the same amount of damage. There are other variables the AR/DR takes into account such as maneuvering and speed. Do you believe also that the ISD commanders fired each fo their turbos exactly one time, then waited for the enemy to fire all of their turbos exactly one time, then fired all their turbos again just one time each? Well then I guess to simulate how it really ought to be everyone can fire turbos as many times as they want now every turn!

The AR system used in AE in version 8 or so is what I am looking at for inspiration. It gives a point rating based on weaponry, speed, and maneuverability. A TIE Fighter is an 87. An A-Wing is 120. A TIE Interceptor is 117. A TIE Fighter takes 2 damage and a TIE Int not much more. They die fast in combat but can do some damage before they die.

The AE system is not without its flaws. They use complicated pre-engaged bonuses, etc but there are elements that work and can be used as inspiration for a better solution.

But just using UCR as a defensive calc for dodging damage and firing weapons onboard is not an accurate representation of how dogfighting works. A more maneuverable craft would get into better positions more frequently and get more accurate shots off, etc. Including more PT and CM shots that strike. They don't always hit.

There will be no charts in GCW3. But please stop skewing the conversation by making shit up and exaggerating issues of old sims. You just manage to derail a good conversation and kill the point of the thread.

[Ramano]

And you need to quit telling me im lying. I was there dude. I watched this shit happen. And im getting a bit fucking offended with you talking to me like im some 12yr old kid that is speaking hear-say. You liked that crap shit system, thats fine, you go use it. Just dont plan on including me. I will not, WILL NOT play in any universe modeled after AE. No more point in even debating about it. Make your rules how you want, after all its your game, your the GMs and its creators. I however, did not like that universe, did not like their rules, and I make the choice not to play with said rules, or some slightly skewed modified version of them.

And whether you want to listen to me or not (like usual) the AR/DR system AE had makes imperials overwhelmingly overpowered by making the imp fighters actually able to compete with rebel fighters. In said system, imps rule the game and the rest of us are just left to suffer through 20+ fighter squadron fleets that are every bit as powerful as any rebel fighter. So they get capship firepower and fighter superiority, when everyone else in the game has to choose one or the other. The point is, imperial fighters, ALL variants of them, are supposed to suck, thats why you get ISDs.

[SWSF Eidolon]

Ram, no matter how you look at it UCR does not adequately resolve all combat outcomes effectively.  Something has to be done, be it modding UCR or trying new system.  You stated your main problem with AR/DRs is that TIEs are too powerful, but TIEs are too powerful as is now with base UCRs.

Adjusting UCRs themselves with Modifiers or unit survivability via dmg points is a potential option, but you should wait to see what AR/DR system presents itself/themselves before discounting all potential versions of them based on an old one or simply not liking AE and it had one.  I think FP is the biggest piece of shit Uni there ever was but I'm willing to consider that something in it may have had some merit.



here is my base suggestion for SF class unit combat (some specs/AR&DR&DMGs provided to run through comparisons later after work). .


-Starfighters are a class of unit that mostly include obviously Starfighters, but also most auxiliary craft as well.

-Starfighter class units may be grouped together in maximum of 12 units (1 Squadron), with exception of the TIE Swarm ability of some fighters, which may form in to groups of 24 (2 squadrons) and becomes something of a different Unit Type entirely. (*see TIE SWARM notes)

-Starfighters grouped together fight as a single unit.  Therefore, their AR and DRs are combined for a single value.  Opposing fighters will tend to do the same, and most engagements will happen along the lines of initially full strength Squadrons that dwindle in size and power over a few exchanges.  For simplicity and aid in calculation, the AR/DR of fighter units are listed in chart both per full strength squadron and per single unit.

-Starfighter class units do battle via comparison of an AR and a DR.  The difference between them is the base damage the defender will take.  

-The attacker will assume 1/2 of the inflicted damage as collateral which must be assessed at the end of the aggressors given turn.  In the event that an AR is less than a DR, the initial difference between values is the amount of damage the Attacker will incur, while the defender assumes the Collateral role and takes half of that.

-A single Group/Squadron of Starfighters may be engaged by as many separate groups of Starfighters as you choose to commit.  AR/DR will be compared the same as the first time they were engaged.  The 2nd engaging Group comes with no penalty, however, any 3rd or higher engaging group will be penalized with a 100% collateral damage factor, as opposed to the usual 1/2, much like attacking with a lower AR will yield.

-TIE Swarms are a special type of Unit Group.  Composed of a maximum of 24 units, does not have to be same fighter type.  TIE Fighters, TIE Interceptors, and TIE Bombers may form in to or out of a TIE Swarm only once per turn.  When in a TIE Swarm, the units themselves gain entirely new AR/DR values both individually and for the group.  They become much more effective in attacks themselves while being more vulnerable to being attacked.  Damage to a TIE Swarm is always compounded on a single ship until it is destroyed and on to the next.  Once a Swarm falls to 12 or fewer units, it ceases to be a SWARM and gains none of the benefits or detractions.

-Taking Damage to Squadrons.  After the AR and DR of respective clashing groups of fighters is resolved in to a value of Damage to be taken, if the Group of fighters is 6 or less, damage may be distributed throughout them all.  If a group of fighters is 6 or more, damage is compiled on a single unit until it is destroyed and then on to the next until there are 6 or fewer ships.



...obviously this doesn't cover CSP and Bombing Runs because that involves capital ships and I'd like to tackle this one at a time.  If we get a fighter system we all like and agree on, then I think most of us are happy with the basic Cap Ship application of the UCR system as is, then all we have to figure for is CapShip w/ SF interaction.