Spartan_FA_Mike

3rd Edition Short Range Spacecraft (SRS)

103 posts in this topic

So, I know that I've been throwing a lot of information at you guys, but I'm a bit surprised that no one has asked about SRS changes.  This topic has generated a lot of discussion on the boards over the past few months.  Here is what 3rd Edition is doing with SRS:

  • SRS costs are included in the price of the carrier.  No more buying wings as part of fleet construction.  Carrier costs have been adjusted (along with other changes taking place.)
  • A new MAR, SRS Contingent(SRS_Type) appears on any ship with a WC value.  The SRS_Type provides the SRS that are allowed on that particular carrier.
  • SRS tokens still have a maximum of 6 wings per token.  A minimum of 2 wings per token, no limit (other than maximum WC) on number of tokens you can field from a carrier.
  • SRS movement is the same, no template or turning.
  • The SRS Types currently available:
    • Standard Interceptor  (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 0,  PD: 1)
    • Heavy Interceptor  (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 0,  PD: 2)
    • Standard Bomber  (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 2,  PD: 0)
    • Heavy Bomber   (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 3,  PD: 0)
    • Assault Boats   (MV: 12",  DR: 3,  CP: 1,  PD: 0)
    • Heavy Assault Boats   (MV: 12",  DR: 3,  CP: 2,  PD: 0)
    • Repair Craft  (MV: 8",  roll [BLUE]d6 per wing; for every 2 successes, remove a critical effect marker, OR repair 1 HP)
    • Heavy Repair Craft  (MV: 8",  roll [RED]d6 per wing; for every 2 successes, remove a critical effect marker, OR repair 1 HP)
    • Medical Shuttle (MV: 12",  roll [BLUE]d6 per wing; for every 2 successes, remove a disorder marker, OR restore 1 CP)
    • Heavy Medical Shuttle (MV: 12",  roll [RED]d6 per wing; for every 2 successes, remove a disorder marker, OR restore 1 CP)
  • Once an SRS token has performed an action (attack, repair, board, etc) it immediately returns to base.
  • Interceptors may either Escort friendly ships, or make Joint Attacks with bomber squadrons
    • Escort: When launched, place the token onto the base (contact with flight peg) of a friendly ship.  This token will contribute its PD value (wings X PD) to the PD of the ship.  It stays with the model until it is returned to base, either voluntarily, or after having participated in a PD action.  This PD support is used anytime a ship needs to use PD (boarding, torpedo attack, other SRS, etc)
    • Joint Attack:  An interceptor may temporarily join with a bomber token that is making an attack run.  Enemy PD removes wings from the escorting interceptors token before affecting the bombers.
  • SRS launch during the Indirect Fire Ranged segment of the activation. 
  • SRS Procedures (briefly summarized here):
    • Declare SRS actions (escort, repair, etc)
    • Move SRS tokens into contact with other model flight pegs.  (Friendly peg to Escort, Enemy peg to attack, etc)
    • Resolve PD against attacking wings.  
    • Resolve the Attack Run/Joint Attack/Repair/etc.
    • Return to base (except for Tokens on Escort duty)
  • Carriers that take damage suffer a reduction in the number of SRS they can operate, at a rate of -1 wing per 2 HP damage.  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).

 

Edited by Spartan_FA_Mike
SRS changes.
tansalus and azrael like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No more interceptor bubbles and RTB for them after lendind PD. That and different wings for different carriers, nice change. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does PD against SRS work? Is it still the lackluster 6 to destroy or is it changed to something more predictable? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:
  • The SRS Types currently available:
    • Standard Interceptor  (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 0,  PD: 1)
    • Heavy Interceptor  (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 0,  PD: 2)
    • Standard Bomber  (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 2,  PD: 0)
    • Heavy Bomber   (MV: 16",  DR: 2,  AD: 3,  PD: 0)
    • Assault Boats   (MV: 12",  DR: 3,  CP: 1,  PD: 0)
    • Heavy Assault Boats   (MV: 12",  DR: 3,  CP: 2,  PD: 0)
    • Repair Craft  (MV: 8",  roll [BLUE]d6 per wing; for every 2 successes, remove a critical effect marker, OR repair 1 HP)
    • Heavy Repair Craft  (MV: 8",  roll [RED]d6 per wing; for every 2 successes, remove a critical effect marker, OR repair 1 HP)
    • Medical Shuttle (MV: 12",  roll [BLUE]d6 per wing; for every 2 successes, remove a disorder marker, OR restore 1 CP)
    • Heavy Medical Shuttle (MV: 12",  roll [RED]d6 per wing; for every 2 successes, remove a disorder marker, OR restore 1 CP)
    •  
  • Once an SRS token has performed an action (attack, repair, board, etc) it immediately returns to base.
  •  
  • Interceptors may either Escort friendly ships, or make Joint Attacks with bomber squadrons
    • Escort: When launched, place the token onto the base (contact with flight peg) of a friendly ship.  This token will contribute its PD value (wings X PD) to the PD of the ship.  It stays with the model until it is returned to base, either voluntarily, or after having participated in a PD action.  This PD support is used anytime a ship needs to use PD (boarding, torpedo attack, other SRS, etc)
    • Joint Attack:  An interceptor may temporarily join with a bomber token that is making an attack run.  Enemy PD removes wings from the escorting interceptors token before affecting the bombers.

 

First question, why the so extensive, detailed break up? What does this add to the game with this additional layer of complexity?

Right now, I can't see anything it adds other than a head ache for the players. Does this really add much by having two different grades of each? Again, I don't see a positive answer to that question. 

My answer to the last is really and totally nothing and where does a multirole craft exist? Which, they do in universe and they do now. 

The RTB side of things, bingo fuel, yeap, this is pretty damned good and a nice change. Also the idea that Interceptors, fighters can escort other ships, formations. Spot on. It's called a CAP. Also BARCAP, the lingo seems to change every so often. 

 

2 hours ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:
  • SRS costs are included in the price of the carrier.  No more buying wings as part of fleet construction.  Carrier costs have been adjusted (along with other changes taking place.)
  • A new MAR, SRS Contingent(SRS_Type) appears on any ship with a WC value.  The SRS_Type provides the SRS that are allowed on that particular carrier.

 

This is about the only thing I can agree with on any level. At least without any major arguments. SRS should come with their home base. However I still have an issue that this is a new MAR to the list. Less is more, especially with MARs. Completely with MARs. 

I would strongly suggest that giving people a choice that they can take either a number of set packages, or that they can choose to have a number of wings, up to Wing Capacity from an attached list. That it's a part of the ship and tracked on that ship alone. It doesn't warrant specific space in the main rule book, in the MAR list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Venter said:

First and foremost: does the acronym really have to be WC

Change it.

No, seriously, change it. 

For water closet, right?  Took me a second to figure out why you'd have a problem with that.  We don't use that term here in the States, so it never occurred to me as an odd thing.  

1 hour ago, Kurgan said:

How does PD against SRS work? Is it still the lackluster 6 to destroy or is it changed to something more predictable? 

In the PD defense, 1 wing is destroyed for each multiple of DR that is hit.  So let's say I have a 4 wing standard interceptor in formation with a 5 wing standard bomber token.  They contact a Relthoza Huntsman Heavy Cruiser squadron of 3 ships.  The PD on the Huntsman is 5 (3), so I get a dice roll of 5+3+3 = 11 dice.  These roll [RED], generating 13 successes. This kills off all four of the interceptors (DR of 2 x 4 = 8) which leaves 13-8 hits to apply to the bombers.  The remaining hits kill 2 bombers (5 hits kill 2 wings of DR-2).  The remaining 3 bombers make a 6 dice attack against the Heavy Cruiser.  The bomber attack ignores line of sight, and other defense systems like shields and cloaks.  They then return to the home carrier once the attack run is over.

@LionofPerth  We ought to call it CAP, for that is what it is.  I'm going to suggest the edit, especially since we use the term 'Escort' elsewhere. It would be nice to differentiate it.

40 minutes ago, 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)?

Correct, we do not have a carrier that can carry every kind of SRS.  Assault ships are more likely to have Assault Boats, Fleet carriers generally get both interceptors and bombers (either standard or heavy), Capital ships with WC (or SQ, or WX..not sure what to change that to :) ) usually just have interceptors to supplement their PD envelope.  Of course, each race is also different too.

tansalus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

For water closet, right?  Took me a second to figure out why you'd have a problem with that.  We don't use that term here in the States, so it never occurred to me as an odd thing. 

 

Lol, I see.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mutantpoo said:

The SRS Types currently available:

Meaning there are still Fighters just stats aren't available yet right ?????

Nope, no fighters.  Now, before anyone gets too upset, there was a reason.  Problem is, I don't remember what the reason was, so I've got to check why they are off the list.  Let me get back to you...

Fluffhunter and Mathhammer like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so, this seems to rip apart SRS survival rates.  Would it be correct to guess that SRS are fully or at least partially replenished at every launch?  That would make the math less cumbersome with HP loss now reducing maximum WC for a carrier.  It also rather feels like Interceptors are more meatshields for bombers now, just shoulder checking the PD fire for them and dying like flies.

Honestly, I would've liked to see a CP system where you could pay for SRS replenishment under such possibilities for heavy losses.  I assume perhaps Relthoza will be seeing this under faction options, but as a standard it would be nice with a reduction for specialists.

 

The points cost of carriers was always higher than the stated list amount.  No carrier was so effective for points that it was being taken naked without SRS.  You would be handicapping yourself, aside from perhaps Aquans who can spend a significant amount of points into WC.  I can't say this change is meaningful until the model statistic hit, which are probably going to be very wordy under this new system.

 

I'd have to see the models assigned these repair craft SRS, because that is far out of line in effectiveness compared to equivalent bombers.  Given there is no DR on these SRS, and no stated phase in which to take pot shots at SRS, being able to fly freely is a notable gain over a bomber's value.  Especially considering that interceptors providing ablating protection to bombers requires them to launch from the same damned squadron, cutting further into WC limits.

I don't know about the model statistics yet, and the full nuances of SRS interactions, but I do wonder if some carriers won't find their value shifted very noticeably.  After all, it's not so much this specific SRS rule set that will define SRS value; but the carriers they are launched from which will define how dramatically these changes impact the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Spartan_FA_Mike

The term's been in use for a while, has been for a while. 
 

Might I recommend reading some actual naval doctrine and speaking with actual naval officers? Then again, the idea of screening force and maintaining proper perimetre, threat detection and recognition isn't something that is often discussed in any of these games. 

 

Also, kinda, maybe, ignored the question in regards to multirole craft and the fact there's two variants of each unit. 

Share this post


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

@Spartan_FA_Mike

The term's been in use for a while, has been for a while. 
 

Might I recommend reading some actual naval doctrine and speaking with actual naval officers? Then again, the idea of screening force and maintaining proper perimetre, threat detection and recognition isn't something that is often discussed in any of these games. 

 

Also, kinda, maybe, ignored the question in regards to multirole craft and the fact there's two variants of each unit. 

Well, I'm rather far inland, so not a lot of naval officers where I'm at. :)   But your point is valid.  I think for games like this, a lot of those kind of details (actual naval doctrine) are lost or abstracted in the game.  I mean, we have a single number to define crew strength.  But we both know that number means a lot more than X number of personnel.  Officer/Enlisted ratios, training, experience of the crew under fire...It's a lot for a single number to deal with.

As for multi-role craft, I'm not sure I understand the question or comment you're asking there.  I can make an assumption, but we know where that got me last time I did that. :)  Care to elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume given the rules outlines that you can now launch as many tokens as you have each activation?  I don't see any other way to get combined Interceptor/Bomber attacks (unless Interceptors can break off Escorting to join in).  I'm also assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the Escorting SRS can combine PD with ships within 4" (as mentioned in the boarding rules).  If both of these things are true, I think PD mountain is still an issue.  If you could split your Interceptors into 2/3 tokens and spread them all around each turn to any ships within 16", that's a ton of on-demand PD that is available.  You could easily, given proper ship placements, have each squadron protected by many Interceptor Escorts, and decide on a case by case basis when they need to contribute.  I think this system is better than v2 (though needlessly complicated with adding new classes and splitting into heavy/light), but still have some concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paladin21 I'm not sure you read that right, PD Mountain is broken to pieces and scattered to the far and distant winds.

This should be enough to prove it:  This token will contribute its PD value (wings X PD) to the PD of the ship.  It stays with the model until it is returned to base, either voluntarily, or after having participated in a PD action.

Even assuming that the boarding rules apply to how interceptors react to any and all PD actions, providing a 4 inch bubble of PD around their host model regardless of squadron; they can only do so once per activation.  PD Mountain was a disaster mainly because Interceptors could continually provide PD through any and all activations targeting models within their interception range, which was also 6 inches instead of the standard 4 inches.

They're no longer unlimited, nor wider reaching than other forms of PD coverage.  Point of fact, the boarding rules may be misleading and need to be changed.  If the intent was that interceptors can assist in boarding because their *host* is withing 4 inches and part of the same squadron, thus eligible to participate, then the wording needs fixing ASAP.  If not, then something should be added to this write up to indicate that interceptors provide a cross-squadron PD coverage when attached to a host model.

 

Edit:  Oh, and as an aside, it is a good catch about the wording and possible meanings it might hold for Interceptors given the boarding write up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

Nope, no fighters.  Now, before anyone gets too upset, there was a reason.  Problem is, I don't remember what the reason was, so I've got to check why they are off the list.  Let me get back to you...

Nope not upset.  Even lowering the raised eyebrow .................... Of course we'll be adding them back in, in our games ;)

Commodore Jones likes this

Share this post


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

As for multi-role craft, I'm not sure I understand the question or comment you're asking there.  I can make an assumption, but we know where that got me last time I did that. :)  Care to elaborate?

 

Happily. 

Why the absence of any form of multirole craft? Total absence of any form of multirole craft? 

It either provides PD or it provides AD. That to me feels off, again, I come from a grounding where I've either spoken with, researched or have material relates to the actual thing or the nearest actual thing. Strike aircraft can defend themselves and specialist fighters have been turned into ground attack. So I'm confused as to the deliberate separation of. 

I'm also concerned about the fact there's a light and heavy variant of each type of craft. Which is both self defeating, interceptors generally aren't heavy and rely on supporting systems such as AWACS, and unnecessary. I don't see the need to go to that level of precision, that it needs that degree of fine detail. Why is it simply not built into the one, singular unit representation? 

I could talk about duty watches, watch rotations and more, which is clearly implied by the total Crew score. At least from this end. So why be so.... precise here and not so elsewhere? It's an inconsistency at best. At worst, it's an excuse to have more models. At least if I don't listen to the really cynical parts of me about this. There, being blunt, I feel it's failing basic design fundamentals. 

Commodore Jones likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how interceptors work

and am fine with the absence of fighters

but the rules would be more simple  if interceptors can only add pd 

and fighters can only escort/CAP

having heavy vs light seems overly complicated

 

will a carrier be limited to launching only two tokens? Will there be any variability either by faction, command points, or leave guy vs heavy carriers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard and Heavy SRS allows them to modulate the effectiveness of SRS on different Platforms.

If an Aquan Battleship and Battle Carrier may both have 6 WC, but if the Battleship has Interceptors and Bombers while the Battle Carrier has Heavy Interceptors and Heavy Bombers, you get much different levels of effectiveness from that 6 WC.

Fluffhunter and azrael like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna step into this, LionofPerth, you're talking about realism in a game.  A space opera game that has design elements based somewhat like naval combat simulation, but is in fact about space combat with futuristic ships and strategies that probably are not viable.  If you wanted to say that this design wasn't realistic to space combat, well, we don't even have that yet.

It's nice when games mirror reality in a relatively believable manner, but at the end of the day it's still a game.  Game design for fun and balanced play should trump design which places realism over entertaining game play.  If you make a game element that does everything, equally well, why would you ever take a specialist?  The design for SRS is limited such that putting both generalists and specialists into play that do not obsolete one another is incredibly difficult to produce and then justify having exist.

An encyclopedia may be a fun read for some people, I mean I like a good pass occasionally, but there reaches a tipping point in game design when you should try cutting out the fat.  Now, if you had a good sample, showing how a generalist multi-role SRS can fit into this design; we'd have something to discuss in depth.  As it stands, I just don't see why this extra work is necessary aside from perhaps not having pleasing nomenclature.

Spartan_FA_Mike and CorroPredo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LionofPerth said:

 

Happily. 

Why the absence of any form of multirole craft? Total absence of any form of multirole craft? 

It either provides PD or it provides AD. That to me feels off, again, I come from a grounding where I've either spoken with, researched or have material relates to the actual thing or the nearest actual thing. Strike aircraft can defend themselves and specialist fighters have been turned into ground attack. So I'm confused as to the deliberate separation of. 

I'm also concerned about the fact there's a light and heavy variant of each type of craft. Which is both self defeating, interceptors generally aren't heavy and rely on supporting systems such as AWACS, and unnecessary. I don't see the need to go to that level of precision, that it needs that degree of fine detail. Why is it simply not built into the one, singular unit representation? 

I could talk about duty watches, watch rotations and more, which is clearly implied by the total Crew score. At least from this end. So why be so.... precise here and not so elsewhere? It's an inconsistency at best. At worst, it's an excuse to have more models. At least if I don't listen to the really cynical parts of me about this. There, being blunt, I feel it's failing basic design fundamentals. 

I guess I don't have a great answer to why no multi-role SRS.  If we were to start all over again, we'd probably come up with something different.  For whatever reason, some of the stats are single numbers, others have multiple values and choices.   Having heavy/standard variants, bombers/interceptors, gives a way to get away from the totally abstract, but not to bog down in a bunch of variant craft.   This is where we have settled, thus far.   In re-reading this, it doesn't feel like a great answer, so maybe some of the other beta team people can chime in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Xerkics said:

So can carriers replenish srs because it looks like they are very easy to kill now.

I'm double-checking on this.  Stay tuned...

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