So, imagine: you have the authority to re-design and/or tweak our beloved rulesystem for Battlefleet Gothic, what would you.

Fly free and wild!

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

I'm not sure really. I'm sure i'd make lots of little changes but i can't think of any one really big change. The system if fairly simple but effective and sometimes you can never iron out every fault.

Are we allowed to think on it and get back to you in a couple of weeks once we have more experience?    

I'd rework some of the force org charts so that certain capital ships could be bought as squadrons but not as individuals.

I'd allow mixed squadrons of Capital ships and escorts.

I'd make it so players alternated activating squadrons as in E:A.

Activating squadrons according to Leadership could be an interesting way to do things, allowing fleets like the Space marines to truly take advantage of their high leadership and make the stat more useful in the overall combat stage.

Following the train of thought from the above poster allowing squadrons to support each other would be an interesting way to play. Such as allowing an escort squadrons guns to engage Ordnance if they move through the squadron without touching it in an attempt to get to capital ships behind it?

You could play Move, Move, Shoot, Shoot, Ordnance. With initiative gained by ships and squadrons depending on Ld. Sort of like an adaption to the way LotR plays. Perhaps allowing eldar ships to move after shooting, thus allowing an opponent a chance to engage them but ensuring that they have the ability to keep gaining initative and keep the fight on their terms (overcoming some of their fragility)

For Eldar I'd say MMS.

Movement
Yes, fundamentally the BFG I-GO-U-GO system is simple straightfoward and easy. But tactically the system is old so to say.

An initiative based system would also do wonders. For example an initiative rating could be 'race value(attack rating) + Leadership value + D3.

Then ships with highest value may start moving-shooting, then down the ladder.

Alas, the ordnance phase needs re-work then as well.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

It's funny,  I was thinking about giving a LotR Priority style of turn order for BFG after Adepticon (first weekend of april) and I can work up some rules for the timing and such.

....curiously awaiting...

Fleet Organisation

What I really would like is that escorts should be needed. Now a lot of players leave them at home. Though fluffwise there are more escorts then capital ships.

I think, a race-dependant, restriction rule should be done.

For example:
Imperial Navy: per cruiser you need to field at least 2 (or3) escorts.

Craftworld Eldar (away from Craftworld): you may deploy a maximum of 10% of the point value as escorts.
Craftworld Eldar (defending Craftworld): you must deploy a minimum of 10% of the point value as escorts.

Corsair Eldar: per cruiser you need to field at least 6 escorts.

etc.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

I think allowing mixed squadrons would be a more natural way of boosting the number of escorts. Basically, the escorts could then form a screen for the captial ships, depending on what the targeting rules were (but in this thought experiment, we can control those).

Think about it, if you were able to buy a handful of escorts and attach them to one of your cruisers, wouldn't you do that? They would activate per the better leadership of the cruiser, and the cruiser would be better protected from ordnance and WB fire.

Heck, it would even be more realistic (at least in terms of WW1 naval tactics from which the game is supposed to be derived).

Alas, you can do that in the current system. Only, it isn't a rule.

But making escorts tied with in cruisers: an option. Surely for naval based fleets like the IN, Tau and Chaos. Less so for races like Eldar and such.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

I like that idea for Chaos, IN as they fight very much like WW1, WW2 fleets and so you can understand allowing mixed squadrons of ships.

Orks suit this idea very well as they aren't an "organised" battlegroup, more a collection of ships that will overwhelm you

The Eldar i certainly wouldn't say suit this rule. Simply because they remind me more of modern day naval tactics, engaging the enemy with either first strike or from so far that he can't hit you. (First strike = Weapons Batteries, Pulasrs. Over Horizon = Ordnance)

The Tau remind me more of a blending of the two of them. While they have gun line cruisers these are designed less to cross the T or fight in a broadside and more to hit hard very hard from the front. They use lots of Torpedoes and Ordnance and in many ways i think Tau remind me of a submarine hunter killer attitude...


But yeah, Orks, Chaos, Imperial Navies, Space marines all could easily have mixed squadrons.

Weapons Battery & Lances
How they work is actually fine to me.... however.... they are related to this:


Armour value
I find it a pity, that despite being easily available, a D6 representation of armour is to little in terms of variation.

Imperial Prow 6+, Necron 6+, Marines 6+, Tau prow deflector 6+.

I think a D12 approach would be a lot cooler.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

Take some tips from EA

Alternate Activations

To my mind this would be a MASSIVE improvement.

Additionally

Convert published scenarios to use goals instead of VP if possible. (VPs for tie-breaker only)

boarding actions.
+1 to boarding actions if enemy is on brace, in addition to the +1 you get for enemy on special orders.
if you lose a boarding action but are not destroyed, you automatically go on brace.
+1 for each friendly ship or squadron, not crippled or on brace, within 15cm of ship you're boarding.

These three are to encourage boarding actions and increase preparation and maneuver tactics.

Also, Crossfire?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Activations, Inititiave bases, simultanous, LotR system... should be a fitting one.

Additionally
Convert published scenarios to use goals instead of VP if possible. (VPs for tie-breaker only)

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

I agree that capturing flags is a little harder in BFG. 'Capturing' planets would be easier (since ships could hold station) but then you'd need several planets on the table top which the scale currently doesn't really allow.

Never the less - I do find those bfg scenarios that are goal based rather than VP based to be hugely more exciting. Perhaps that's just me though, and I certainly prefer goals based play in epic, where I find straight smash em up rather more boring

----

For those to familiar the five goals in the standard epic scenario are

Take and hold
Defend the Flag
Blitz
They Shall not Pass
Break their spirit.

3 'flags' are placed in your opponents in each half of the table. One of the three is the blitz flag which you place yourself on your table edge. The other two your place in your opponents half.

You can claim Take and Hold by control any two flags (including the blitz) in your opponents half.

You claim Blitz if you control your opponents blitz flag. Thus you can claim two goals T&H and Blitz if control your opponents blitz and one other flag.

You claim Defend the flag if you control all three flags in your half.

They shall not pass if no unbroken enemy in your half.

Break their spirit if you wipe out the most expensive enemy formation.

You win if you have 2 or more goals at the end of turn three and you have more goals than your opponent. If no one has one won you go onto turn four. If no one has one after turn four then there's a chance of going on another turn, otherwise you have a draw and count up VP's to see who has the 'moral' victory.

---

Of the five, BTS obviously the most easily translatable to BFG, since it is not location based.

TSNP and Blitz could possibly be adapted, with blitz perhaps being a table edge or 'sector' rather than a single point.

The other flag ones are obviously the most difficult to adapt as mentioned above.

But you wouldn't necessarily want to adapt epic goals to bfg, just take the general principle of goals rather than VPs, and develop different sets of goals for each scenario which are more suitable to ship combat.

I know many bfgers are opposed to goals so I won't want to debate the point too much all over again.

---

BTW BFG is more 'fluid' because ships have to move. Epic also even more fluid, despite the fact that units are not forced to move. (Especially compared SM2 which was very static). The system is setup with incentives to make you want to move.

These are:

The goals system.

High movement speeds compared to short weapon ranges.

The critical nature of assaults (close range fighting) and the tactics that can be employed to increase your chances of winning (such as the classic double-whammy tactic, use one formation to move in close, laying blast markers as it does, then holding the initiative and performing the actual assault with another formation, using the formation you previously moved close to provide supporting fire)

Crossfire.
With crossfire the target gets a -1 save mod if the firing formation can draw a straight line up to 45cm through it's target formation to a friendly formation on the other side.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Not sure the +1 for Brace makes sense to be honest. When a ship is braced all its bulkheads are sealed tight, emergency force fields re-routed to secure volitile sections of the ship, blast doors are closed and security lock out procedures are in place.

Gaining control of the ship or even launching a critical attack in such an event is unlikely. Force fields will interupt with transports. Sealed bulkheads, Blast doors may split up Assault teams.

If Anything to stick with the mechanic of what brace for impact is all about i'd say give a +1 to defending a boarding action (Thus cancelling out the Mod for being on special orders... which to be frank i don't understand with boarding)


In fact a whole re work of boarding actions, Hit and Run attacks need to be done in my humble opinion. Its stupid that a single assault team can blow up an escort so easily!!... A Cobra is the size of the Sovereign from Star Trek apparently. Thats 700m long and a ship that size is going not going to be the most helpless of vessels is it.

I donno maybe im wrong but it feels like boarding was a "last minute extra" as oppossed to a well thought out and play tested mechanic.