MARVIN THE ARVN said:

There's a project: build the Galactica !

Probably start with an Exorcist with an additional set of Landing Bays- Lathe Pattern, perhaps? Of course, for the full experience the starboard launch should be slagged or otherwise useless:

"Why can't we use Starboard Launch?"

"It's a gift shop now..."

A question regarding fighter/bombers/attack craft:

How many fighter/bombers/attack craft can a cargo hold and lighter bay take without sacrificing the ability to move cargo for a cruiser?

I have both a cargo hold and lighter bay and a Compartimelize Cargo Hold. It is better to fill the cargo hold and lighter bay shuttle capacity with fighter/bombers/attack craft and use Compartimelize Cargo Hold for shuttles,landers,halo barges,etc.. to move cargo ?

How many fighter/bombers/attack craft are in squadron?

thor2006 said:

Look at the upper black text box on page 11. See, "Room in Launch Bays" and "Ships Without Launch Bays."

The text says 4 aditional vehicles if a ship has Cargo Component. This 4 aditional vehicles are added for every 5 ship hull points or in total?

For example for Tyrant Cruiser with both Cargo Hold and Lighter Bay and Compartimelize Cargo Hold the total of vehicles is (77/5)*(1+4+4)=(77/5)*9=15(,4)*9=135(138) vehicles. Is this correct? Or the formula is (77/5)*1+8=15+8=23 vehicles, is the correct one?

thor2006 said:

It's almost certainly the latter, 23 vehicles. I don't believe you can justify the former interpretation of "additional" without some reference to "per 5 hull points". A Hold Landing Bay has enough room for 24 support craft. It wouldn't make much sense for a hold that hasn't been specifically outfitted for the purpose of holding craft to have more capacity than one that has.

Oops, sorry. A Hold Landing bay can hold 48 shuttles. Shuttles are the same size as assault boats, 8 assault boats per squadron, 3 squadrons per point of strength, 2 points of strength. 8*3*2 = 48.

bobh said:

I cap the max and min Test Difficulty to what's there on table 9-3. You can't get better than +60 (trivial) or worse than -60 (hellish).

Some things are so easy we don't roll for them (I get a new pair of socks). Others are impossible, so we don't roll for them, they just fail (I use Tech Use to create my own version of the Emperor's throne).

In the case of getting best quality ship components, that is not impossible, so I'd cap it at -60.

I'm not sure if the RAW intended us to cap, but with my players, capping their bonuses to +60 comes in handy. Not that they are munchkins, they are playing their characters effectively, and we have six players. People supporting the ships gunner can get multiple DoSes on their rolls, which can really add up.

Who has actually tried out the new Attack craft rules? What are your opinions of them?

When attack craft reach their endurance limit at which they have to return to refuel, do they go at normal speed or do they go instantaneously?

In my playtest, the Carriers (Dictators) can easily leave the bombers behind and thus become effectively useless. Raiders easily run rings around bombers. Bombers are most effective against targets at 6 vu away from the carrier. An Avenger Grand Cruiser with a single DoS on an adjust speed action can out pace the bombers.

Te increase in ship points for craftsmanship is intended only for beginning the game with components on the ship, or acquiring a ship fully kitted out.

Otherwise, you roll for a components normal scarcity modified by good or best penalty.

Edit: misread something, ignore.

guest469 said:

So the attack craft are useless in comparison with macrobatteries and lances?

They go back instantly, as they scatter and retreat. Essentially they are no longer a fighting force.

That's kind of ironic that the bombers are speed 6 for the 6 strategic turns where they vainly try to chase down targets only to be able to near instantly teleport back to base as soon as they were out of fuel.

guest469 said:

The Imperium probably weaponized the effect that allows children to basically teleport out of the classrom once class has ended, even though it took so long for them to get in.

Proposed Ship upgrade: Accelerators [ Very Rare ]

Accelerators are EM or gravitic based launch catapults that can sling attack craft into the void at enhanced speeds. Upgrades one launchbay to allow attack craft to move at up to twice the base speed for the first round but only in a direction appropriate to the "firing arc" of the launchbay.

Poor quality: Base speed x1.5 for the first round.
Common quality: Base speed x2 for the first round
Good quality: Base speed x2 for the first round. Base speed x1.5 for the second round but only if it maintains the original course.
Best quality: Base speed x2 for the first round. Base speed x2 for the second round but only if it maintains the original course.

bad news from the errata thread:

Just want to share a clarifications. I asked Sam concerning attack crafts (I use Fighters as an example) 'time' outside the carrier. It is written that Fighters can spend 4 turns outside the carrier.

And here's the answer:

Hi ***,

They return at their own speed at the end of four turns, so if they spent four turns flying in a direct line away from the carrier, it'll take four turns to get back. However, if they are close to the ship, it may take less time.

Hope this helps,

Sam

That's terrible.

As I see it carriers still have value as a support unit with a long ranged an alpha-strike capability, but they are a very bad choice as the party's sole ship.

guest469 said:

That's terrible.

As I see it carriers still have value as a support unit with a long ranged an alpha-strike capability, but they are a very bad choice as the party's sole ship.

Isn't that how carriers are, uh, "supposed" to work? Personally, I've been somewhat sceptical of carriers in 40k in general, but the fact that they don't make battlecruisers etc useless (as modern day carriers do!) at least preserves the classic image of 40k space combat, which has always been a bit more like Star Wars or WW2 (complete with devastating shipboard artillery strikes and 17th-century-style broadsides) and not Battlestar Galactica or our own 21st century. At least this has always been the impression I got from all the artworks and stuff.

Well, fluffwise, I suppose. The source of my gripes is that I keep expecting them to be like in BFG.

Carriers were awesome in BFG. Attack craft didn't have such horrible fuel limits and could pursue targets across the board. They were very competitive.

Could be a problem of the gigantic size that Void Units are and how long a turn is. Sadly, I've never played BFG yet, so I don't know how it converted inches to in-game distances, but when I'm looking at the explanations in Rogue Trader a VU is an insanely long way to travel for such a small craft, whilst timewise I believe the RAW would translate to a maximum travel time of ~3-4 hours, which does sound quite short but might be explained away by a very high fuel consumption during maximum speed.

In a way, I'm feeling with you. I'd rather allow small craft a greater operational range whilst on the other hand either decreasing their efficiency (sadly amazon has still not delivered BFK to me - do small craft have limited ammunition?) or the maximum number of craft that can be carried, though.

We just had a practice ship combat last night; the group has an Overlord armed with 2 launch bays and two Mars Broadsides.

Up against two Sword frigates (using the stats for the sample ship in the main rulebook), the PC ship was more than competitive. The enemy ships had to close within 8 VU in order to attack effectively, at which point their squadrons were able to launch and engage on the same turn. Their initial launch was a bit early, leaving the target ship out of range, but the wing hung about towards the rear, protecting their blind spot. The enemy was left with the option of withdrawing or taking a shot and risking the bombing run next turn.

In the end, the vast bulk of the damage the PCs inflicted was on three bombing runs, with the broadsides adding a bit of damage here and there. Even once they have their dorsal and prow slots filled, I can see small craft continuing to have a very strong influence on combat, and the ability to protect the rear is especially useful.

An enemy ship with excellent gunnery skills and long-ranged weaponry may make the small-craft less useful, but I can see them still retaining a very strong ability to influence the tactical landscape. The limited engagement range is not, in my opinion, a problem, and -- on the contrary -- should serve to increase the richness of the tactical decision making process.

Lynata -- yes, small craft have limited ammo: they can engage once, after which they must return to rearm, which, based on my experience in the battle above, is likely to happen before they are forced back due to bingo fuel. The exception is CVP (the BF version of CAP), which has fighter squadrons flying close protection and constantly cycling in and out of the launch bays. Fighters on CVP can stay out indefinitely, but can only engage targets within 5VU, and only with half the total number of squadrons allocated.

I see - thanks for the info!

SableWyvern said:

What about ships armed with sunsears,hecutors with turbo upgrade?(no penalty firing at double range) how the attack craft compares?

A ship armed with sunsears, hecutors and turbo-batteries is likely to be cruiser or larger, and will probably find it difficult to outpace bombers. If the ship is fast enough to do so, it's probably also capable of giving any ship with shorter-ranged weaponry a hard time.

The basic NPC wolfpack raider stat'd in the core book has a Sunsear battery. Your typical pirate ship is going to be a speed 10 Iconoclast with 2 dorsal mounts. If you fit them with 2 sunsears, the bombers are never going to touch that ship. The raider only needs to wait for the bomber to refuel and then attack.

I realize now that I had a mistaken assumption that the carriers would be like WW2 with over the horizon strike capability. Instead carriers are more like near stationary fortress ships. They are unable to force a decisive engagement. Bombers as you say are excellent at shaping enemy movement and should work well combined with hidden minefields. It's still a mechanically sub-optimal choice for a PC's sole fighting ship but should still be a fun support ship. Launch bays might also be the better choice for transports.

I have a sneaking suspicion, the problem isn't with the launchbays but the long ranged sunsears again.

btw, how many bombers did you have among your attack craft in your playtest? 1 per launchbay or 3 per launchbay? Did you have a problem with your carrier outrunning your bombers once the raiders feint attacks to your astern?

You are mistakenly assuming that the carrier can only deploy a single wing.

Turn 1: Deploy Alpha Wing (3 bomber sqn, 1 fighter sqn).

Turn 4: Deploy Beta Wing (3 bomber sqn, 1 fighter sqn).

Turn 5: Alpha Wing is returning to refuel. Beta wing is 12 - 20 VU out at this point, depending on the carrier's movement.

Turn 7: Deploy Gamma Wing (3 bomber sqn, 1 fighter sqn).

Turn 8: Alpha Wing lands back on carrier.

Turn 9. Beta Wing is returning to refuel. Alpha Wing is launching. Gamma Wing is 12 - 20 VU out.

That's a constant rotation, with attack wings consistently covering the raider's engagement zone. It may be possible for a very cleverly piloted raider to make an unopposed attack, but it sure isn't going to be easy. And even if the raider does manage to take a shot without opening itself up for a bombing run, it still has to concern itself with return fire from a prow, dorsal and broadside weapon mount.

This example, of course, assumes a carrier dedicated to effective bombing operations, but that seems fair when comparing it to a raider dedicated to long range, high mobility operations. A carrier giving over more space to other craft could, however, manage much the same pattern, simply using smaller wings -- two bomber squadrons per wing should be enough to win a slow attrition battle with a raider.

A true, dedicated carrier with four launch bays will be practically impossible to attack without a retaliatory bombing run unless piloted very poorly.

OTOH, a light cruiser, with it's reduced launch bay strength and limited macroweaponry is far more likely to find itself in trouble without escorts.

Regarding the carrier in my playtest combat, it had four bomber squadrons, two fighter squadrons, one support craft squadron and a ground assault (vulture/valkyrie) squadron. The latter two did not come into play. The carrier itself was only moving farily slowly, and the bombers were never more than two turns of full movement away.