This thread spawned some more threads if you care to read/comment:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/138522-evaluate-house-rules-re-starfighter-survivability-pilot-skill/

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/138551-weird-idea-fix-for-space-combat/

I think the main problem with Space Combat is a simple question of perception.

For ground combat, the main source of defense is cover (or armor but they don't stack), so you usually have a Defense Rating of 1, adding 1 Setback dice to attacks against you. Melee combat is 2 Difficulty Dices while Ranged combat varies from 1 to 4 Difficulty Dices, with an average 2 Difficulty Dices. So the average difficulty to hit in ground combat is 2 Difficulty Dices with 1 Setback from cover for a total of PPB. So hitting Jet Lee or Burger Bob are both a difficulty of PPB. In Space Combat, the usual difficulty is 2 Difficulty Dices from targetting computers and 1 Setback Dices from shields for a total of PPB. So hitting Wedge Antilles or Noob Pilot 1 is also PPB.

Now, on Ground Combat, you have talents to increase the odds of a missed shot, mainly Dodge, Defensive Stance and Side Step, each upgrading the difficulty a number of times equal to ranks/strain. So with double ranks of any one of those talents, difficulty to hit becomes RRB.

For Space Combat, you also have talents to increase the odds of a missed shot : Tricky Target (Reduce silhouette ; probably increasing difficulty by 1), Defensive Driving (increases Defense, so it adds a Setback Dice per rank), Brilliant Evasion (1 opponent can't attack for rounds equal to agility) and Koiogran Turn (cancel the effect of Gain the Advantage). You also have Evasive Maneuver to upgrade the difficulty to hit. So with the most common talents (Tricky Target and Defensive Driving), along with a Evasive Maneuver, the difficulty to hit you becomes RPPBB.

So overall, the defensive talents for Space Combat are way better and offer better protection overall.

Like I said earlier, the problem is PERCEPTION... because a lot of Specs have the Ground combat defensive talents while only 7 Specs (4 if your remove copies) have Space combat defensive talents : Explorer Fringer-Driver, Smuggler Pilot, Ace Driver-Pilot-Hot.Shot and Commander Squadron Leader. So it's a lot more common to see players with Ground combat defensive talents. Fortunately, playing Edge or a Undercover Group in Age, you only need 1 pilot for a group of 4-5 players. If you're playing Age with a Starfighter group, then you only have 4 choices of Specs.

Now, most starship weapons deal 6 base damage + success, so an average of 8 damage. Average armor for starfighters is 3 with Hull of 12, meaning it can take 3 hit tops ; freighters have an average armor of 4 with a Hull of 20, capable of taking 5 hits. With ground combat, people say that you can easily raise both Armor and Wounds with gear and talents. The same is true with weapon damage being a lot easier to raise with gear and talents. You can still hit a Armor 8, Wound 22 character with a modded Heavy Blaster Rifle hitting for base 13 + success (with skills and talents getting an average of 3 success) for a total of 16 damage, meaning it can take 4 hits.

Number crunching... I think, IMO, that both Ground Combat and Space combat are fairly balanced and even.

To be continued...

Another grip I read was about having no reason to not go at Top Speed... In the RAW, the difficulty for Piloting Rolls is Silhouette/Speed combo which sets the base difficulty and the number of upgrades for it. Say a freighter with silhouette 4 and speed 4 would have a base difficulty of RRPP. If you don't have them roll piloting for anything, you're to blame.

Also some say that the faster ship always escapes, same for Double maneuvers against Minions or Rivals (can't spend strain). With the double maneuvers, make it a chase where both pilots roll before the round and can't make move maneuvers on their turn. That way your players won't exploit Double maneuvers.

Another grip with the system for many is the "narrative" aspect of it... meaning that you have to force the setting to make it interesting. Having a Starship fight in open space without any obstacles becomes a straight on gunfight with the 1st on initiative to win the fight..... I could say the same thing about ground combat : having an encounter in an empty warehouse with nothing but the floor, 4 walls and the roofs, also becomes a straight on gunfight with the 1st on initiative to win the fight.

Ground combat becomes fun and sizzling when something outside of gun shooting happens... In the warehouse, flickering lights, locked doors, chase between shelves, exploded gas canister, falling crates, roof collapsing, etc. Same applies to Space combat : asteroids, civilian traffic, solar flares, space station, electromagnetic interferences, supernova, black hole, etc.

The GM makes the setting entertaining, the players exploit it, the narrative dice adds to it all.

Talking about environmental setting, does the Setback dice also applies to the difficulty to shoot enemy ships ? Say you're piloting in an asteroid field giving 2 Setbacks, do they also apply to shooting the enemy ?

Thanks.

@JP_JP - I would suggest that it depends on what the setback dice represent. If the vehicles are careening around stuff that could grant cover and sight light breaks then heck yes.

Yeah, i'd say in 90% of situations, anything that causes difficult terrain piloting rolls is also going to be a source of cover.

Yeah, i'd say in 90% of situations, anything that causes difficult terrain piloting rolls is also going to be a source of cover.

Since Defense from Armor doesn't stack with Cover, I guess Defense from Shields shouldn't stack with Environmental settings.... Quicksilver and FangGrip both refer to environmental setting has giving cover to the targeted ship. I was also thinking that it should add to the difficulty to target the ship, but with both your answers, I'm not so sure anymore. I'll do some reading in the rulebook to see if they wrote it down somewhere.

If they don't stack, the highest from either Shields or Environmental Settings should apply.... which in my opinion would be more bookkeeping. I'd just say that it doesn't apply.

Anyway.... I'll read on it and give you guys some feedback.

Thanks for the replies.

...

EDIT//

After reading the AoR rulebook, it is written at page 249, top right paragraph, that you add terrain modifiers at the GM's discretion.

Thanks again.

Well, personally, my group stacks cover & armor. I understand why they didn't do it that way (die pool bloat) but it just didn't make sense to us that there was no benefit to taking cover.

Sure there is... Full cover just means you can't be shot at (that is if you don't pop out to fire shots yourself)

Sure there is... Full cover just means you can't be shot at (that is if you don't pop out to fire shots yourself)

That would be more additional soak than cover then. They could still shoot through the wall.

Not in our games. If a person goes into full cover he cannot be hit through this cover.

...but if you know pretty well where they are...and you are using a breach weapon....why can't you try to hit them?

That isn't cover, that's completely out of LoS. Taking cover is using a solid object to help protect you during combat. I just can't figure out why a guy in armored clothing is just as vulnerable when he's crouched behind a low durasteel wall and only popping up occasionally to fire as he his when he's standing in the open street all 'high noon' style.

That isn't cover, that's completely out of LoS. Taking cover is using a solid object to help protect you during combat. I just can't figure out why a guy in armored clothing is just as vulnerable when he's crouched behind a low durasteel wall and only popping up occasionally to fire as he his when he's standing in the open street all 'high noon' style.

The rule was put it place to help make dice pool size manageable, not for realism. Adjust to taste.

Well, personally, my group stacks cover & armor. I understand why they didn't do it that way (die pool bloat) but it just didn't make sense to us that there was no benefit to taking cover.

Yep.

That isn't cover, that's completely out of LoS. Taking cover is using a solid object to help protect you during combat. I just can't figure out why a guy in armored clothing is just as vulnerable when he's crouched behind a low durasteel wall and only popping up occasionally to fire as he his when he's standing in the open street all 'high noon' style.

Because you are not shooting at the cover. You are shooting at the guy/girl/droid/whatever popping up from it. This makes him partially obscured and adds a setback to hit him. However if he is already so difficult to hit that he adds more setback than the cover does, then the cover isn't as big an obstacle anymore. It is not as if you fire through that durasteel, you fire at the dude that pops up from behind the durasteel. And thus not popping up is full cover snd you can't target him LoS has something to do with it, but definitely not all because I'd still allow grenades to be tossed in such cases (with a setback because of the estimate of throwing st someone you don't see.)

However, we are completely derailing the topic....

Yeah, i'd say in 90% of situations, anything that causes difficult terrain piloting rolls is also going to be a source of cover.

Since Defense from Armor doesn't stack with Cover, I guess Defense from Shields shouldn't stack with Environmental settings.... Quicksilver and FangGrip both refer to environmental setting has giving cover to the targeted ship. I was also thinking that it should add to the difficulty to target the ship, but with both your answers, I'm not so sure anymore. I'll do some reading in the rulebook to see if they wrote it down somewhere.

If they don't stack, the highest from either Shields or Environmental Settings should apply.... which in my opinion would be more bookkeeping. I'd just say that it doesn't apply.

Anyway.... I'll read on it and give you guys some feedback.

Thanks for the replies.

...

EDIT//

After reading the AoR rulebook, it is written at page 249, top right paragraph, that you add terrain modifiers at the GM's discretion.

Thanks again.

Tricky one eh? My understanding is that you've got it right on the second try. Modifiers from terrain do stack, defenses don't...

So on personal level, ducking behind cover and wearing heavy armor doesn't double up, but using heavy armor in the rain does.

You can't take cover with a vehicle (perhaps "hull down" is in an upcoming book?) so there's no issue. Moving your vehicle into a construction zone, or asteroid field isn't taking cover, it's just forcing you and the other guy to include terrain setbacks. You get your defenses (shields) and any terrain modifiers. The difference is that shields do have a hard cap at 4, so there's no point to taking excessive defensive driving...

Yeah, i'd say in 90% of situations, anything that causes difficult terrain piloting rolls is also going to be a source of cover.

Since Defense from Armor doesn't stack with Cover, I guess Defense from Shields shouldn't stack with Environmental settings.... Quicksilver and FangGrip both refer to environmental setting has giving cover to the targeted ship. I was also thinking that it should add to the difficulty to target the ship, but with both your answers, I'm not so sure anymore. I'll do some reading in the rulebook to see if they wrote it down somewhere.

If they don't stack, the highest from either Shields or Environmental Settings should apply.... which in my opinion would be more bookkeeping. I'd just say that it doesn't apply.

Anyway.... I'll read on it and give you guys some feedback.

Thanks for the replies.

...

EDIT//

After reading the AoR rulebook, it is written at page 249, top right paragraph, that you add terrain modifiers at the GM's discretion.

Thanks again.

Tricky one eh? My understanding is that you've got it right on the second try. Modifiers from terrain do stack, defenses don't...

So on personal level, ducking behind cover and wearing heavy armor doesn't double up, but using heavy armor in the rain does.

Yeah, but not because it is harder to penetrate the armor. It just makes it more difficult to land a shot... Just like the dark would add a setback as well.