MBS Podcast Episode 8

[Ruckdog]

In Episode 8, Greg and Andy tackle the subject of naval boardgames. These are games that either focus on naval combat exclusively, or have naval combat as one of their key components. Later, they take a look at space carriers, examining the origins of the idea and how the concept of carrier operations is integrated into some of our favorite space naval games!
Naval Boardgames: 47 Min

Landlubber's Musings: 1 Hr 30 Min

Space Carriers: 1 Hr 39 Min

Ruckdog'€™s Report: 3 Hr 0 Min

http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2016/07/04/episode-8/

[Ryjak]

One correction.  In Firestorm Armada, any time a Token is active inside an enemy model's PD bubble, or a Model moves to within 4" of an enemy Token, the Model shoots the Token.

Page 88:

If a SRS Token’s movement brings it within 4” of the Flight Peg of an opposing model, the model may declare a Point Defence Attack against it

Page 90:

ACTIVE POINT DEFENCE ATTACKS
As well as being able to Attack SRS Tokens that move within 4" of them, models may declare a Point Defence Attack during the Movement Segment of their own Activation, if they move within 4" of an enemy SRS Token.
A model may make ONE Point Defence Attack per activation. To do so, it must halt anywhere within 4" of its target. The Attack is resolved exactly as above, and once completed the model may continue with its Movement.

[Ruckdog]

Thanks for the correction!

[Quickdraw]

Just had a chance to listen to this episode, good topics this time. I like it.
I think a pretty big point of distinction for a space navy carrier is role. Based on a lifetime of unscientific nerd observation, space navy carriers do not carry fighters for offensive purposes. Often the carrier function is a defensive one. This allows the often impressively armed carrier to destroy its target.
I think this is seen a lot more in movies/comics/video games (think Independece Day or Guardians of the Galaxy).
And I think even to an extent in your Star Wars example. The purpose of the tie fighters in a star destroyer were not to go out and blow up space ships, they were there to run intercept against enemy fighters while the Star Destroyer smoked whatever it was pointed at.

[Ryjak]

I completely disagree.  While a Space Carrier does not have the merger of two modes of operation like a sea carrier (thank you for that tidbit, Rucker), the fighter aircraft thematically should perform the same basic tasks for force projection and sustainment.

In Star Wars, while the Imperial Star Destroyer has an impressive array of weapons, it can only strike targets in close proximity (their weapons are canonically ridiculously short-ranged).  Granted, this is so movie-goers can see the action, but it's compliment of 48 one-man craft (also a ridiculously small number for such a large ship) can range out much further than its guns.  This force projection is what really makes a space carrier dangerous.

This is why I really hate SRS in FSA, they basically bring nothing to the table in terms of force projection or sustainability.  A wing of Bombers is limited to a 12" Attack run, in an environment where 16"-24" is effective weapon range for everyone.  In addition, they're usually only good for 1-2 attacks before too many are shot down and they become ineffective.  You'd be better off bringing a 30 point weapon (if that was an option).

Interceptors are way too good (which is why I now take them exclusively).  Thematically, they protect an area the size of a small moon from all incoming Torpedoes, Boarding Assaults, and SRS.  One Interceptor Token has enabled me to win games by shutting down all this offense.  And even a 1-Wing Interceptor Token is useful in its primary role; no other SRS type can say that.

For me, FSA is the worst of the bunch.

However, FSA (and BFG) do have one component which may be appropriate, which is launch and recovery procedures.  While this is thematic and makes a carrier feel like a carrier, I don't think this is necessary for the game mechanically or thematically.  Mechanically, launching-attacking-recovery isn't a fun procedure to follow (I personally find the whole process annoying). Thematically, it may not even be within scope, depending on how long the game lasts.  If the game represents an engagement taking less than an hour or two, that's not enough time for the launch to re-launch procedure.  If it's several hours, maybe you can do it twice.  You have to reach a time scale where just one game turn is several hours for it to make sense thematically to even have this mechanic.

Does that time scale feel right for any of these games?

[Dakkar]

Mechanically, launching-attacking-recovery isn't a fun procedure to follow (I personally find the whole process annoying). Thematically, it may not even be within scope, depending on how long the game lasts.  If the game represents an engagement taking less than an hour or two, that's not enough time for the launch to re-launch procedure.  If it's several hours, maybe you can do it twice.  You have to reach a time scale where just one game turn is several hours for it to make sense thematically to even have this mechanic.

Does that time scale feel right for any of these games?

Mechanically, it is indeed annoying mainly where you have to fly back to the carrier, or stay within range. FSA's big improvement was the auto go back. 

For the rearm and relaunch theme, it's ludicrous in the timeframe. I instead imagine that's the time to clear launch tube and get the second wave in the air.

Bombers and Fighter Bombers *should* be real force projection, but that makes the tiny token feel more important than the giant model you paid for. So most games nerf it, and feeling "real" carrier ops is nigh absent

[Ruckdog]

Just had a chance to listen to this episode, good topics this time. I like it.
I think a pretty big point of distinction for a space navy carrier is role. Based on a lifetime of unscientific nerd observation, space navy carriers do not carry fighters for offensive purposes. Often the carrier function is a defensive one. This allows the often impressively armed carrier to destroy its target.
I think this is seen a lot more in movies/comics/video games (think Independece Day or Guardians of the Galaxy).
And I think even to an extent in your Star Wars example. The purpose of the tie fighters in a star destroyer were not to go out and blow up space ships, they were there to run intercept against enemy fighters while the Star Destroyer smoked whatever it was pointed at.

True, but even in Star Wars (both in the movies and in the EU), single seat or dual seat fighters are shown to be a threat to capital ships; An X-wing took out the Death Star, an A-Wing led to the destruction of a Super SD, etc. So, you see fighters and carriers fulfilling both roles in that universe. Whether they are used defensively (the Empire) or offensively (the Rebellion) comes down to a matter of doctrine.

This is why I really hate SRS in FSA, they basically bring nothing to the table in terms of force projection or sustainability.  A wing of Bombers is limited to a 12" Attack run, in an environment where 16"-24" is effective weapon range for everyone.  In addition, they're usually only good for 1-2 attacks before too many are shot down and they become ineffective.  You'd be better off bringing a 30 point weapon (if that was an option).

Interceptors are way too good (which is why I now take them exclusively).  Thematically, they protect an area the size of a small moon from all incoming Torpedoes, Boarding Assaults, and SRS.  One Interceptor Token has enabled me to win games by shutting down all this offense.  And even a 1-Wing Interceptor Token is useful in its primary role; no other SRS type can say that.

I think we are in agreement on this point, Ryjak. For gameplay purposes, it wouldn't be nearly so bad if the carrier models had been significantly strengthened defensively (more HP, higher DR/CR, etc). As I mentioned in my Medium lists thread, the stats for these models largely remained the same from V1.0 (when wing tokens could go wherever they wanted on the board) to V2.0.

However, FSA (and BFG) do have one component which may be appropriate, which is launch and recovery procedures.  While this is thematic and makes a carrier feel like a carrier, I don't think this is necessary for the game mechanically or thematically.  Mechanically, launching-attacking-recovery isn't a fun procedure to follow (I personally find the whole process annoying). Thematically, it may not even be within scope, depending on how long the game lasts.  If the game represents an engagement taking less than an hour or two, that's not enough time for the launch to re-launch procedure.  If it's several hours, maybe you can do it twice.  You have to reach a time scale where just one game turn is several hours for it to make sense thematically to even have this mechanic.

This is where abstraction comes in. If you notice, the vast majority of space combat games leave things like map and time scales ambiguous, to avoid problems such as these. I tend to rationalize the rapid turn-around times the same way Dale does, so it's never been a huge issue for me.

[Dakkar]

I finally caught up with the whole episode ...

One Carrier Ops sci fi show you forgot was BUCK ROGERS, bad guys had this huge BB that also launched gobs of fighters.
And then later on, Buck's ship launched their starfighters too, but all they really needed was HAWK...

My favorite carrier ops trait in sci fi is not when ships "catapult" from a carrier, ala BSG. I like it more when they just "drop" out, in some cases being a deliberate use of spin gravity. B5 featured that I think.

Also, anytime someone wants to play Trek Fleet Captains in CO, I'm totally up for it - I love that game.