The problem with the Swordfish is that it rarely gets to make an attack and it’s a lot of points to invest in just to tie up your opponents fighters. It’s not a good/economical/efficient reason to take them.
I can’t think of anyway to make them more capable to make an attack without making them something they weren’t.
Due to to the fact that W@S is a KISS Beer & Pretzels game at its core, lets face it there are a lot of abstract, unrealistic issues in W@S, maybe we can for once try looking outside the box. After all RB did to make W@S.
What is one of the most famous aspects of the Swordfish? The ability to absorb lots of damage and fly home.
So lets keep it simple stupid and accept the fact that the Swordfish will get aborted a lot of the time by almost anything.
My proposal is the following -
Obsolescence - If this unit is aborted the owning player is awarded 1VP.
Your opponent has to make a difficult choice (the staple of all good games). Try to shoot them down knowing he will most likely be giving his opponent VP’s if he just aborts them OR Ignore them and face torpedoes, after all 2 torpedo dice isn’t that powerful is it?
This idea makes the Swordfish worth taking not because they will be able to make more attacks because they wont. Not because you will tie up all his fighters because who cares. But because at least you may get to make a return on the expensive cost (Over-costed) of them and this helps offset their cost. Hell I’d start taking Swordfish if this was the case.
I agree, the Swordfush needs to be good enough to be used as an attack craft, not an expensive diversion. Right now, If I had to play 1939-1940 games as the UK, I wouldn't bring carriers, but if I had to, I would bring Skuas and Fulmars and go after destroyers then cruisers. At least armor 4 can somewhat reliably get past AA5 and ok against AA6... the Swordfish can't even reliably do that....
Last Edit: Jan 12, 2023 22:25:46 GMT by texasarcher
i personally Pass. If swordfish were half the cost they still wouldnt see play without mitigation of the low armour. Its the same logic as NSA's the risk is not worth it given there are as good a units with drastically lower risks.
Pass. If swordfish were half the cost they still wouldnt see play without mitigation of the low armour. Its the same logic as NSA's the risk is not worth it given there are as good a units with drastically lower risks.
I disagree. I play both current versions of the Swordfish as they are now in early war Europe games. Granted, I usually take the Mk.1 for the Deceptive Target SA.
If we remove adm. Sommerville as the Starter UK admiral, we could substitute Lt-Cdr T. P. Coode, RN. Sqd 818's commander at the time. As well as at the sinking of the bismark.
I'm going to post a new commander mechanics thread to detail that.
Not KISS.and too clunky. Who chooses which die/success gets re-rolled.
The problem is that the Swordfish is too easily aborted and this will just add to the cost taking Swordfish in the first place making them more expensive.
Personally thinking how I would use a new swordfish, if its against larger fleet targets. Weather/night obviously helps and then as much as possible to get it through. I would use deceptive target to help against ships (nothing to say we can't re-use it), rugged (or similar to help with fighters - they did absorb a lot of damage) Then maybe bad weather fighter and skilled search to help with conditions and give a nudge towards a slight advantage on those dice roles. In the right conditions ships would only hit on a 6 and fighters would obviously have to roll to get up at em and then only hit on 5 or 6 and against rugged (or similar). Otherwise I would go totally the other way and just do an anti sub version with all the above SAs but swap out deceptive target for shadowing, for an extra role at distance. Anything falling between these, I don't see much hope for.
Divide the Defense - Once per game. you can declare you're using Divide thie Defense. if you do each Ship in this unit's sector gets -1 an each attack die when making Antiair attacks this turn and this unit gets -1 an each attack die when making Bomb attacks and cant make Torpedo attacks (this ability cannot be used in the same sector as split the defence.
Using rolling ju88 is a favourite tactic of mine and stacking with the mark 1 makes it 6s only to knock them out.
I think the swordfish would suffer the limited attacks (not being able to make torp attacks in particular) after the effort of getting it through. Plus divide the defense is once per game. Deceptive target would be a bigger help on both counts (if I'm remembering this right, attacks not limited?).
Also thought about press the attack regarding the abort question.
That's what I was thinking, it's helping other stuff but I don't think it's going to give the best swordfish. I wouldn't go out of my way taking it in this guise.
"That's right son, join the navy. Get behind a bloody big gun and knock the hell out of somebody"
"We went out, got our arses kicked, then came back again"
I suppose its a question of how you build youre airgroups. Its functionally the same as deceptive in a lot of ways. Deceptive is already on the mark I. Just duplicating that isn't a great direction to take imo
SAs: Mission Selection (existing): This unit counts as either a Dive Bomber or a Torpedo Bomber. (Choose the unit's role when you place during the Air Mission phase) Surprise Attack (new): This unit receives +1 armor, +1 Vital armor and rolls one extra attack die during the first turn of the game. Durable (new): When this unit would be destroyed roll a die. On a 5 or higher this unit is aborted instead.
Reasons to take this: 1) Durable gives the unit a 33% chance of being aborted instead of destroyed keeping it in the game and preventing your opponent from gaining the points. 2) Surprise attack on the first turn give the unit more punch and sustainability 3) Bomb attacks make it worthwhile to target smaller targets like destroyers and auxiliaries which have lower AA values. 4) Separates the Ark Royal conversation from the Swordfish