Will P&P address PL?

[animus]

The biggest issue with this game is the Priority Level system and unfair swarms. The fleet with the most ships has a huge advantage. Since a ship is never equal to 2 ships of the next lower level the system is inherently flawed. I'd like to hope that the new book will do something to address the splitting mechanism.

(Personally, I like a 1, 2, 3 system over the 1, 2, 4 way it goes now.)

[MongooseMatt]

We are indeed looking into this - and other methods to. . . encourage. . . non-swarm fleets. . .

[l33tpenguin]

We are indeed looking into this - and other methods to. . . encourage. . . non-swarm fleets. . .

The thing that makes this difficult, in my opinion, is some fleets (drazi, drahk, ISA to an extent) are inharently swarm fleets.

[CZuschlag]

The Drakh Amu and the ISA *Stars (Blue and White) in general need some Nerfs anyways (and I'm a Drakh player). The Ma'cu? Probably also, but small.

You are right about the Drazi, though.

[Tolwyn]

Sounds good to me

[Burger]

Armageddon FAP splits downwards were definitely much better. Hopefully we'll be seeing a reversion back to these. I had no problem playing Drazi with these splits. 9 Strikehawks or Warbirds for 3 Battle points is still a great fleet basis.

Upwards, why not make it symmetrical to downwards? ie. 1 PL above costs 2 FAPs, 2 PLs above costs 3, 3 PLs above costs 6 etc. This would make more varied and fair fleets at 5pt Raid, especially where fleet choices are limited. Shadows would have a great variety instead of the cookie-cutter 5 scouts, we'd see more young ships with 2 scouts, or 1 scout and some fighters (assuming they are fixed too ) Also it would help counter swarms, if someone takes 10 skirmish ships then to counter it I could take 1 War and 1 Battle or 2 Raid, which would give me more chance than 1 War and 1 Raid.

[Locutus9956]

Actually I rather like that idea Burger, it would actually kind of make taking bigger ships more viable, which for my money would be great. ACTAs initiative system and how movement and firing arcs tend to work already favours swarms so a change as you suggest to the PL would actually lean it slightly in favour of buying UP rather than down which should help counterbalnce things slightly. The only danger I can see is the possibility of some of the nastier fleets like shadows, vorlons and Minbari with very strong war and battle ships getting a bit TOO much 'bang for their buck' but I dont really see that being an issue). When you get right down to it, who would you bet on in a game of ACTA as it stands currently:

A Sharlin and 2 Teshlans (which you could get for 5 raid with these splits)

or say, 10 Demos.... (or 10 Vorchan if we discount the Demos as a tad ott in the first place). Hell for that matter 10 Warbirds or 10 Ka'Tocs or 10 anything? (Well ok maybe not 10 No'lo'tars... )

[animus]

Something needs to change. We've been talking about how to make big ships "worth their points" so to speak for years. It's only gotten worse.

[B_Steele]

As long as we avoid Redundancy, I will be pleased.

Some of the best moments in every game I've ever played have been from the big fellas getting blasted by a lucky fighter crit or something. Taking that away would seriously remove the fighter-destroys-ship aspect that the B5 series showed quite often.

-Bry

[Burger]

Some of the best moments in every game I've ever played have been from the big fellas getting blasted by a lucky fighter crit or something.

Funny... those are my worst, "might as well pack up and go home then" moments. They make all strategy, planning and skill totally irrelevant. But you must agree, something needs to be done about swarms. Either:

• Make the big ships more survivable - you and TPTB don't seem to like this idea so it's pretty much not going to happen
• Make swarms smaller - well Armageddon FAPs will help. But you can't have less than 2 ships of the PL below, so swarms of 10 Skirmish ships will always exist.
• Make bigger ships cheaper to buy - as above

[CZuschlag]

Funny... those are my worst, "might as well pack up and go home then" moments. They make all strategy, planning and skill totally irrelevant. But you must agree, something needs to be done about swarms. Either:

• Make the big ships more survivable - you and TPTB don't seem to like this idea so it's pretty much not going to happen
• Make swarms smaller - well Armageddon FAPs will help. But you can't have less than 2 ships of the PL below, so swarms of 10 Skirmish ships will always exist.
• Make bigger ships cheaper to buy - as above ;)

QFT!

[animus]

I like Redundancy (Bulk) personally. It's the cleanest way IMO to make big ships more survivable, ie equal to two ships below it.

[B_Steele]

Make swarms smaller - well Armageddon FAPs will help. But you can't have less than 2 ships of the PL below, so swarms of 10 Skirmish ships will always exist.

I completely agree. I have always wanted the splitting down to be kept to a minimum. I know that some folks do not like my idea of Ship Rarities (ship-to-fleet maximums), but I think that something like that could also work for FAPs.

Sort of a "if the scenario is raid, at least half of your FAPs must be spent at Raid or higher" sort of thing.

Again, I don't disagree with your views concerning the strength of Swarms...I simply and completely HATE the idea of adding Redundancy to ships just to make them more survivable in a game based on a show where we see LOTS of large ships go up in a single volley.

I will spend some more time thinking on this and send some ideas up to Matthew, I think.

-Bry

[Scipio]

The problem with swarms is that they normally crit the bejesus out of the big ships that should be dominating.

Fixing it so it is harder for much less powerful ships to crit big ones should be the solution to strive for?

For example: Ships that are two or more PL lower than the target they are shooting at only crits if they roll more than one six on the damage table in each attack (fives and sixes in case of precise).


Or they could get -1 on the "Crit severity roll" (the one after determining which locathen is critted) for each PL lower than the target they are shooting at.

[Burger]

Sort of a "if the scenario is raid, at least half of your FAPs must be spent at Raid or higher" sort of thing.

Unfortunately that reads to me, "If you're Drazi, you're screwed"......
Unless it is implemented with some kind of fix for boresight/initiative such as "Follow that target!". Even then, it is removing what should be a valid style of gameplay (swarm vs big ships should be balanced, not just removed).

[animus]

...which means making big ships more survivable.

[Burger]

...which means making big ships more survivable.

Or swarms smaller (not really possible, 10 skirmish ships at 5 raid can't be reduced).
Or big ships cheaper (bigger support fleet). 3 FAPs to buy 2 PLs up In fact I like this idea so much i'll put it in my sig

[No. 1 Bear]

Personally i think that it would work. Its sensible - follows reason that it should be added or a variation of it.

[katadder]

i quite like that idea too, makes big ships more appealing and we might see more of them.

[CZuschlag]

Burger, think very carefully about what your suggestion means when you buy a ship with multiple Huge Hangars. We get into a lot of nasty buy-up-to-buy-down tricks that the Drakh, frankly, don't need.