[ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
billclo
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Hanover PA

[ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby billclo » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:42 pm

I've been having a discussion with some fairly new players to the game, and we were hashing out what might be done to tame the Klingons so that they are less powerful. We all thought that the Klingons are over-powered and one shouldn't have to be an expert to win with the Feds, nor be dependent on rolling "6"s with torpedoes or dependent on the Klingon making enough mistakes.

I wanted to experiment with removing Agile; Klingon ships will still be more maneuverable than say the Feds, but not overwhelmingly so. They will have a little harder time keeping the flanks away from the enemy, but it shouldn't be too bad. I hope to get them to agree with play testing this for awhile and see what happens.

One of the other guys suggested this:

Each turn, Klingon ships must choose between having the Agile trait, and therefore being able to make 90 degree turns, or their Front Shield Rule. In effect, they would need to dedicate some power to being able to turn tighter, or benefit from the half damage rule. It forces the Klingon to make choices other than damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, and better replicates typical Klingon tactics in SFB.

This does not affect available special actions, doesn't affect the ability to choose special actions, and has no effect on power drain.

I also wondered if it would be a good idea to extend this idea to other Empires, and make their ships choose between Agile and some other trait? I would think it would be better to restrict it to something like choice of Agile or using Scout functions.

Thoughts?
drneuro
Cub
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:54 pm

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby drneuro » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:24 pm

My group and I have played quite a few scenarios involving the federation versus Klingons and cannot find them being overpowered at all. In fact there were several businesses where the newer relationships like the ships with the enhanced bridges definitely did very well against them. They have weak Shields, other than the front, and for most cases, less internals than in The equivalent ship in the other empires. Just look at what you get with a Klingon D7 for shields and internals. If you take away the agility and enhanced front shields this ship would crumble to dust against the heavy cruisers from the other empires. If any race were really that badly overpowered, this game would have collapsed long ago. I have seen several battle reports on this site showing Bfederation victory over Klingons. Just look at other reports or try different combinations of ships to get a better picture. Good luck and please report back as to how your future battles turn out. :-)
Nomad
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Nomad » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:00 pm

Bill, what I've observed is that the combination of strong forward shields and long-ranged, accurate Disruptors results in the Klingons sitting still and bombarding at long range. Any Fed ship trying to close to effective torpedo range risks being outflanked.

To an extent this can be offset by the Feds fighting in two lines, but this can result in the first line being destroyed piecemeal.

The Forward Shield rule does not reflect anything in the SFU (early Klingon ships had 'weak flank' shields, not 'heavier front' shields, but refits made them similar to everyone else).

My own thoughts centre on revising the Photon Torpedo - increasing its range to 24" and adding a close-range band (0 to 4", 2+ to hit). But I do agree that some change needs to be made.
Women and Captains first!
billclo
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Hanover PA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby billclo » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:09 pm

I am inclined to not remove the Front shield rule, despite it not making much sense. It will require too much work re-doing the new shield strengths, and may inadvertently change the Shield Boost dice.

I suspect that removing Agile will go a long way to helping the situation, as the Klingons won't be able to keep their vulnerable flanks away from an enemy unless they manage to keep the range open. Even without Agile, they are still much more maneuverable than the Feds for example:

Dreadnaughts, equal.
BCH class, Klingon makes 3 x 45 degree turns, Fed gets 2 x 45 degree turns.
Cruisers: Klingon 3 x 45 degree turns, Feds get 2 x 45 turns.
Frigates: Klingon F5 gets 4 x 45 degree turns, Fed FF gets 3 x 45.

Rather than the current situation:

Dreadnaughts, equal.
BCH, no change.
Cruisers: Klingon gets 3 x 90 degree turns, Fed gets 2 x 45 degree turns.
Frigates: Klingon F5 gets 4 x 90 degree turns, Fed FF gets 3 x 45 degree turns.
Massive imbalance, IMHO.

I'm sorry, but in nearly all my demo players, the Feds get slaughtered. There should be something resembling 50/50 win/loss. I am fairly sure that it's turned some potential players away, when they got their butts kicked by the Klingons, and we're not talking close games here.

I am by no means an expert tactician, but I can't get the Feds to win much. Feds vs Gorn, I do okay. Gorns vs Klingons, also a tough fight. I have seen far more people complaining about how the Klingons are overpowered, and precious few Fed vs Klingon victories.
Nerroth
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:14 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Nerroth » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:27 pm

I still think that adjusting the front shield rule to one-quarter (while bringing the Klingon and Kestrel Shield scores "back" to the #2 shield values used for other hull types) might be a way to rein things in - so long as it was also applied to other ships and empires that warrant it. (So a Fed CA would get the one-quarter rule, but the Romulan King Eagle would not.)

So far as removing Agile goes, the only further adjustment I might suggest is to have Turn Mode C become Turn: 5. That would allow the remaining Turn Mode numbers to stay as they are, even with the absence of Agile as a Trait. (If it was deemed necessary to ditch Agile in the first place, that is.)
Last edited by Nerroth on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The above post is 100% unofficial.
Rambler
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:04 pm
Location: Western Wisconsin, USA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Rambler » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:32 pm

Which Klingon ships have you played with? Removing Agility from the D6 and D7 makes them sitting ducks.By doing that you are going to find that they will need their shields boosted just to compete. As far as the D5 and D5W yes pulling their Agility does tame them down quite abit but it is not as drastic as what happens to the D6 and D7.

As far as people keep saying that the Front Shield Rule does not reflect Klingons in SFB they are simply wrong. The standard tatic of the Klingon Empire in the SFU is the using the Supieror Manuverability and the ENTIRE forward hemisphere of their shields (Shields 1,2 & 6) to absorb damage while lining up Oblique Firing Opportunities with their Disruptor, Boom, Wing, and one set of their Wait Phasers. At a range of 8 to 15. The Klingon ships as published reflect this perfectly.

Now if your argument is Disruptor are OP at long ranges I agree. If you argument is that Saber Dancing is not a valid static in a Fleet Setting that is something that may very well be true. At less than 1000 points Klingons are very unforgiving but not impossible to beat. As the point numbers climb Klingons become easier for new players to handle because a couple of ships will fall suceptable to damage each turn because their maneuverability falls victim to numbers.
Family Motto since 1861. A good run is a heck of a lot better than a bad stand.
billclo
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Hanover PA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby billclo » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:47 pm

Rambler wrote:Which Klingon ships have you played with? Removing Agility from the D6 and D7 makes them sitting ducks.By doing that you are going to find that they will need their shields boosted just to compete. As far as the D5 and D5W yes pulling their Agility does tame them down quite abit but it is not as drastic as what happens to the D6 and D7.

At less than 1000 points Klingons are very unforgiving but not impossible to beat. As the point numbers climb Klingons become easier for new players to handle because a couple of ships will fall suceptable to damage each turn because their maneuverability falls victim to numbers.
I've played with all the Klingon ships except the E5s and F6.

I've played 3-5-ship games, and 10+ on a side, in excess of 2000 pts/side.

I just think that with 2 new players, roughly equal skill, it should resemble a 50/50 win loss record, when that is definitely not the case. More like 90% of the time, Klingons win. I've seen exactly one Fed win, and a draw, in 10+ convention and game shop demos. :(
Tarkas
Cub
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 9:51 pm

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Tarkas » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:00 pm

Must agree with Nomad: the double front shield rule has no basis in any source material and warps the game significantly. It should go. Keep the Agile trait as manoeuvrability has always been a Klingon feature, one needed to counter their weak side and rear shields.

Similarly, reduce the range of disruptors. Unless things have changed since I gave up SFB -- not least because of SVC's fondness for the Klinks -- disruptors did not outrange photorps, except maybe the DN versions. That they do in ACTA, coupled with the double front shields and Agile ships makes Klingons decidedly overpowered. It needs to be addressed, badly.
OrneryRooster
Weasel
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:51 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby OrneryRooster » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:09 pm

I think the Agile trait needs to go away for the Klingons(except for their smaller nimble ships) and instead have their turn mode lowered to more accurately portray their maneuverability. Klingon ships aren't "Agile", they're simply more maneuverable.

Also, photon and plasma torpedo arming needs to not be handled via Special Actions. They already lose a turn reloading, they don't also need to not be able to perform IDF, for example.

Finally, yes, their front shield rule needs to go away as well. It's nonsense, pure and simple. If you want to accurately portray their shield rules(before their B refits) you need to increase the damage they take when being fired at through their side/rear shields.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
McKinstry
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 751
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:13 pm
Location: Atlanta,GA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby McKinstry » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:34 am

Get rid of Agile for cruisers.

Get rid of reloading as an energy drain/special action for the Feds and Roms. They still need to reload.

Allow ships to hold an overload if unfired.
katadder
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5005
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: lincoln, uk
Contact:

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby katadder » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:47 am

yes in FC disrupters dont outrange photons. thing is nobody ever fired photons at max range as its a waste of power so disrupters are actually the most accurate long range weapons in the game, which is why klingons sabre dance as they can actually hit consistently at that range.

as for the front shields thing, iirc the klingons actually have less shields than any other fleet before this is counted in. which is pretty much as things are, everywhere else they have less shields, the front shields are usually upto par.
1st & Only Centauri Grand Admiral

LONAW Fleets: http://www.mediafire.com/?tddmi2mjcl2
drneuro
Cub
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:54 pm

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby drneuro » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:00 pm

I must agree with Rambler that removing these items would leave several Klingon ships in trouble as sitting ducks. The stronger front shields seem to simulate an aggressive attack feature and also allow the Klingons to stay in battles when their overall weak shield offerings make them too weak, otherwise. Maybe the Klingon front shield detractors should try playing a Klingon D7 against a Fed CA three times; one with just the front shield removed, and then the second game with just the Agility trait removed and finally the third match up with both the front shield rule and agility trait removed. Of course, try to use experienced or at least competent players on both sides to get a more representative result. My group has found that the agility and Shields rules are necessary to overcome the much weaker overall shields and lack of damage(internals) when compared to other CAs like the Fed or Gorn. Please let me know what you guys think of the results from these battles. :-)
JohnDW
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:24 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby JohnDW » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:26 pm

Without agile, their cruisers are still turn 4, which is still higher mobility than other fleets, I would imagine if you didnt change anything else, removing agile from the klingon cruisers would be a good balancing measure, much like removing the lumbering rule did for the gorn and dreadnaughts. I'm interested in seeing what ADB does for the revision to the rules, the summary of things Steve Cole said they were doing makes me think disruptors might be changed somehow.
storeylf
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:38 pm

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby storeylf » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:34 pm

I've been having a discussion with some fairly new players to the game, and we were hashing out what might be done to tame the Klingons so that they are less powerful. We all thought that the Klingons are over-powered and one shouldn't have to be an expert to win with the Feds,
You don't have to be an expert to win with Feds, you just need to have played enough to understand that all the empires play differently and require different tactics. That is the same with many other games where new players find that they can't win with one empire or another.
I wanted to experiment with removing Agile; Klingon ships will still be more maneuverable than say the Feds, but not overwhelmingly so. They will have a little harder time keeping the flanks away from the enemy, but it shouldn't be too bad. I hope to get them to agree with play testing this for awhile and see what happens.
People are getting to hung up on minor detail and not the larger picture. Sure in FC the turn mode is not that much different, but in FC you don't have to end the turn facing the enemy to fire forward either, and that makes a huge difference to klingons. There is no way in ACTA to fire forward whilst spending most of your turn running away from the enemy. Klingons need their 'agility' to have any hope of maintaining range, especially those older ships with narrower arcs on disrupters. Once the range closes the disrupter is quite a weak weapon next to other heavies, and they will struggle on the geometry of keeping their fronts facing the enemy.

If anything I'd say all ships (klingons included) could maybe be a bit more agile than they are. E.g make klingons 3" and agile, Feds and Gorn 4". Everyone gains a bit in terms of option each turn, but mainly the slower turning ships. The klingons can still use agility to outmanouver others whilst the extra turn klingons get isn't really hugely significant, but Feds/Gorns etc gain an extra turn so can respond better.

Each turn, Klingon ships must choose between having the Agile trait, and therefore being able to make 90 degree turns, or their Front Shield Rule.
Yet more markers on ships, and one that really doesn't make much thematic sense to me personally.
My group and I have played quite a few scenarios involving the federation versus Klingons and cannot find them being overpowered at all.
I don't think there is a balnace issue either. When I first played the game with just a few ships then yes I thought the klingons were OP. But this isn't a game designed around small fights. Once you A) move to larger fights and B) undertand the strengths and weaknesses of each empire then the Feds are pretty fine.

People might not like the way the photon works, or that feel of relying on 6's (like being reliant on any other roll is somehow better). But that doesn't make klingons OP.

Feds may not be as easy to pick up as klingons. Klingons/Kzinti are the Newb friendly empires. Feds/Rom/Gorn are less forgiving, but all quite potent once you understand them. Feds do have a more streaky dice dependent nature in small games, but that is true in FC as well. I can understand not liking the 'luck' dependent nature, but that is not the same really as being underpowered or whatever. In fleet games needing 6's is not luck dependent really, law of large numbers and all that.
Any Fed ship trying to close to effective torpedo range risks being outflanked.
Given effective photon range is 15" that seems unlikely. I move a ship to 15" and a klingon moves to outflank. My other ships now moves 15" to that one who can't get out the way. etc.
My own thoughts centre on revising the Photon Torpedo - increasing its range to 24" and adding a close-range band (0 to 4", 2+ to hit).
Range 24" sounds way too potent to me, seriously potent. +2 to hit at point blank range is pretty nasty as well, maybe mitigated to some extent by being explosion range.

Disrupters need the range as they are a wear you down type of weapon, and they need a head start in shooting given how fast fleets close in ACTA, in FC you often get 2 or 3 good turns shooting with disrupters before the photons are getting the good shots in. In a fleet level game of ACTA photons can wipe out multi ships from max range, being able to do that from beyond the range of phasers, plasma, auto drone hit range etc is just way to good.
I am inclined to not remove the Front shield rule, despite it not making much sense. It will require too much work re-doing the new shield strengths, and may inadvertently change the Shield Boost dice. ]
It's not that much work, you change one number e.g. D7 shield = 22 (from memory?) rather than 18. Why would changing the shield boost dice matter. If you are just going to move to similar shields as everyone else then you get the same shield boost as everyone else. Off the top of my head only the D6/7 would be affected (can't remember the smaller ships) - they would go from 1D6 to 2D6 just like any other CA, representing that they are now just like any other CA.
I suspect that removing Agile will go a long way to helping the situation, as the Klingons won't be able to keep their vulnerable flanks away from an enemy unless they manage to keep the range open. Even without Agile, they are still much more maneuverable than the Feds for example:
[...]
Massive imbalance, IMHO.
See above. On the one hand they can keep vulnerable flanks away from the enemy, on the other hand they can't maintain range like they can in FC. Once you are up close the manouverability is not that fantastic for keeping the front shield facing, again except in small games. There is more to this than just simple turning radius, the entire game mechanics are different which results in Klingons loosing a lot of options that they would other wise have.
I'm sorry, but in nearly all my demo players, the Feds get slaughtered. There should be something resembling 50/50 win/loss. I am fairly sure that it's turned some potential players away, when they got their butts kicked by the Klingons, and we're not talking close games here.
I also got slaughtered by the klingons in my first ever game at a demo. By a poster above as it happens. But it seemed crystal clear to me afterwards that the demo game is the thing to blame. It was just 2 CA vs 2 D7. ACTA is not a game for that type of fight. Of course it didn't help that having never played before I had no immediate idea of how things would go, or know the rules to try and work things out.

I don't know what scenario you use, but maybe rethink your demo game. Use more ships, use smaller ships. Both things benefit the Feds more than the klingons. Maybe change to Fed vs Romulan, another classic match up that has recognition factor.
I still think that adjusting the front shield rule to one-quarter (while bringing the Klingon and Kestrel Shield scores "back" to the #2 shield values used for other hull types) might be a way to rein things in - so long as it was also applied to other ships and empires that warrant it. (So a Fed CA would get the one-quarter rule, but the Romulan King Eagle would not.)
Trying to give everyone better front shields seems odd. The minor difference between front and side sheilds for most ships (like the Fed CA) is just not relevent at fleet level. ACTA doesn't need these bit of extremely minor detail on it. They may be important in small scale FC 1 vs 1 duels especially, but in fleet level games almost irrelevant; yes even in FC. It is arguable that the difference on older klingon ships is not really that important at fleet level fights either, though I'd say that for your 6-12 ship fights that difference is just about significant.
I just think that with 2 new players, roughly equal skill, it should resemble a 50/50 win loss record, when that is definitely not the case.
Why?

Between 2 experienced players, sure. But many games have this sort of dynamic where brand new players will find one side better as they try to work out the tactics that each empire is best at. That is not a sign of imbalance but a sign of new players, it takes time to appreciate and understand each sides strengths. Klingons are easy to play, but they are not particularly potent per se. Their ease of play balances out the fact that they have probably the weakest weapons in the game - the disrupter may have a good range, and it fires every turn, but it does nothing spectacular. Their offensive phasers are a mix of 2's and 1's, with the 1's being generally in short supply. It takes time to wear down enemies with disrupters therefore you need some amount of forgiveness in playing with them. Photons and Plasma (in particular) have the the power to maybe win a game in one fell swoop, you balance that by making them harder to play and less forgiving of mistakes.

Similarly, reduce the range of disruptors. Unless things have changed since I gave up SFB -- not least because of SVC's fondness for the Klinks -- disruptors did not outrange photorps, except maybe the DN versions.
ACTA is based more on FC. In FC there is a big difference between disrupters and photons. They do technically have the same range, but you will seldom see photons fired beyond range 12 (or 8 more often). Disrupters on the other hand are good all the way out to max range of 25.
Also, photon and plasma torpedo arming needs to not be handled via Special Actions. They already lose a turn reloading, they don't also need to not be able to perform IDF, for example.
Get rid of reloading as an energy drain/special action for the Feds and Roms. They still need to reload.
That would make them incredibly OP. Plasma in particular is already easily the most powerful weapon in the game, giving it free reload is way over the top. It may be a pain not being able to do other things like IDF, but 'fixing' that (if it is broken) via free reload would be game breaking.

The power drain does reflect a reality of playing the Feds in FC, the need to commit all that energy up front is a serious power issue for Feds in a game where klingons run entirely on a pay as you fire mechanic. The klingons may have to pay the same power if they fire disrupters, but the ability to make that decision on the fly gives them some significant advantages during a turn. I don't personally see an issue with power drain reflecting not just how much power you spend in FC, but also combine the affect of how and when the power is allocated in FC.


At any rate in light of recent announcements it will be interesting to see what Tony comes up with. The Seeker thing is what I'm more interested in, it never 'feels' right to me.
katadder
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5005
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: lincoln, uk
Contact:

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby katadder » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:40 pm

well hopefully seeker weapons will remove the direct fire thing. that was always a bug bear of mine during initial testing but was outvoted by the less things to track brigade
1st & Only Centauri Grand Admiral

LONAW Fleets: http://www.mediafire.com/?tddmi2mjcl2
storeylf
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:38 pm

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby storeylf » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:05 pm

Oh, I sit in the less things to track brigade.
McKinstry
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 751
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:13 pm
Location: Atlanta,GA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby McKinstry » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:17 pm

I am a permanent member of the less the better fraternity.
Lincolnlog
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:14 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Lincolnlog » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:14 pm

As I have stated here and on the other board, you can't fix the Klingons by just changing agile or the front shield rule.

Damage numbers have to be fixed. In SFB/Fedcom, hull as it appears on ships is not always proportional to the overall damage a ship can sustain. Hull should not have been the criteria used for damage. All internal damage should have been totaled, and added to the frame. Then a uniform divisor should have been determined with a round-up/down rule.

You see the problem when you compare the smallest 3 Federation ships. The POL should not be tougher (damage wise) than the Frigate. The FFB should be tougher that FFG.

In a game without power allocation, that is modeled after a game with Power Allocation, certain ships don't play correctly (Like fast and strike cruisers). These ships are normally powered up, or streamlined to require less power. The Fed and Klingon CS are cruiser but 1 hes is 3/4 not 1 as normal Heavy Cruisers. This provides more power to weapons available. Fast cruisers have more power available with less heavy weaponry and more phasers. This allows them not to move faster than normal ships, but move faster expending less energy.

To fix the Klingons you need to fix all the fleets across the board using a standard uniform conversion algorithim.

The basic game mechanics of this game are sound, it's the ship conversion and some of the weapon conversion thats faulty. I hope and have faith that Tony will come out with something that will please everyone. We had laid this game aside, but when the new version comes out, we'll give it another shot.

Bob
JohnDW
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:24 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby JohnDW » Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:59 am

Well it seems all the hull damage and shield damage numbers are being recalculated for all ships, the front shield rule for klinks is going away, and so is agile for klinks.
Da Boss
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7221
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Da Boss » Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:25 pm

katadder wrote:well hopefully seeker weapons will remove the direct fire thing. that was always a bug bear of mine during initial testing but was outvoted by the less things to track brigade
Hopefully not - we are debating on the other forum but unless its extremely simple and smooth - say akin to Torps in BFG then It will likely kill the game for me........

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests