2E EA Fleet Question

[Burger]

Actually, I'd see it not as those weapons being downgraded, but rather not upgraded, whilst other races are strapping bigger and better weapons on their hulls as time goes on.

But 99% of people don't use ISD's. So the 3 EA fleets should be viewed (and balanced) as just 3 different fleet lists, not the same race evolving over time.

Exactly. And the reason that a 3rd Hyperion is different to a Crusade Hyprion in reality is for game balance, and in game is because the lower attack dice represents the fact that a Crusade Hyperion's foes have better armour.

No, thats just wrong. The foe's hull value would be to represent the fact that its foes have better armour. Its AD is its attack potential, nothing to do with what it is shooting at. For example a Crusade Sharlin is the same as a 3rd Age Sharlin, it doesn't have any better armour... .so why should a Cursade Hyperion have less AD than a 3rd Age one when firing on it?

Not really sure what you're on about anyway; the Crusade Hyperion is identical to the 3rd Age one.

 

[tneva82]

Exactly. And the reason that a 3rd Hyperion is different to a Crusade Hyprion in reality is for game balance, and in game is because the lower attack dice represents the fact that a Crusade Hyperion's foes have better armour.

Nope. Crusade hyperions foes better armour would be obviously represented by(suprise suprise!) better hull on opponent!

Upgrades would be obviously shown on models which got upgraded. Not by altering other ships stats...

 

[Sulfurdown]

but people still wont use the ISDs and you will end up with only certain ships from the 3 eras being used.
warlocks supoprted by marathons supported by novas (with plasma) supported by sagis and chronos.

So if people aren't using a function of the game, what would be the difference between using the ISD and using the fractured fleet list, or not using them? The only thing the Era Fleets provide is the chance to use the Early versus Crusade and have them as "balanced" fleets. The equivalent of saying the modern armed forces of a country should be on even footing with what it had in WWI or earlier.

EDIT: not to pick on katadder in particular - just the last person I saw making the statement about no one using ISD.

EDIT 2: Does anyone have the link to the old pre-Armageddon debate on the ISDs?

 

[captainsmirk]

Probably where there should be a difference in stats is between the Early Years and Third Age Hyperions which are likely to have different weapons fits, like the Nova does.

However I still see a small problem with the Nova which was surely armed with pulse cannons by the time of the Minbari War yet that is covered by the Early Era list where the Nova will apparently have lots of plasma weapons instead.


Nick

 

[Burger]

The equivalent of saying the modern armed forces of a country should be on even footing with what it had in WWI or earlier.

No, not at all. The PL system takes care of the balance. A 5 point Raid WW1 fleet (30 men with rifles?) should be an equal match for a 5 point Raid modern fleet (1 fighter jet?). Please note I know nothing about real life warfare so take my examples with a large pinch of salt and don't start telling me that a fighter can easily kill 30 men with guns... its the point about quality vs quantity that I am trying to make Low tech can beat high tech if there is enough of it, and the PL system should enable the quantities to make the game balanced.

 

[Valen is my name]

burgers got a point there, it basically comes down to which is best technology (modern day stuff) or sheer numbers (WW1)?

 

[tneva82]

So if people aren't using a function of the game, what would be the difference between using the ISD and using the fractured fleet list, or not using them?

To not have early age and crusade era ships side by side in unrealistic manner. Also helps to manage huge number of ship and help to ensure balanced game by reducing options for cherry picking ships.

 

[tneva82]

and don't start telling me that a fighter can easily kill 30 men with guns...

Naah. Why bother with guns? Just drop some bombs instead :lol:

And the 30 rifle guys would not even have chance to fire back.

Now make it 30 guy with SAM launcher...

...Just kidding! Point understood :lol: Just couldn't resist the tempation.

 

[Sulfurdown]

Well, the numbers vs technology is an age old artificial mold, one that PL is well suited to model, so I will concede that nolo contendere. But end service dates could provide the end to cherry picking. Right now I'm beginning a campaign where the EA player is using all three fleet lists (ISD 2270). It will be interesting to find out how it plays out.

So far I think fleet management is the best reason I've heard for the Era fleets.

 

[Burger]

Yes you are right in theory but in practice virtually nobody uses ISD's. There could never be tournaments where ISDs are used, because so few fleets are actually capable of fighting each other...

 

[tneva82]

But end service dates could provide the end to cherry picking.

a) people don't use them
b) they aren't viable(would need LOT more ships for certain races...)
c) would be annoying in campaigns and tournaments. Dilgar player would be prohibited of playing in any campaign/tournament not specifically set for dilgar era...At which point vorlons, shadows, ISA, drakh and any EA player who has mainly 3rd age or even crusade ships would be prohibited of playing...

 

[Sulfurdown]

I was thinking along the lines of a declared ISD for your fleet, i.e. instead of Earth Alliance: Crusade, you'd have Earth Alliance 2265. You're right that if the Tourney itself was declared at an Service year it would just exclude 80% of the players, especially those who've spent their hard earned money on models and don't have the resources to own viable fleets for all years. Fleets would be pretty much useless in any form except in rare cases. So I definitely agree with not using a standard ISD for the Tourney. The big nitpick then is back to fleet management, Era lists make it a little faster to glance at a fleet and know the trend of the ships.

As for 'people don't use them,' that is not (IMO) a reasonable argument. Otherwise I can show up with an SFOS fleet or a Tournament Pack fleet and say "I don't use Armageddon." If it's standardized tourney considerations we're talking about, then whether you use them or not is up to the Tourney organizers.

 

[Burger]

I guess picking your year for your fleet would be a reasonable idea, but it does put a lot of hassle on the tourney organizer, checking not only that everyone's point allocation is correct, but also their ISD's.

As for 'people don't use them,' that is not (IMO) a reasonable argument. Otherwise I can show up with an SFOS fleet or a Tournament Pack fleet and say "I don't use Armageddon." If it's standardized tourney considerations we're talking about, then whether you use them or not is up to the Tourney organizers.

That is just silly. ISD is an in-game mechanism. SFOS/Armageddon is an out-of-game mechanism/rules revision. They aren't comparable.

I have never ever played a single tournament, or game for that matter, using ISD's... and I've played a lot in my time. So "people don't use them" is a totally reasonable arguement, because it is totally true.

 

[katadder]

the alternative of course is to house rule that EA can pick ships from any of the eras, but that would be purely in house (btw psi-corps can do this a limited amount and within ISDs if using them).

 

[H]

We have a crusade era campaign going, to allow 2 EA fleets, one is the remainder of the clarkist loyalist fleet that has been hiding out, therefore, he can use 3rd age fleets, even though we have a crusade time line restriction (so no dilgar, no vorlons, no shadows)

 

[tneva82]

As for 'people don't use them,' that is not (IMO) a reasonable argument.

What unreasonable there is in stating simple fact? People DON'T use them...They are generally very restricting for certain fleets and favour those with lots of ships to begin with...They are nice idea in theory but each fleet(with possible exception of EA and Centauri) would need to expand a lot for it to make sense. And some races like Minbari wouldn't be affected as you would need to go back for couple of hundred years before you start to have noticable changes and by then most of the other races have their ships invalidated...

 

[Sulfurdown]

I admit that was little inappropriate hyperbole comparing a game mechanic to a game revision.

tneva and burger have the right of it that it hasn't been used and most likely because it's interpreted as a "this Tourney is set in year 2200, pick your fleet"

 

[MustEatBrains]

If I understand it right, the basic idea is one of those:

a.) make the same ship cheaper (PL-whise) in later eras.

b.) weaken the same ship in comparison to it´s fleet mates.

I see the following problems:

If you use a higher era of a fleet list, you get more of the same ships for the same price. So, if you´re playing against an opponent two games with the same size, but with two different lists, you can use X Hyperions in the first game, but "X+Y" Hyperions in the second game. That should not only piss up your opponent, but also is counterproductive in regards of gaming balance.

That could of course be countered by giving each fleet 3 different versions. That again leads to two other problems:

1.) All ships would have to be usable in all eras, youßd just get more of them. Otherwhise, you couldn´t play your early years EA aginst your friend´s Crusade Era Brakiri, for example, because he would just swamp you with his ships. But if every ship has to be usable anyway, you can just play bigger games and still have a balanced game.

2.) You would have to carry around three different lists of your fleet. People (like me) with more than one fleet would have to carry around a lot more lists. Or, MGP would have to release a fleet book with about 50 fleet lists. Of course, you could just concentrate on one list (basically meaning that everyone would only collect Crusade era fleets), but you would force everyone you´re playing with to play the same timeline as you do.

The logic behind the current system is this:

Newer ships tend to be more effective in ehat they do than the old ones. More effective means more powerful. More powerful means, in order to keep the whole thing balanced, they have to be more expensive. And, finally, that means that more expensive ships have to be on higher levels.

Effectiveness = Priority Level.

The other way around, the 3 different EA fleets could still be played as a single fleet list at the moment. But, with the changes done to them in 2nd ed., the 3 lists will seemingly get 3 different and independent playing styles; basically 3 different fleets which happen to share some of their ships (or even only the miniatures).

Personally, that leaves me with some (very subjective) observations:

-I don´t want to be forced to collect the highest timeline fleet just to avoid being swamped by smaller, "older" ships.(I have a 3rd age EA fleet, by the way)

- I don´t want to carry around a ruletome filled with 50+ fleet lists (and I wouldn´t be looking forward to pay for it either)

- I prefer to have balanced games.

- I really don´t understand how a ship could loose firepower when it gets older, except in comparison with newer ships which just add more firepower (which would make those more expensive again)

Adding a few more variants for different ISDs (without reweriting the whole list 3 times) should do the trick. (Unless we´re talking about a campaign supplement like "The Earth/Minbari War", which works within a certain enviroment - but is NOT necessarily balanced for the normal one-off/campaign games)

[/i]

 

[Sulfurdown]

I don't think it's a reasonable argument because it's circular logic. If ISD shouldn't be used because they aren't used...?


BUT - your second answer; that it's because they are too restrictive for too many fleets. That I can get on board with!

From there if we wanted, we could move on find a viable solution. Whether it really is breaking up those fleets that get too big before any of the other fleets get some love, or simply providing for more love to those fleets that are behind the main factions (variants or new models or both).

 

[Commador Q]

Honestly i like the coupled race and date per fleet idea. basically it means that your fleet has to have been possable at some point in time, but fleets from drastically different eras can still fight.

I think the bigest reason why people don't use the ISDs is because (presented in reverse rorder of importance) 1: it's anoying to have to track what ships overlap, 2: i think they have been neglected and some ISDs may not really make sence (the neglect is likely just because no on uses them so no one bothers to complaigne about inacuracys), and 3: because a set in service date for the whole battle limits what race pairings can exist.

I think if the pairing restriction is dropped, the other 2 problems would tend to settle out, especially since something as easy as sorting the fleet book by ISD rather than alphabetically would go a long way to aliviating the first problem. and as soon as people start using ISDs it woun't take long before everyone has opinions about which ship should be older, which ship should be newer, and when Ship Y should have been retired from service. so problems like Ship X and ship Y are seen together once in the show but have incompatable ISDs would tend to filter out fairly quickely.