3rd Edition.

[GhostRecon]

I don't like those restrictions on Fleet choice too much...

And BFG rules function differently:

There are four "classes" of ship.

Escorts, Cruisers, Battlecruisers, and Battleships.

No limit on Escorts, in the Imperial list you can field up to 12 Cruisers, you can only field 1 Battlecruiser for every 2 Cruisers, and you can only field 1 battleship for every 3 cruisers/battlecruisers. That, paired with their points system, and the relative extreme weakness of Escorts to Capital Ships (1 hit escorts with 1 shield versus 8-12 hit Capital Ships with 2 or more shields) means that you tend not to see massive swarms of Escort fleets. As an example, you can buy 6 Sword Frigates for one Dictator Cruiser; however, the Swords have less survivability than the Dictator, at 6 hits/shields to 8 hits/2 shields, though they do have greater firepower. In a straight engagement, the Dictator would probably win (Bombers/Torpedoes ignore shields, so even 1 hit equals a dead Escort).

However, this really only works as well as it does because it uses an I Go-You go initiative system (Or, as someone said, I go, you go if you have anything left system).

The FAP movement sounds a lot like the earlier, Battletech/Mechwarrior inspired system, where you move based on numbers of ships. Say I have 5 ships, you have 10. You have to move 2 ships for every one of mine, so we have the same number of "turns."

Making Lumbering ships move before others does alleviate some of the problems, but the issue remains for other boresighted ships. The Marathon, for example, will still have difficulty boresighting non-lumbering capital ships.

The ship-based initiative stat sounds the most interesting, but potentially makes things significantly more complicated. Some variation of this, however, sounds like it will be the best solution.

I think, paired with some sort of ship-based initiative stat, either a rebalance is necessary to make higher priority level ships more powerful/more survivable, or a reduction of lower priority ship's survivability; or, alternatively or in conjunction with that, change the FAP system to reduce how effective buying down currently is.

 

[reyamc2001]

Perhaps a solution to the boresight problem would be the following:

Lumbering ships move first, but if you have any scouts you could choose to move them before moving a lumbering ship. This could represent them passing on positioning info to the larger ships.

 

[EDFDarkAngel1]

Or... just remove boresight.

Dark Angel

 

[Triggy]

Or... just remove boresight.

Dark Angel

I like boresight. I agree there are a few issues about initiative sinking but I'm actually not against ideas that reduce the potential number of "activations". Even if they do affect fleets like Dilgar, Narn or EA, then you would look at this separately. You want to get mechanics right before you worry about the details of game balance. At the moment, the biggest arguament against changing the initiative system is that the Drazi fleet gets screwed. If that's the case then they also disproportionately benefit from "follow that target" type SAs (another idea I also like).

Think about the mechanics you want first, then get the balance right - agree with it or not, that's what happened with beams in 2nd ed. (I didn't like the new mechanism but you can't change it easily now as the whole game has been built upon it).

 

[GhostRecon]

Here's a proposal, a mixture of the "Mechwarrior" system and the FAP movement limitations:

Firstly, you must move ships by their Fleet Priority. The higher their priority, the sooner they move. In order from first to last: Armageddon, War, Battle, Raid, Skirmish, Patrol.

In addition, you and your opponent must move ships to create an equivalent number of turns. I.e.: If I have 8 ships, and you have 5, our movement would occur as to the following: I move 2 ships, you move 1; I move 2, you move 1; I move 1, you move 1; I move 1, you move 1; I move 1, you move 1. Essentially, you must move your ships so that you and your opponent move an equal number of ships. If you have 15 and he has 5, you have to move 3 ships for every one of his.

Shooting occurs as normal, and is not modified by this whatsoever.

Squadrons complicate this slightly. We've removed, in part, the benefit of movement for Squadrons; however, Squadrons provide a different benefit. Representing the increased coordination, if you Squadron ships, it can affect the initiative order of how movement occurs. However, since you have to move ships based on Fleet Priority, a Squadron has to move per the highest priority ship in the Squadron.

An example:

I have 8 ships, my opponent has 5. I create a Pentacon of 5 ships (One ship of which is my highest priority ship, a Mankhat), reducing the number of "ships" I nominate to move down to 4. My opponent now has to move 2 ships to my Pentacon (Which has to move before any other ship in my fleet because of the Priority rule); then he moves 1, I move 1; he moves 1, I move 1; he moves his last, I move my last.

If I use the Pentacon special rule, He essentially moves 2 ships, then another; I move the Pentacon and another ship, etc. You always have to move your ships in such a way that you and your opponent have an equal number of "turns." The Pentacon's benefit is still worthwhile, and Squadrons provide benefits as well.

This system provides the balance of making it so larger fleets can't initiative sink yours; since he has to not only move his higher priority ships first, but move so you both have an equal number of turns, the external "metagamed" benefit of Initiative sinks is removed. However having a larger fleet is still of benefit; lower priority ships will be slightly harder to boresight so long as your opponent also has higher priority ships. In the context of these ship's size and maneuverability, this makes sense.

Larger ships have an easier time fighting Larger Ships, as it should be: No more hiding behind the four Havens in the back of the map.

Larger fleets have a benefit; they're moving more ships for every one of yours, representing their increased maneuverability. However, this increased maneuverability, in this system, doesn't translate to the metagamed ability to translate that maneuver to larger ships. In essence, bringing the tactical nature back to the initiative system, preserving its nature, while removing initiative sinks as a external, metagamed feature that affects other elements of the game, such as Boresight.

 

[tschuma]

Back on 3rd Edition, in addition to the above listings, the T'Rakk needs to be tweaked. It is insane for a Skirmish Level ship. 37 damage, and 45 crew, 2-45. That is at least double most if not all skirmish level ships.

 

[Banichi]

I'd like to see something done about the close blast doors SA. Either make it so you have to pass a crew quality check, after all, it sounds like a drill that crew have to carry out. Or make it more prohibative. Say any ship that does it can't fire at all. If the no fire thing sounds too harsh you could make the reward you get from the sa better, say damage cancelled on 4,5,6 to compensate for the lack of firing. I really don't like this sa.

As for the problems with boresight, I think the idea has been put forward before for a new sa called "Move to Target". If passed, a boresight ship could move before its target, but as long as said target is still within the targeting ships foreward arc in the shooting phase it still counts as been boresighted. The targeting ship has managed to track it. I like the way that a targeted ship could do something drastic like apte to get away,and in a way it would sort of ring true. If your computer tells you a warlock is lining you up to be boresighted you are going to take extreme measures to get away. You could even add a bonus/penilty along the lines of the one you get when you are trying to ram someone. Plus 1 to your cc roll if the ship you are targeting is lumbering, minus 1 if it is agile.

 

[GhostRecon]

Back on 3rd Edition, in addition to the above listings, the T'Rakk needs to be tweaked. It is insane for a Skirmish Level ship. 37 damage, and 45 crew, 2-45. That is at least double most if not all skirmish level ships.

Except that, in exchange, the T'rakk's firepower is pretty paltry.

F-arc: 15 inch 3 AD AP, DD
F/P-S/A arc: 8 Inch 6 AD

Plus, 1 Frazi Flight.

Its speed, maneuverability, and survivability are all good, but its firepower suffers as a consequence. It makes a good raider against low hulls, and a good initiative sink, but there are better ships in the Narn list for destruction.

Having fought against them, from the perspective of an EA player, the T'rakk proved near completely ineffectual; hull 6 and interceptors on my ships being near insurmountable, while my Apollo and Chronos made short work of them, even with their higher damage.

Additionally, any comments on the initiative proposal I made on page 3? Not even an "You suck GR, and so does your idea"?

 

[madpax]

Additionally, any comments on the initiative proposal I made on page 3? Not even an "You suck GR, and so does your idea"?

You suck GR, and... ahem, sorry . There are some good ideas, but it seems too complicated.
In another game (I don't remember the name, though) of space fighter combat, the initiative winner was always able to retain one ship, allowing him to move it last, even though the enemy would have more ships.

Marc

 

[Methos5000]

In another game (I don't remember the name, though) of space fighter combat, the initiative winner was always able to retain one ship, allowing him to move it last, even though the enemy would have more ships.

Marc

The biggest problem I see with some like this though is again the Drazi can get screwed by this. If they face the shadows for example they will never be able to even shoot at the ancient shadow ship unless they win initiative and with the Shadows at a +6 to the Drazi's +1/+2 the Drazi could be dead without ever shooting the Shadow Ship. At best if the Drazi knew they were gonna face the shadows then they could take nothing but missile boats but being a boresight heavy race (by far more boresight than any other fleet) they need to outsink their opponent. If there was one race that needed a twofer at patrol it should have been the Drazi (though personally I don't think the 3 races that got them even needed them as twofers they should have just been statted as regular patrol ships and left it at that.)