Alternate Beams
- Thread starter Locutus9956
- Start date
dag'karlove
Mongoose
Yet again a True staement. But Then again I still won. Thanks for the assist. I shall let you play on my side any time you wish. And you can be the one that says "Im The champs sidekick". :lol:
dag'karlove
Mongoose
ahh how quickly you forget that 1. I had a Quarter damage to start 2. You had us outgunned from The start and 3 I have david on my side. Its ok even the blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while. (Actually I took pity on you).
CZuschlag
Mongoose
While I miss that different beams had different AP-ness, making them fundamentally different weapons, I didn't like the issues that Hull 4 had. Hull 4 ships just weren't (by and large) fieldable. The only excuses out there are the huge Olympus, Dodge-dependent Drakh Raiders, and the highly specialized Narn G'Karith.
The problem now is that the only major properties on beam systems that are left are Slow-Loading and Precise. It makes all the beams the same, instead of the unique issues of the Combat Laser vs. the Neutron Cannon vs. Heavy Laser.
Still, though --- Hull 4 needed a rehabilitation, and the 1e beam rules wouldn't allow it to happen, ever. They needed to change; at minimum a cap of 3's to hit might have been necessary along with removing a beams capability to CAF, at the far end, turn the beam into a brand new type of weapons system -- one that ignores Hull -- and go from there. The status quo just couldn't be maintained in a D6 system, however. The need for a change was dramatic; Mongoose got this one right.
The problem now is that the only major properties on beam systems that are left are Slow-Loading and Precise. It makes all the beams the same, instead of the unique issues of the Combat Laser vs. the Neutron Cannon vs. Heavy Laser.
Still, though --- Hull 4 needed a rehabilitation, and the 1e beam rules wouldn't allow it to happen, ever. They needed to change; at minimum a cap of 3's to hit might have been necessary along with removing a beams capability to CAF, at the far end, turn the beam into a brand new type of weapons system -- one that ignores Hull -- and go from there. The status quo just couldn't be maintained in a D6 system, however. The need for a change was dramatic; Mongoose got this one right.
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
One of the few things that bother me about ACTA is what I think of as conditional defenses, defenses that work against some fleets, but not against others.CZuschlag said:
For example:
- Hull 6: useless against beam fleets, but very powerful against fleets without beams.
Interceptors: same as Hull 6 above.
Dodge: useless against accurate weapons, but very powerful if the enemy doesn't have any accurate weapons.
While I admit that this is unavoidable in a game like ACTA, the effect is sometimes extreme. This can be ameliorated to some extent by fleet selection, but in tournament or club pick-up game settings choosing a fleet to fight a specific enemy fleet is not possible.
This is why I've never understood the argument that "beams hitting on a 4+ is great because it makes hull 4 ships worthwhile." Hull 4 ships are still ridiculously vulnerable to the Vree, the Centauri, and the Dilgar among others, and now hull 6 ships are ridiculously vulnerable to any beam heavy fleets. Very few people are willing to take high priority, hull 6 ships as the bulk of their fleet since they are basically just beam bait (the same complaint people had about hull 4 in the last edition). If they wanted to "rehabilitate" hull 4 ships they could have given them more damage points, lowered their priority level, made them worth fewer victory points, etc.
I have problems with any weapon system that completely eliminates a major defensive system/trait.
ShopKeepJon
ShopKeepJon said:
What if it completely eliminates 2(Interceptors AND high Hull)?
I hadn't looked at it this way before. I like the idea that beams cannot be intercepted, light is very fast after all. However, disregarding hull is a double bonus that seems a little over the top. The Hull stat represents how hard it is to damage a ship. Why do beams damage easier? If you want to reflect that beams hit easier because they do not require any leading of the target, then we should use AP and SAP to reflect this(I would also state that maybe not all beams get AP or SAP). I am not sure how 1E beams worked, but maybe you allow only 3 rerolls of hits to gather extra hits, e.g. a beam with AP rolls against 3s for a Hull 4 ship, hits then roll against 4s and then finally those hits roll against 5s.
I do not like the posted ideas about rerolling missed dice to make beam whifs less common. Whifs are far less of a game breaker when they do occur than any runaway beam attack is.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
darklord4 said:ShopKeepJon said:
What if it completely eliminates 2(Interceptors AND high Hull)?
But remember, while Beam weapons suffer no disadvantage against high hull vessels, they don't gain any advantage against low hull vessels.
LBH
lastbesthope said:darklord4 said:ShopKeepJon said:
What if it completely eliminates 2(Interceptors AND high Hull)?
But remember, while Beam weapons suffer no disadvantage against high hull vessels, they don't gain any advantage against low hull vessels.
LBH
Except that cool beam hits begetting hits thing...
...not an advantage over shooting high-hull ships, but certainly an advantage to at least make it even with AP or even SAP.
Methos5000
Mongoose
The problem with the 1st ed beams is that some races beams were absolutely useless against big ships. For Example the Brakiri, how many people took an Avioki over the Kaliva? The Tashkat over the Takata? The Gravitic beams in 1st ed. were useless. Take the Avioki for example 8AD Beam, DD, Slow-loading, against a hull 6 target would average about 1-2 hits and then couldn't fire next turn. Now in 2nd ed their beams actually cause damage and the bigger Brakiri beam ships are worth taking.
If you reintroduce AP and SAP to beam it should be broken down by priority level or something, Patrol nothing, Skirmish and Raid have AP and Battle on up have SAP. This could represent the bigger ships having much larger power reserves available and would actually encourage people to buy up to the larger ships as their beam tech is better.
All things considered though I think beams are much better now then in 1st ed. Having a little more stability in some of the beam rolls would be nice on average I think I have ended up with more 1 hit volleys off of 8AD then I have with 15 hits from that same 8 AD. Im not saying make beams completely predictable but I liked some of the ideas. Maybe something similar to others posted on here:
6: 3 hits
5: 2 hits
4: 1 hit
1-3 reroll once with maximum hit being 1
basically you get the reroll but regardless of what you roll you can only score one hit
So for example rolling a 6AD beam and get a 1,2,3,4,5,6 you would have 6 hits with 3 rerolls even if all three rerolls were 6's would would still only get 3 extra hits total for 9 total hits.
Im not sure how the math works on this for average hits if its better or worse but its just an idea.
If you reintroduce AP and SAP to beam it should be broken down by priority level or something, Patrol nothing, Skirmish and Raid have AP and Battle on up have SAP. This could represent the bigger ships having much larger power reserves available and would actually encourage people to buy up to the larger ships as their beam tech is better.
All things considered though I think beams are much better now then in 1st ed. Having a little more stability in some of the beam rolls would be nice on average I think I have ended up with more 1 hit volleys off of 8AD then I have with 15 hits from that same 8 AD. Im not saying make beams completely predictable but I liked some of the ideas. Maybe something similar to others posted on here:
6: 3 hits
5: 2 hits
4: 1 hit
1-3 reroll once with maximum hit being 1
basically you get the reroll but regardless of what you roll you can only score one hit
So for example rolling a 6AD beam and get a 1,2,3,4,5,6 you would have 6 hits with 3 rerolls even if all three rerolls were 6's would would still only get 3 extra hits total for 9 total hits.
Im not sure how the math works on this for average hits if its better or worse but its just an idea.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
That chart is significantly over the current beam, by 25%. You'd need to re-engineer that.
The sort of tuning you are all are talking about is a fine tune adjustment to a wide-ranging rule. Unfortunately, a single-die D6-based game is incapable of such fine manipulation.
These sorts of adjustments were precisely why I was advocating a D12 system a long time ago. The most balanceable systems I have found to date have either been 2D6 systems or D20 (preferred).
The sort of tuning you are all are talking about is a fine tune adjustment to a wide-ranging rule. Unfortunately, a single-die D6-based game is incapable of such fine manipulation.
These sorts of adjustments were precisely why I was advocating a D12 system a long time ago. The most balanceable systems I have found to date have either been 2D6 systems or D20 (preferred).
Why not just assign AP and SAP for each ship instead of making it class based? Assigning per ship allows you to mix up AP, SAP, NAP where appropriate.Methos5000 said:
The reroll is entirely unnecessary as it increases the average damage of all beams.Methos5000 said:
Not sure if this has come up before, but has anyone suggested capping beam hits at the original AD? or even just rerolling hits once? kind of like a reverse twin-linked? Let the beams get their damage bonus from critical hits like every other weapon.
I like the fact that ACTA uses common dice. It fits in with the quick/easy play feel I get from the game. Not sure I'd like to roll 10 D20s! Look out! Meteor storm on the table!CZuschlag said:
I think there are better tweaks to some mechanics to speed up/balance the gameplay, e.g. beam rerolls, interceptor rolls, and critical hits.
GhostRecon
Mongoose
How about the earlier variation on Burger's proposal?
6 = D3 Hits
5 = 1 hit
4 = 1 hit
3-1 = Re-roll once
6 = D3 Hits
5 = 1 hit
4 = 1 hit
3-1 = Re-roll once
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
I'm still not happy with the initial re-roll of misses. I think that it would make the beams too reliable. I like seeing misses. Though I would like to see a little more consistent damage when the beam does hit.
How about rolling all AD at 4+ just like now, but each hit gives you two more AD that can not be re-rolled? (E.g. I roll six dice getting 2,3,4,4,5,6. I get four hits and eight additional AD. The additional AD roll 1,2,2,3,4,5,5,6. Total number of hits = 8. No additional re-rolling after second roll.)
The average number of hits is still one per AD with a very high potential (3xAD), but it should be faster. I personally think that a lot of the problems that people are having with beams is having to sit and watch one die rolled over and over and over... It's almost like it was designed to annoy the person taking the hit...
This way, the pain would be short and sweet! :wink:
ShopKeepJon
How about rolling all AD at 4+ just like now, but each hit gives you two more AD that can not be re-rolled? (E.g. I roll six dice getting 2,3,4,4,5,6. I get four hits and eight additional AD. The additional AD roll 1,2,2,3,4,5,5,6. Total number of hits = 8. No additional re-rolling after second roll.)
The average number of hits is still one per AD with a very high potential (3xAD), but it should be faster. I personally think that a lot of the problems that people are having with beams is having to sit and watch one die rolled over and over and over... It's almost like it was designed to annoy the person taking the hit...
This way, the pain would be short and sweet! :wink:
ShopKeepJon
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
GhostRecon said:
Cute, but I'd prefer to reduce my need to do math while I am gaming and drinking.
David said:GhostRecon said:
Cute, but I'd prefer to reduce my need to do math while I am gaming and drinking.
Which is why I liked:
6 = 3 Hits
5 = 2 hit
4 = 1 hit
3-1 = 0 Hits
You just subtract 3 from your roll, if you run out of fingers, you don't hit. If you don't have 6 fingers, you should remember a 6 roll is 3 as there are two sets of 3 dots on the die in front of you.
For us computer people, comparing if a number is greater than or equal is usually just as expensive as subtracting
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
For us computer people, comparing if a number is greater than or equal is usually just as expensive as subtracting [/quote]
From one computer person to another... if you come up with something using binary coded hex or some such, I'll come down there and administer a beating
[/quote]From one computer person to another... if you come up with something using binary coded hex or some such, I'll come down there and administer a beating
The balancing factor was that the vast majority of beam-dependent fleets don't have Interceptors or high Hull values. This means that if for example a Minbari, Drakh or Vorlon fleet comes up against an EA, Centauri or Vree fleet, then the "normal" weapons that are facing them (or at best only a few beams are facing them) will hit hard because they don't have to beat Hull 6. Same for Accurate weaponry - take a look at the ships that carry Accurate weapons (mainly the Drakh Light Raider, the ISA ships and the Liati) - all have Dodge scores so if they face each other then there will again be a balanced fight. It's not perfect admittedly but there aren't too many genuine mismatches.ShopKeepJon said:
If I were to choose a beam mechanic that reduced the variance of hits, this would be the one. It keeps the same average and is very easy to use.darklord4 said:David said:GhostRecon said:
Cute, but I'd prefer to reduce my need to do math while I am gaming and drinking.
Which is why I liked:
6 = 3 Hits
5 = 2 hit
4 = 1 hit
3-1 = 0 Hits
You just subtract 3 from your roll, if you run out of fingers, you don't hit. If you don't have 6 fingers, you should remember a 6 roll is 3 as there are two sets of 3 dots on the die in front of you.
For us computer people, comparing if a number is greater than or equal is usually just as expensive as subtracting
BTW, I hate d10, d12 and d20 games for this sort of game, they slightly slow the game down (counting spots is far quicker) and more to the point, it's far far easier to buy (and roll) buckets of d6
