Apollo vs Sagittarius

[Lord David the Denied]

We'd see a lot less of it if swarm fleets were actually fixed, rather than the problem being masked by a workaround.

We've seen plenty of suggestions for this; personally I don't favour slashing the value of units based on the level of the game, as in the Armageddon splits. I'd rather see a cap on the number of levels you can buy up or down (no down war ships in a patrol game, no patrol ships in a war game, that sort of thing) or a cap on the number of points you can split.

Yeah, but a lot of people have their favourite fleets, and using ISDs would prevent them from playing it.

People would have to give up unrealistic fleets - not a bad thing. For players of the Dilgar, especially, there'd have to be some provision. Maybe publishing a Dilgar War supplement with early lists for the major races, allowing everyone to play against Dilgar without fielding unrealistic units. Then there's always the Ghosts of Omelos or the other DIlgar-survival scenarios people have thought up. Give one the official stamp of Mongoose approval and publish a book, giving a "modern" Dilgar list and the background of the conflict. Hell, I'd write it myself and let MGP have it free of charge.

 

[locarno24]

I'd rather see a cap on the number of levels you can buy up or down (no down war ships in a patrol game, no patrol ships in a war game, that sort of thing) or a cap on the number of points you can split.

The problem is then how in the former one covers ships that are supposed to be a small ship amongst a warships (Maximus escorts amongst a battleship/battlecruiser line springs to mind) and how in both one manages not to rip to shreds a fleet that's supposed to be swarmy, like the Drazi (whose 'signature' ship is patrol priority).

 

[katadder]

what sort of unrealistic fleets? and why would ISDs negate this?

ISDs can be useful for unique tourneys, and sometimes for campaigns but they are very limiting, just look at the LONAW choices for the recent dilgar tourney.
other than that, for one off games I never see a use for ISDs unless you want to annoy someone by not letting them use their models.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

what sort of unrealistic fleets? and why would ISDs negate this?

ISDs can be useful for unique tourneys, and sometimes for campaigns but they are very limiting, just look at the LONAW choices for the recent dilgar tourney.
other than that, for one off games I never see a use for ISDs unless you want to annoy someone by not letting them use their models.

Most of the published in service dates don't match the fluff anyway. They need to be revised. Half the Vree fleet, for instance, says it dates back to the Dilgar War, but the ISDs are decades later. The Minbari Tinashi, that fought in the last Shadow War, has an ISD later than the Sharlin.

That's why I said publish a supplement for the earlier conflicts, and that opens the door to books for the Drakh War, EA Civil War, etc, to keep Mongoose churning out ACtA stuff for ages.

 

[katadder]

bet the tinashi isnt armed the same as it was in the previous shadow war.
perhaps this one is a late era version.

drakh and EA civil wars would be source books as the ships are already there.

dilgar one could have early versions of league ships to make viable fleets.

cant think of anytime I have used ISDs. our last campaign we just said all ships available as was crusade era anyway and the EA were crusade so no overlapping as was. but someone could have brought along early EA or dilgar to fight my ISA or nicks Drakh and we wouldnt have had a problem.

I guess the biggest question is who and how many actually use ISDs (esepcially for stand alone fights).

 

[l33tpenguin]

Either Higher PL ships need a boost or the PL split needs to be adjusted. It makes no sense to me that the Sag. would out class the Apollo (point for point), when the apollo is what is replacing it. It just shows how broken the FAP system is yet again

 

[locarno24]

It makes no sense to me that the Sag. would out class the Apollo (point for point), when the apollo is what is replacing it.

Well - that, by itself, doesn't matter; priority level is artificial to 'history' or 'military structure' within the EA just like any points system. The crusade era earthforce fleet probably uses Apollos in the same numbers that it once used saggitarius (since they are both tactically similar ships). Earthforce doesn't deploy a 'five point fleet', it deploys a destroyer squadron. However that has gone from an omega formation to a warlock formation.

Neither should outclass the other point for point. Since some discrepancy is inevitable, it really doesn't matter which way the discrepancy falls but the problem is that the advantage of just about any four skirmish-priority ships over a battle priority ship is too much. Especially when talking about ships with primarily precise armament!

(we had another, similar thing recently in a planetary invasion. Brivoki jumps in, gets a big missile volley (from OSATS rather than ships) and guess what? No firing forward arc, no damage control. That was a bleddy waste of two war points.

 

[Ripple]

The no damage control crit should have gone away... one of the biggest problems in the big ships.

Ripple

 

[Burger]

The no damage control crit should have gone away... one of the biggest problems in the big ships.

Absolutely. And No Special Actions should be rarer, what with All Hands On Deck being touted as the big ships' salvation in 2e.

In fact I really dislike No Special Actions. Special Actions are what make the game interesting, they give you much more tactical options rather than just moving and turning and shooting.

 

[Target]

Of our many house rules, the first thing we did was get rid of the no DC crit & the 6-5 crew reduced to zero. Unfortunately the No DC is still in the crit list.

 

[CZuschlag]

Lord David,

On the subject of future Dilgar conjectural supplements:

You could quickly design a conjectural Dilgar fleet element. This would be modelled on the progress of the Narn END (Emergency Naval Deployment) program. END was able to create several prototypes and, finally, one full generation of naval vessels in time for the Narn-Centauri war, all the way from scratch. It was considered a noteworthy success.

The Dilgar have virtually done the same thing in a similar timeline, but there are a few gaps. I would not expect a new generation of Dilgar ships; only natural enhancements of the current naval development program. The gaps are in capital ship (the Tikrit is a battlecruiser, we are talking about the successor to the Wahant -- this would be an entirely new hull class, the Innata), raid-command hull (probably a Targrath variant), fleet frigate (the Jashakar is old, yes, but it is so successful that I would expect the Dilgar Command to continue its usage -- I doubt this development would occur at all), the current fleet gaps of specialist ships/variants (Return of the beam Ochliavita? Pulsar Ochliavita? Escort Ochliavita? Pulsar Targrath/Omelos?), and a super-conjectural Armageddon ship. The architecture principles should stay the same. The only new naval concept would be the slow rollout of the new Advanced Anti-Ship Missile Weapons System (perhaps integral to the design of the Innata class and the Command Targrath??).

Allowing any such options would include the conjecture that the Dilgar survived their war in quantity enough to continue a modern naval programme; therefore Dilgar would lose access to the kamikaze fighter option.

None of this would be a standard fleet list, or tournament-legal -- but may perhaps be available on that 12 Duties roll for campaigns(?).

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Maybe it's the lateness of the hour, but I don't really follow you... :?