Are Raiders still underpowered in 2e?
- Thread starter Poi
- Start date
MustEatBrains
Mongoose
Burger said:Fixed for youMustEatBrains said:
I still think they have a secret plan, I really do...
Then why bother with a PL system at all?WereRogue said:
The Shadows and Vorlons extra power is compensated for by making their vessels higher PLs, but still comparable to any other vessel at a given PL. If the analogy extended to Raiders, they would have masses of lower PL ships, which they do, but they would still fit the PL system, which Raiders don't at the moment. At any given PL, Raider ships will be at the bottom.
Each Raider ship may be weaker than any race's fleet, but this is a game. Many players would like it to be a competitive game with a level playing field. Any one fleet being stronger or weaker compared to all the others distorts things.WereRogue said:
Not the point of PL at all. Fleets need to be balanced, not individual ships, when you make comparisons. PL is not an exact science. Each PL covers a range, so there is no requirement for every ship in any given PL to have exactly equivalent strengths and weaknesses.WereRogue said:
Poi said:
Just so. And someone has to be at the bottom of that range.
The bottom line is that they're designed to be weaker. Intentionally so. Some players like a challenge (like someone said above, playing a video game at a higher difficulty), so they will willing play the weaker fleet so they'll get that feeling of accomplishment when they manage to win.
Other players want to be on "equal footing" with everyone else. To them, I say: "Don't play Raiders." There are 19 other fleets out there that will meet your power level requirements.
Still others want to play "above the curve", and to them I say: "Play Shadows or Vorlons, but be prepared for derision!" (I know, I play Shadows currently)
There's nothing at all wrong with any of those three play styles (in fact, I sort of fit in all those categories with my fleet choice - I, too, am planning on picking up some Raiders at some point, for the challenge), but it's out-of-line, IMO, to complain when your play style doesn't line up with one of the options available to you. Especially when there are so many other options available.
In this case, the Raiders have always been presented as an "underdog" fleet, so it's not like you were lured in with false promises or "bait-and-switch" tactics.
-Ken
(Emphasis mine.)
Nightmares about Minbari
Mongoose
My 2p
There is always going to be a weakest ship in each priority band. Two options, either they are all from a fleet which has the fluff background to support being weak, or they are scattered among the different fleets. How would you explain the Minbari having the weakest battle priority ship for example.
Personally I have no problem with the weak raider fleet because, and I might have said it before, THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO FIGHT AGAINST WARSHIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They are commerce raiders, they fight civilian ships and run away from the authorities.
Their place in the game is for special scenarios and campaigns, they are not intended for competative play.
There is always going to be a weakest ship in each priority band. Two options, either they are all from a fleet which has the fluff background to support being weak, or they are scattered among the different fleets. How would you explain the Minbari having the weakest battle priority ship for example.
Personally I have no problem with the weak raider fleet because, and I might have said it before, THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO FIGHT AGAINST WARSHIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They are commerce raiders, they fight civilian ships and run away from the authorities.
Their place in the game is for special scenarios and campaigns, they are not intended for competative play.
Oh dear, the capital letters have arrived.
It would be fine if Raiders fell within the range of their assigned PL, but they fell below the line in 1e.
Why did Mongoose give Raiders a PL? No point unless they are competitive against other fleets. If they are only for scenarios, they don't need them.
It would be fine if Raiders fell within the range of their assigned PL, but they fell below the line in 1e.
Why did Mongoose give Raiders a PL? No point unless they are competitive against other fleets. If they are only for scenarios, they don't need them.
Nightmares about Minbari
Mongoose
Poi: What do you want raiders to look like?
Poi said:
Again, as I stated above, it's because some players prefer a challenge. Some players like using them, despite the deck being stacked against them.
It's clear that you're not one of those players, and that's fine. But it's unfair to complain because they don't fit within your playstyle.
As I said before, there are 19 other options that will allow you to be on equal or superior footing than your opponents if that's what you're looking for.
Clearly, MGP is trying to bring the "threat level" up for the Raiders by allowing them access to things like the Nova from Armageddon, and, IIRC, aren't they allowed to take some ships from other races?
Again, though, Raiders will always be the underdog because they're designed to be the underdog. It's not an oversight, or a mistake, it's intentional.
-Ken
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
The battlewagon is an excellent ship, very resilient! The Freighter was…. moving on. (fixed in 2e.) I see what the supporters of the Intentionally Weak Raider Fleet are saying; it even allows Matt et al, to diffuse some complaining with every other fleet by not having the weak one out being in their fleet. Kudos Matt, very clever, I hadn't even thought along those lines!
My contention, though, was founded on the tenet that priority levels should be implying a comparable power level. I think that Mongoose has pinned down what priority level means in that it’s an abstraction of ability not based on the operating fleet. They haven’t modulated a given fleet’s access to ships to sling it’s power level (like taking a Hyperion, leaving the stats, and shifting it’s Priority Level depending on if it was in the Early fleet or Crusade fleet). My view point has less to do with the Raiders in specific, it just happens that they are the intentional poster children for the PL-power slant. I guess to my mind the ‘racial’ definitions of fleets should be set up for campaigns, where the league may be weaker and the Ancients are wicked.
The generic-ness of fleets can be/should be/is avoided by setting up some guidelines for the arrangement of ships in a given fleet. It’s done already with the trends in structure, like the ISA’s maneuverability and the Narn’s damage resilience. You only get generic when you start using the same traits and just changing the name of the ship or weapon.
EDIT: Honestly, I think that with the upgraded Freighter from what I've been hearing and the changes to the fighter rules, the Raiders really aren't that far below the bar of other ships. I have such high hopes for 2e! (Not getting it until end of august
).
My contention, though, was founded on the tenet that priority levels should be implying a comparable power level. I think that Mongoose has pinned down what priority level means in that it’s an abstraction of ability not based on the operating fleet. They haven’t modulated a given fleet’s access to ships to sling it’s power level (like taking a Hyperion, leaving the stats, and shifting it’s Priority Level depending on if it was in the Early fleet or Crusade fleet). My view point has less to do with the Raiders in specific, it just happens that they are the intentional poster children for the PL-power slant. I guess to my mind the ‘racial’ definitions of fleets should be set up for campaigns, where the league may be weaker and the Ancients are wicked.
The generic-ness of fleets can be/should be/is avoided by setting up some guidelines for the arrangement of ships in a given fleet. It’s done already with the trends in structure, like the ISA’s maneuverability and the Narn’s damage resilience. You only get generic when you start using the same traits and just changing the name of the ship or weapon.
EDIT: Honestly, I think that with the upgraded Freighter from what I've been hearing and the changes to the fighter rules, the Raiders really aren't that far below the bar of other ships. I have such high hopes for 2e! (Not getting it until end of august
).Dizzy Vree
Mongoose
I like raiders, i beleive everygame should have a under-dog, and well raiders do it buitifully, and there a great fleet to use if your GMing in a campaign.
there also great for intro games (I have found that people start a game more willingly if they win :lol: )
there also great for intro games (I have found that people start a game more willingly if they win :lol: )
Because both sides of the arguament have merit is why I generally stay out of the debate 
Not because I don't have my opinion on this issue (as if I don't have an opinion on any aspect of ACtA!) but because fundamentally this isn't a big deal. Raiders are better now in that everyone one of their options is almost up to spec and if people want to play them as an underdog fleet then I'd welcome the game
Not because I don't have my opinion on this issue (as if I don't have an opinion on any aspect of ACtA!) but because fundamentally this isn't a big deal. Raiders are better now in that everyone one of their options is almost up to spec and if people want to play them as an underdog fleet then I'd welcome the game This point though I don't agree with. The Vorlons and Shadows have never intentionally been made to play "above the curve", they simply have their ships at higher PLs than everyone else. In theory a Shadow War PL ship should be equal in a game to a Centauri War PL ship. Otherwise you're just creating two uber fleets to take if you want to kill all opposition.WereRogue said:
Wing Commander
Mongoose
We've been playing a detailed 9 player campaign for about 3 months now and the Raider appear to be winning...
They are very weak in toe to toe battles, the whole level thing aside they do excel in the right type of campaign. Our campaign is fairly detailed, map based with a more indepth resource management, etc. I've been tweaking the rules slightly as we play and learn and Hiff is transferring it onto a nice PDF format. Once we've finished we'll post it for anybody who fancies playing it.
However, back to the Raiders; the Raider player is simply "mugging" many of the opposition incoming Supply runs. Even a heavily defended supply run is susceptible to losing the freighters and starving out the player, he is capitolising on this and giving each of his "victims" a choice, pay us off (in resources) or lose the entire supply fleet.
He has also been taking payment in ships (in the campaign you can use a captured enemy ship at a resource cost) to supplement his fleet and now has Narn, Centauri, EAS & ISA Ships - he even bagged a pair of White Stars with a couple of seriously lucky crew crits.
They are very weak in toe to toe battles, the whole level thing aside they do excel in the right type of campaign. Our campaign is fairly detailed, map based with a more indepth resource management, etc. I've been tweaking the rules slightly as we play and learn and Hiff is transferring it onto a nice PDF format. Once we've finished we'll post it for anybody who fancies playing it.
However, back to the Raiders; the Raider player is simply "mugging" many of the opposition incoming Supply runs. Even a heavily defended supply run is susceptible to losing the freighters and starving out the player, he is capitolising on this and giving each of his "victims" a choice, pay us off (in resources) or lose the entire supply fleet.
He has also been taking payment in ships (in the campaign you can use a captured enemy ship at a resource cost) to supplement his fleet and now has Narn, Centauri, EAS & ISA Ships - he even bagged a pair of White Stars with a couple of seriously lucky crew crits.
Interesting that you campaign allows folks to play away from the balance ACtA brings to the table. That can be really useful, but doesn't answer the original posters question. But the debate has moved past the point of usefulness.
Sadly it is not a matter of playstyle that is being argued by several, but the meaning of the PL system. This is why there is going to continue to be such disagreement. For many PL is like points or cash...ten bucks is ten bucks not nine fifty and change cause the guy giving it to you has a bad haircut and a ring in his lip. Raiders seem to suffer that effect.
For folks who want to know how does ship x stack up against the dozen other ships in the game that are similarly sized, the pl system is fairly good. But in the raiders case you have to take a minus on the ships, throwing the idea off. It has nothing to do with fluff, or underdog status, it has to do with how accurate is the PL system at telling us how a ship fights in a fleet. If its less than accurate, or a whole faction has a minus, why not just bump them down or some such answer.
I understand some reasons why, and saying that in the range the Raiders will always be near the bottom of the rack is okay. But it will rub some folks the wrong way.
Anyway...I'm babbling...
Ripple
Sadly it is not a matter of playstyle that is being argued by several, but the meaning of the PL system. This is why there is going to continue to be such disagreement. For many PL is like points or cash...ten bucks is ten bucks not nine fifty and change cause the guy giving it to you has a bad haircut and a ring in his lip. Raiders seem to suffer that effect.
For folks who want to know how does ship x stack up against the dozen other ships in the game that are similarly sized, the pl system is fairly good. But in the raiders case you have to take a minus on the ships, throwing the idea off. It has nothing to do with fluff, or underdog status, it has to do with how accurate is the PL system at telling us how a ship fights in a fleet. If its less than accurate, or a whole faction has a minus, why not just bump them down or some such answer.
I understand some reasons why, and saying that in the range the Raiders will always be near the bottom of the rack is okay. But it will rub some folks the wrong way.
Anyway...I'm babbling...
Ripple
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Something I've been thinking about since this came up - there is also an interesting twist in anyone's ability to balance with in a Priority level due to the uniqueness of ships and the randomization of allocation.
One Shadow Ship versus One Vorlon Heavy Cruiser - Shadows will probably win.
4 Shadow Ships versus 4 Vorlon Heavy Cruisers - my money is definitely on the Vorlons. (IIRC it would take two VHC with average rolls to destroy a SS in one round.)
The ships didn't change but how they can be deployed and the environmental concerns change the game drastically. I've always been an advocate of ramping up the Shadow Ship because I've run the numbers and it came out that the Vorlons had a fairly huge firepower and defensive advantage, yet the big V would lose in a debris field on a 1-1 basis. How the #$!! are you supposed to balance it if there is such a wide potential power band?
One Shadow Ship versus One Vorlon Heavy Cruiser - Shadows will probably win.
4 Shadow Ships versus 4 Vorlon Heavy Cruisers - my money is definitely on the Vorlons. (IIRC it would take two VHC with average rolls to destroy a SS in one round.)
The ships didn't change but how they can be deployed and the environmental concerns change the game drastically. I've always been an advocate of ramping up the Shadow Ship because I've run the numbers and it came out that the Vorlons had a fairly huge firepower and defensive advantage, yet the big V would lose in a debris field on a 1-1 basis. How the #$!! are you supposed to balance it if there is such a wide potential power band?
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Ripple -- No, you're not. It's pretty accurate.
Simply said, you're foisting a Macroeconomic issue into a Tactical game. That should result in a Raiders campaign Nerf, but a decent fleet, instead of an ... immature ... fleet with a campaign goodie. My opinion is that the historical concern, while warranted, should have an impact in the Campaign section, not the fleet roster, and that we have it all backwards.
After all, while the Finnish army was small in WW2, it was of high quality. Did the relative size affect the quality of the Finnish units in Flames of War? Not really -- and Log Armour turns out to be pretty cool. That's because FoW knows it is a tactical reflection. For strategic issues, go play a game of GMT's Europe Engulfed, GRD's A Winter War, or TAHGC's The Russian Campaign.
Similarly, ACtA is at its core a tactical system. I see no reason why Raiders should be shortchanged here. The Campaign provides an Operational Level system. I can see the Raiders having some very unique rules, some very harmful, at this level -- I would expect a Raider operation to be shoestring at best. For a full Federation-and-Empire style Strategic scale, we must wait. Here, I could see not including a Raider option at all, instead just writing a few economic rules about garrisons and abstracting it all away completely....
Simply said, you're foisting a Macroeconomic issue into a Tactical game. That should result in a Raiders campaign Nerf, but a decent fleet, instead of an ... immature ... fleet with a campaign goodie. My opinion is that the historical concern, while warranted, should have an impact in the Campaign section, not the fleet roster, and that we have it all backwards.
After all, while the Finnish army was small in WW2, it was of high quality. Did the relative size affect the quality of the Finnish units in Flames of War? Not really -- and Log Armour turns out to be pretty cool. That's because FoW knows it is a tactical reflection. For strategic issues, go play a game of GMT's Europe Engulfed, GRD's A Winter War, or TAHGC's The Russian Campaign.
Similarly, ACtA is at its core a tactical system. I see no reason why Raiders should be shortchanged here. The Campaign provides an Operational Level system. I can see the Raiders having some very unique rules, some very harmful, at this level -- I would expect a Raider operation to be shoestring at best. For a full Federation-and-Empire style Strategic scale, we must wait. Here, I could see not including a Raider option at all, instead just writing a few economic rules about garrisons and abstracting it all away completely....
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Exactly what I was originally trying to say - but articulate!CZuschlag said:
Similar threads
