Armagedon fleet list

Actually triggy is right.

An individual ship either fits into its PL or it does not. If it substantially better than its PL it is broken. Thus fleets of that ships are broken fleets.

But a broken ship can be placed in a fleet of weaker ships or ships that do not fly well with it and effectly render the fleet 'balanced' even though the ship is not.

You can also get broken fleets, which is a case where two ships taken individually are balanced but together are too strong. In this case we could have a discussion about the Whitestar/Vaarl fleet.

The weakness of the Whitestars is low numbers at raid or lower/weak if enemy can line up good shots/low numbers of AD. Add vaarls (3 at raid), you are now have enough sinks to alleviate the low numbers/aviod being lined up on and a common redirect to alleviate the low AD. Add in that Vaarls are under SFoS stealth very survivable, you can make a case for brokeness.

You can also have a broken mechanic. This is what happened to the Minbari. The basic mechanic of stealth proved very hard to balance as there were not enough dice rolled to get any sort of eveness to the variance. It made the entire race feel broken to enough folks that it called for a change. I did not get a chance to try it before the Arm. changes but I was planning to see if I took an all Vaarka fleet would the Vree have been called busted to.

Just wanted to give an example so when we discuss this stuff we know what we mean by broken ship vs broken fleet vs broken mechanic. That way we can look at what is really not working.

Take the whitestar again, at 3+ dodge it was considered to strong. I would argue that the issue here is that 3+ dodge on something that requires multiple hits to kill and is very manueverable is too strong and both the whitestar and the whitestar 2 need to be changed. Triggy would say its not the mechanic which is broken but the ship, thus his assertion that the whitestar 2 works well with a 3+ dodge, but the whitestar needed the toning down to a 4+.

gah...rambling....

Ripple
 
Ripple stop being so goddamn logical, then i can finally stop agreeing with you for once.

It the case of broken ships that form up to make a balanced fleet.

Since when does that work? If someone is kind enough to take weak ships thats fine by everyone. But still you cant call someone a bad guy, only because he takes the most effective fleet composition available to him. Everybody does that.

Its just that some fleets end up with a mix of different ships that form a synergy so that you get more out of the whole. And in some cases certain ships have a hug synergy bonus with themselves. Turning the best fleet for Early EA into an all Sag fleet.

At 5 point raid:
2 Sags plus 2 Hyps and 2 Novae seems like a nice fleet, with different ships for different jobs. Sag for long range, Novae for close range and fighter support, hyps for high damage output where you need it. Great synergy.
But it is just more effective to take 10 Sags, because the synergy bonus of long range crit weaponry is powerful. Anything gets engaged at first turn for maximum firepower. Anyone that wants to fight at close range has to weather your bombardement, anyone that fights at long range, is basically just trying to compare to your primary strength.
Try making a better fleet than the 10 Sag one. There isnt, anything you switch out only reduces your effectiveness.

I think we will see lots of house rules to make Sags less prominent. Simply because anything allowed by the rules, might seem abusive, but it does not constitute an actual abuse. Like getting heavily drunk sure seems abusive (all the other person that have to bear with you...) But it is not an actual abuse until you try do drive a car.

So someone playing with 10 Sags will get some bad looks for that, but its legal, so he can play it. Its not the players fault for taking the best option available to him. Sure outside of an actual game and especially for friendly games, you can agree to work out agreements. But its still official.

I just prefer to play official, instead of working the rules. Like playing the White Star and Minbari during SFOS. Not liked, but thats the rules for those ships. Tourney rules just meant, new stuff thats straight from the book, but balanced.


Gahh some seriously multipathed rambling.....hope it makes sense.
 
Shouldn't the Nova or Hyperion be 'the ship' for early year lists instead of the Sag? I don't know, perhaps from a business POV overpowering the Sag could perhaps translate into more mini sales.
 
Nonono prelude. look at the Crusade era fleet box.

EA loves Missle ships, to the exclusion of everything else. 3 Missle cruisers as theyre far more needed than advanced cruisers. Who needs an escort vessel anyway?


/sarcasm off

Ok ill shut up. But who needs artillery vessels than line ships?
 
I borrowed Dennbok's copy of Armageddon and gave the new rules a spin with a 6 pt Raid fleet of Early EA, vs Dilgar. The Dilgar fleet consisted of four Targaths and two Rohrics, my fleet was two Artemis, Olympus, Oracle [now at skirmish, finally], Assault Hyperion, Rail Hyperion, a vanilla Hyperion, Nova and two Sagis.

I ended up winning by destroying the Dilgar fleet after losing four ships, two to 6-6 instakills. The Sagis did a fair bit of damage but I didn't think they were overwhelmingly heinous. If anything my ship of the match was the Oracle, which managed to paint up a enemy ship almost every turn! As long as they're not fielding in absurd amounts, I don't think they're too broken.

As for new rules the fighters did well, didn't use JPs or anything else.
 
Sounds like a great battle. Something i would have loved to see.

Unfortunately, it is not represantative.

Two many lucky rolls on EA side. Cause 6-6 kills can be gamewinners by themselves, and two in a single game....OUCH And redirect fire every turn.... chances for that are very low. Even 3 scouts have a 30% (8/27 cases) failure rate for a single redirect.

Plus it doesnt matter if the Sag is just a tad little bit good if used in moderation. Its all about the legal way to play, and that means 10 Sags all the way. Or rather 3 Sags in an otherwise balanced fleet, and you still have an advantage (albeit smaller) against your enemy.
 
Uhhhh both?

If you dont play to win. Then all you had was two fleets showing up, throwing some dice and leaving. Then why play ACTA at all? Just play a game of dice. If you dont think about some way to win, the winner wont have had fun, cause yes he won, but only because the other person let him. Wargaming is about tactics taking the lead, and making dice less of a factor. Thats called winning. If you dont do it, then it stops being a tabletop wargame and becomes just what? Everybody likes to win, but only against opposition.

But its alot more fun, if you know that the game is balanced instead of, oh yeah going up against the Sag fleet again. DFid i lose because his fleet is 5% better due to 3 Sags, or did i lose because of my stupidity. Games tend to come down to the smallest luck sometimes.
 
Well obviously when I play I'm aiming to win, but not to the detriment of the other player's game. Taking a balanced fleet is part of that - providing an enjoyable game for both players instead of just trying your damndest to screw him over.
 
That's another reason I only usually play campaign games. You need a well-balanced fleet to cover the various scenarios you'll come up against. A 10-Sagittarius fleet would be terrible for blockade running or recon run
scenarios, among others. I've always thought ACTA plays best at campaign level as balance issues with certain ships or fleets tend to be lessened considerably. I'm thinking mainly of the Minbari under SFOS here.
 
Correct. There is only death with those missles.

And saying all is ok, well simply ignore some problems by playing campaigns, isnt really the way to go.

I play mostly freindly oneshots. Having ships that are vastly better than others is just bad.

Its like this if you lose to a 5 point raid fleet that only uses 4 Sags. That isnt too much, considering some other fleets. Uhh 6 Ka'T** played by our nice Mythbusters. The number doesnt seem overwhelming. But it still leaves this stupid feeling. Yes i lost, but he was using those stupid ships again.

Ignoring a problem doesnt make it go away ppl. (As an exfriend realized with his now ex-girlefriend ^^). Stuff needs to be fixed. Its not only downgrading some ships need a boost.

How often do people field a Kutai? Or a Sko'Kos? Or a ......list goes on.
 
I don't think it's ignoring a problem if the problem only exhibits itself in a specific field of play. A small number of Saggi isn't a problem in a game.
 
Destroid said:
I ended up winning by destroying the Dilgar fleet after losing four ships, two to 6-6 instakills.

You know the 6-6 crit is no longer an instakill, right? I assume the damage caused was sufficient to destroy your ships though.

LBH
 
You know the 6-6 crit is no longer an instakill, right? I assume the damage caused was sufficient to destroy your ships though.

That's right...

I should clarify that in each instance [Sagi and Hyperion] were both hit by Heavy Bolter fire, which both involved a 6-6 critical at Triple Damage as per Masters of Destruction. It was in the vicinity of 45 damage each time, just from the crit... :shock:
 
The Sag is extremely unbalanced ship, it will take a Elutarian in 1 on 1 battle nearly evertime both are the same type of ship but ones raid and the other is skirmish. The Sag has nearly more hits than any other of skirmish lvl, Primary weapon in all arcs, ability to take missle varients, hull 5 and interceptors, turreted anti fighter weapon. Thats pretty impressive. Sayin it's not broken in small numbers doesn't really wash.
If it was hull 4 then you would say it's weakness is beams.
 
Destroid said:
You know the 6-6 crit is no longer an instakill, right? I assume the damage caused was sufficient to destroy your ships though.

That's right...

I should clarify that in each instance [Sagi and Hyperion] were both hit by Heavy Bolter fire, which both involved a 6-6 critical at Triple Damage as per Masters of Destruction. It was in the vicinity of 45 damage each time, just from the crit... :shock:

thats what i love about Dilgar and their nasty criticals, unfortunutely against Earth and their interceptors i never get through with enough weapons to get many criticals
 
Well my Narn usually get one hit in.....which ends up being a crit anyway....., Dilgar arre my next faction, after i finish Centauri.....if i could just decide which raid ship to take......

Ehhh back on track. If you consider 2 different missile ships, both from the EA fleet list, which was, or rather still is as of now, just one; you get something quite astounding.

4 Sags cost 2 Raid. 1 Apollo costs as much.

Apollo puts 16 missles up into space within two turns.
4 Sags make that 40 missles........... and thats just switching between front and side arc.
Suvivability is kinda the same, cause hull5 with more than enough damage points kinda equals each other.

Uhhh right ...............I know that higher lvl ships tend to have less firepower than lower ones, but this is just wrong.

(For those of you who know that i play Narn, Ka'Tans are maybe a tad little bit too good, but its not that sick as this comparison)
 
Voronesh said:
For those of you who know that i play Narn, Ka'Tans are maybe a tad little bit too good, but its not that sick as this comparison

i dont think Ka'Tans are overpowerful at skirmish (unless you take 10 of them, then thats just cheesy)
 
Voronesh said:
Correct. There is only death with those missles.

And saying all is ok, well simply ignore some problems by playing campaigns, isnt really the way to go.

I play mostly freindly oneshots. Having ships that are vastly better than others is just bad.

Its like this if you lose to a 5 point raid fleet that only uses 4 Sags. That isnt too much, considering some other fleets. Uhh 6 Ka'T** played by our nice Mythbusters. The number doesnt seem overwhelming. But it still leaves this stupid feeling. Yes i lost, but he was using those stupid ships again.

Ignoring a problem doesnt make it go away ppl. (As an exfriend realized with his now ex-girlefriend ^^). Stuff needs to be fixed. Its not only downgrading some ships need a boost.

How often do people field a Kutai? Or a Sko'Kos? Or a ......list goes on.

I have fielded the sho'Kov torpedo cutter in each of my last two campaign games, lost two, one got crippled, the other is fine. . ish. Excelent initiative sinks, and even dodge 5 makes them annoying to your enemies. plus a 20" ion torp isn't to be sniffed at with super AP and precise. I would even be tempted to take a raft of torp cutters against an armageddon ship. can't deny you would lose 1 a round, maybe 2 depending on the enemies ship. but 10, then 8, then 6, then 4, then 2. Thats 30 Ion torps, decent chance to both hit and crit. but it's no ridiculous saggi fleet
 
Back
Top