wkehrman said:
Dag's argument is that far from being broken, this "imbalance" is reflective of what one sees in the series.
I would argue in a game setting where things are supposed to be *fun* for both players that such a situation is inappropriate in almost every instance. A game that is decidedly and consistently unbalanced in favor of one side fast becomes unenjoyable to play for everyone. As such, in a *game* it is necessary to make the opponents as equal as possible so as to promote enjoyment. Few people like playing the underdog all the time. The relative superiority of one force over another as per the background can be represented, but has to be limited in order to satisfy the primary rule above. Otherwise there really is no reason to play the game in the first place since in the case of B5, the Minbari, ISA, Vorlons & Shadows would pretty much wipe out all opponents if they went on the offensive. Thus I have to agree with those who say certain fleets probably need to be toned down slightly in order to promote general enjoyment for everyone. Sure, B5 is popular, but I doubt ACTA would remain so if such imbalances were to persist over the long run.
Another thing to consider is that the show is canon. The game is not. The latter represents fictional occurences withiin the background and since it is fiction, anything can happen. Civilizations can advance faster than in the show, they can develop new and unique technologies, they can do things differently to compensate for the advantages of other races. In short, B5 the game does not have to be a direct translation of the show, nor in my opinion should it be. If it were I think it would be far less interesting overall.
Fleets get condemned for being broken in many cases because the opponents are unwilling or unable to rearrange their fleets. A ship that fires two or three big shots at a White Star is going to have less success than a ship that throws a lot of little shots at it. That isn't a "break" that's character and that character comes from the mythos.
Yes to the first statement; perhaps to the second. There are built in weaknesses/advantages in all fleets in this game which is as it should be. Some forces will always have an advantage over some others. The big problem I see is when one fleet has a consistent advantage over *all* opponents. Unfortunately, (and since I know this discussion stems mainly from complaints with the ISA) with the ISA the way it is I think it suffers from this problem at least to a certain extent. Sure, they supposedly have "weaknesses," but for each supposed disadvantage there is a counter that they also possess which effectively negates the weakness to begin with. So the whitestar has few damage points. With adaptive armour and self-repair this is negated. So it doesn't have anti-fighter, it has dodge instead coupled with a speed greater than most fighters. The list goes on. Sure, there are ways to defeat them, but in reality most fleets have a harder time at it than the ISA has defeating their opponents. You can argue all you want about changing tactics, but when a single fleet has a counter to almost all opposing tactics, it comes across as having no weaknesses to speak of. *That* is what makes games unenjoyable. I'm not saying I don't like the challenge of playing against the ISA or any other such fleet, I do. But from what I've seen of them, I do think they are unfair to a larger group of opponents than any other force in the game. Some may say that they should have these advantages based on the show. For me I say those advantages should stay in the show and are not necessarily appropriate in a game setting.
dag'karlove said:
Ok Time for a Question for you to think about as im out to Smash up some of David an la shoks Vorlons, " If the Iranian Navy and the US navy went at it would that be balanced?" or what about was it balanced when the russians went after the germans in WW2 after the americans and Brits and Fench went ater Germany ona western Front?"
Those situations are an inappropriate comparison. In real life everyone wants and trys to attain an advantage over their enemies. Doing so ultimately saves lives which is a good thing. In a game, however, such concerns are inappropriate because the goal is for *both* players to have fun. They each do so by believing when they start the game that they have a chance of winning if they make the right choices and fortune goes their way. That has no resemblance to a USN vs IN conflict since I have no doubts the Iranians know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cannot win such a fight. They may inflict damage, but ultimately they would lose and they know it. Such an attitude cannot exist on the gaming table, otherwise no one would play the game at all since it would be no fun. Ultimately the most important tenet of any game is that given relatively equal conditions, in this case fleet rules, average dice rolls, etc., each player has the same chance of winning as their opponent and what determines the outcome is not how good your rules are, but how well you use them. This is the essence of competition and why unbalanced rules do not make for enjoyable experiences for either player (usually. There are some who like to win for winning's sake regardless).
Cheers, Gary
(which applies to pretty much all shows etc)
