Balanced Races?

Keep it realtivley balanced between races?

  • Yes, I want a chance at clean win regardless of who I play?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No. Let's stop trying to force some balance. Swap sides to show who's the best tactician!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I just like to play...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Scimitar

Mongoose
Here's a question. Should the game be balanced? Many historical games have a designed imbalance (fox & geese, manchala). Games replaying WWI or WWII or American Civil War usually have a point system to reflect one side is weaker.
Should ACTA reflect the Shadow/Vorlon complete superiority over younger races? Should the Minbari be undisputedly superior to everyone but the ISA? Should the Narn be the weakest of the major powers and League be weaker still?

Let the discussion begin.
 

Ender

Mongoose
Well... I do agree that certain races should be "better" than others. But this doesn't need to be reflected by all out better stats... or anything of the sort... perhaps allow certain special actions specific to a race. Or special abilities that help you mold your playing style similar to how that race WOULD fight.
 

oreso

Mongoose
ACTA does use a point system and this balances the different superiority quite well.

Point of interest: Mimbari ships cost one level above their counter parts.

Another point of interest: Ive been designing a generally more powerful Shadow force that is balanced by engineering in their weaknesses (the other side gets telapaths automatically, and their ships run away when they are losing).
 

firekite

Mongoose
this way leads to madness and cookie cutter ship designs. are the russian navy and the american navy balanced ? this is a problem that led to all the races in starfleet battles tohave ships that are almost identicle in design. while being balanced is good what price are we the players willing to play to achieve it. 8)
 

mthomason

Mongoose
Realism first, balance second.

I have no problems with a "mega kill-everything ship" if a race has one in canon. As others have said, just hike up the priority level to keep everything fair. Personally I'll just estimate two opposing forces for an interesting scenario, but I just prefer scenario play to tournament-style...

Balance is for computer RTS games, not for wargaming :)
 

Graser

Mongoose
mthomason said:
Realism first, balance second.

I have no problems with a "mega kill-everything ship" if a race has one in canon. As others have said, just hike up the priority level to keep everything fair. Personally I'll just estimate two opposing forces for an interesting scenario, but I just prefer scenario play to tournament-style...

Balance is for computer RTS games, not for wargaming :)

Well said! 8)
 

lupus

Mongoose
mthomason said:
Realism first, balance second.

I have no problems with a "mega kill-everything ship" if a race has one in canon. As others have said, just hike up the priority level to keep everything fair. Personally I'll just estimate two opposing forces for an interesting scenario, but I just prefer scenario play to tournament-style...

Balance is for computer RTS games, not for wargaming :)

I have to agree in RL two Generals don't meet up and say sorry old chap you've got 200 more tanks than me and loads of aircraft will have to go...They just get on with it...Tactics are worth a third of an armies compliment...
 

oreso

Mongoose
Scenarios are the place for thorough realism, like, uneven sides and deployment and other advantages.

The standard even-point game should be balanced, as it has to cover a variety of environments, not least, competitive campaigns or tournaments.

Balance first, and always first as this is a competitive game. Realism can be brought in where it is wanted (by varying the points values, etc, just like scenarios such as Ambush or deliberately unbalanced historic scenarios).
If balance takes second place then it cannot be brought in as easily when its wanted.

This is a competitive wargame with the same values as an RTS, it is not a cooperative RPG.
 

Pauly_D

Mongoose
i think that balance and realism are as important as each other
you need some sort of Balanced forces (unless you are are doing a historical scenario) but at the same time it needs to be realistic otherwise fans of the show wouldnt like it so much.
i think it is unfair to say that swapping sides would be the best way to find out the best tactician. if all sides were balanced then the best way to find the best tactician is to play each other with similar strength armies.

lupus said:
I have to agree in RL two Generals don't meet up and say sorry old chap you've got 200 more tanks than me and loads of aircraft will have to go...They just get on with it...Tactics are worth a third of an armies compliment...

also if good tactics are used then tactics can be worth way more than a third of an armies compliment. Personally i think tactics are more important than actually what is in the army most of the time
 

Incitatus

Mongoose
I think you could make the assumption that a balanced battle is a "tipping point" of sorts-- one where either side could easily have won the thing and turned the course of larger events.

If you want realism, then the Minbari not only have better ships, but outnumber their opposition by large margins. Or the Centauri do the same thing, since they evidently could lose track of enough ships to make a decent galaxy-wide raiding force.
 

Kalamadea

Banded Mongoose
Point for point, all games should be balanced. Now I don't care if a shadow ship is as powerful as 10 Omegas, so long as Omegas cost 10 points and shadow ships cost 100. I completely agree that scenarios are hwere one fleet should be more powerful (ie have more stuff) than another fleet, that's why scenarios exist. But in a "show up and fight" match, both sides should be dead even.
 

Pauly_D

Mongoose
Kalamadea said:
Point for point, all games should be balanced. Now I don't care if a shadow ship is as powerful as 10 Omegas, so long as Omegas cost 10 points and shadow ships cost 100. I completely agree that scenarios are hwere one fleet should be more powerful (ie have more stuff) than another fleet, that's why scenarios exist. But in a "show up and fight" match, both sides should be dead even.

i agree with you there
1 ubership vs the same power of smaller ships

if you went by realism and said that a race only attacked with a massive fleet of capital ships and it would get boring to do that all the time
 
Top