Balancing Ships
- Thread starter cordas
- Start date
captainsmirk
Mongoose
I'll search for screen grab...
Basically two Shadow ships slice the Sharlin into about four pieces in about the same time the Sharlin rips apart Earth ships...
Nick
Basically two Shadow ships slice the Sharlin into about four pieces in about the same time the Sharlin rips apart Earth ships...
Nick
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Based on how easily they destroy the one in the clip I suspect that for what ever reason they didn't put all that much effort into killing the other one...
They had no more trouble cutting through the Sharlin than they did G'Quan's.
Nick
They had no more trouble cutting through the Sharlin than they did G'Quan's.
Nick
Screen evidence would appear to the contrary, since one survived - and the Shadows never miss, and never give up until they've killed you, remember? 
Also, Sharlins didn't seem to have any trouble killing Shadow ships, either IIRC (in the two? engagements we see them take them on).
Also, Sharlins didn't seem to have any trouble killing Shadow ships, either IIRC (in the two? engagements we see them take them on).
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Well as far as the three points go:
1) One Off Games: Simply put I think the fleet lists should be balanced for these above all else. Campaign games still when all's said and done come down to fighting battles and though theres more going on and you draw from an overall pool of ships each individual battle is still effectively a one off game in terms of how well balanced the fleets are against each other!
2) Campaign play: As I started to say above I believe that a games rules and fleet lists should be balanced so the lists are balanced to fight individual battles. Campaign rules should be wirtten with the fleet lists in mind not the other way round. It doesnt matter how much more the Vorlons pay for their ships in campaign for example if their ships are so good that they can win any individual battle with ease anywy (which is not to say they can thats just an example)
3)Fluff/Background: Background from the show, especially in the case of the ships actually seen on screen should be of paramount importance when dealing with the overall design and playstyle of a ship or fleet but individual balance shouldnt be influenced by this. Sure Minbari ships should be nastier than the younger races but thats why theyre higher PLs, you should still be able to balance a fleet for 1 off games without sacrificing gameplay balance. We all want to play a game that feels just like the show but noone wants to play a fleet that cant win battles because its too primitive. A Sharlin may be a far better ship than a Vorchan but it should be balanced so that in game points a Sharlin's worth of Vorchans should be a fair fight for it and so on.
Overall Fluff background should be behind a ships overall desing but not influence the slight tweaks necessary to make it a fair game.
1) One Off Games: Simply put I think the fleet lists should be balanced for these above all else. Campaign games still when all's said and done come down to fighting battles and though theres more going on and you draw from an overall pool of ships each individual battle is still effectively a one off game in terms of how well balanced the fleets are against each other!
2) Campaign play: As I started to say above I believe that a games rules and fleet lists should be balanced so the lists are balanced to fight individual battles. Campaign rules should be wirtten with the fleet lists in mind not the other way round. It doesnt matter how much more the Vorlons pay for their ships in campaign for example if their ships are so good that they can win any individual battle with ease anywy (which is not to say they can thats just an example)
3)Fluff/Background: Background from the show, especially in the case of the ships actually seen on screen should be of paramount importance when dealing with the overall design and playstyle of a ship or fleet but individual balance shouldnt be influenced by this. Sure Minbari ships should be nastier than the younger races but thats why theyre higher PLs, you should still be able to balance a fleet for 1 off games without sacrificing gameplay balance. We all want to play a game that feels just like the show but noone wants to play a fleet that cant win battles because its too primitive. A Sharlin may be a far better ship than a Vorchan but it should be balanced so that in game points a Sharlin's worth of Vorchans should be a fair fight for it and so on.
Overall Fluff background should be behind a ships overall desing but not influence the slight tweaks necessary to make it a fair game.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Alexb83 said:
nope what he is referring to IS Shadow Dancing. That ship doesn't get back home, not without a huge amount of sticky tape and superglue, it flew into pieces!
I'll get the screen grabs
this is the Sharlin ripped apart in "Shadow Dancing"
Lord David the Denied said:
The problem you will have if you balance the game by the fluff on the screen, you will only have 4 races ever played. Minbari, Shadows, ISA, and Vorlons. No other race has a chance against the Minbari, Shadows, and the Vorlons in the show. They have a very questionable chance against the Whitestar fleet. This makes for a very stagnant game with poor sales and poor playability.
You have to remember the only reason that Sheridan was able to get help from League Members is because the Minbari and the Vorlons agreed to help them against the shadows.
Why would you want to play a game and invest in a fleet if you were guaranteed to lose every battle you were in if a given fleet showed up? That is what balancing off the fluff would do to you. The EA would NEVER, Ever have a chance against the Minbari. The LONW would get slaughtered by the Vorlons and the Shadows. The Narn would be an afterthought race.
Nope, if that were the case, I would play a game other than ACTA.
Dave
Dave
emperorpenguin said:Alexb83 said:
nope what he is referring to IS Shadow Dancing. That ship doesn't get back home, not without a huge amount of sticky tape and superglue, it flew into pieces!
I'll get the screen grabs
this is the Sharlin ripped apart in "Shadow Dancing"
Fair cop - I didn't think you saw one destroyed until season 4 and the final battle.
IIRC at the end of the battle shot from Shadow Dancing, there is another Sharlin with a missing fin - intimating that it managed to kill the Shadow ship after it before it was killed itself.
Also, I think at Coriana 6 you see another damaged but not destroyed (the one to which I was referring) and you see a Sharlin kill a shadow ship in the same way that the Whitestar and G'quan did with beam fire.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Alexb83 said:
yes you do see a Sharlin with a chunk out of the fin, there is another which takes a hit to the upper fin at Coriana 6 but we don't see it die.
Again the plot helps - Sharlins kill Shadow ships - when they are pinned by telepaths and can't maneuvere to kill them...............also when Shadows go after oone white star with a telepath rtaher than killing the ship jamming the other three shadow ships - plot wins out over logic etc.
I also kind think the Shadows killed the odd Minbari ship a thousand years ago....................don't they wipe out a fleet and a base beofre B4 turns up?
I also kind think the Shadows killed the odd Minbari ship a thousand years ago....................don't they wipe out a fleet and a base beofre B4 turns up?
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Again, is this a game or a simulation?
Games imply balance. Games are designed for fun for both sides involved, and is a contest of skill and/or luck. Results are often dependednt on the actual minutae involved in strategic execution. real-world gameable events include the results of the German landing at Narvik and the results of Operation Wasserubung, the strategic campaign for the battle of Chancellorsville in the US Civil War, and the political and actual warfare of the Japanese Sengoku Period.
Simulations purport to describe accurate results. They are often not fair or even interesting, and have no need to create amusement. Results are often predetermined by global events set in motion by the circumstances long before the players begin the simulation. Examples here are the results of the German invasion of Poland (Case White), the results of Operation Desert Storm, and the final results of Operation Barbarossa (especially given what we know now about the resources available to the Russians in the failed Operation Mars could have simply been an operational reserve!).
Try winning as the Polish, the Iraqis, or the Germans in a strategic sense in the above battles. Good luck to you! It's no fun -- there's no chance.
I demand fun from my games. Simulations make concessions to fun by establishing victory conditions -- if you only lose by this much, you win.
Is that the direction we want A Call to Arms to take? No!
Therefore, I suggest we choose game, not simulation. That means fluff must make concessions to fun. Mongoose has done just that. And it is precisely the correct choice.
And from a game, we need Balance. That comes from a variety of sources, but only one stands foremost -- Playtesting. Nothing else creates the same return. All the theorizing in the world doesn't stand up if the experimental results don't match the prediction. And the basic test is the direct contest. The one-on-one and one-off matches are -- or should be -- our guides. We aren't making the best universe which includes a game that we can, we're making the best game based on a universe that we can. And games are successful if they are fun. And games can only be fun if they have balance.
Games imply balance. Games are designed for fun for both sides involved, and is a contest of skill and/or luck. Results are often dependednt on the actual minutae involved in strategic execution. real-world gameable events include the results of the German landing at Narvik and the results of Operation Wasserubung, the strategic campaign for the battle of Chancellorsville in the US Civil War, and the political and actual warfare of the Japanese Sengoku Period.
Simulations purport to describe accurate results. They are often not fair or even interesting, and have no need to create amusement. Results are often predetermined by global events set in motion by the circumstances long before the players begin the simulation. Examples here are the results of the German invasion of Poland (Case White), the results of Operation Desert Storm, and the final results of Operation Barbarossa (especially given what we know now about the resources available to the Russians in the failed Operation Mars could have simply been an operational reserve!).
Try winning as the Polish, the Iraqis, or the Germans in a strategic sense in the above battles. Good luck to you! It's no fun -- there's no chance.
I demand fun from my games. Simulations make concessions to fun by establishing victory conditions -- if you only lose by this much, you win.
Is that the direction we want A Call to Arms to take? No!
Therefore, I suggest we choose game, not simulation. That means fluff must make concessions to fun. Mongoose has done just that. And it is precisely the correct choice.
And from a game, we need Balance. That comes from a variety of sources, but only one stands foremost -- Playtesting. Nothing else creates the same return. All the theorizing in the world doesn't stand up if the experimental results don't match the prediction. And the basic test is the direct contest. The one-on-one and one-off matches are -- or should be -- our guides. We aren't making the best universe which includes a game that we can, we're making the best game based on a universe that we can. And games are successful if they are fun. And games can only be fun if they have balance.
vitalis6969
Mongoose
Davesaint said:
With the current way of selecting units, yes. But with a different way, no. See my further comments below.
You wouldn't be, especially if a points system were used with the ships rather than the current level system. That would reflect show canon far better than the current system works.
Lets say for example that a single sharlin cruiser is worth five nova (should be Omega) destroyers. For an equal game you would have the minbari player fielding one sharlin against the EA player's five nova's (again, instert Omega). Hence you would have an equal game.
Same system used every day by thousands of people for WHFB and 40k. In 40K, individually my chaos space marines are worth far more than a single ork, yet I have had my butt handed to me by the greenskins because of the great green tide and lucky dice rolling.
Now it can be said that by sticking to canon you would never have had a single sharlin vs five novas (and Omegas again.. sigh). True, but the question wasn't about how you fielded your troops, it was about what should be most important about balancing game play in the sense of ship STATS. The death from a thousand bites does work and using a points system or a further spread out pl system that more accurately represents the difference of power levels between ships would go a long way to supporting balanced fights whether they are in tourney, one-off or campaign games.
The other thing that would help greatly is a "commonality" stat for a ship as this would stop fleet min/maxing for the most incredible fleet you could put together. In the show the most recognizable Narn ships are the T'Loth in the first season and the G'Quon for the rest of the series. For the EA it is the Hyperion and the Nova (Omega). For the Centauri, you have the winged Phallus of Doom followed by the Primus Hull.
My personal take is that canon from the show should come first in deciding what weapons load out, etc a ship has. Then the fleets are balanced from there taking into account my above comments. If you aren't using canon from the show you are just playing any space game that came before using B5 ships. And so, what is the point? I might as well dig out starfleet battles or star frontiers again from their place of reverence in the gaming cabinet.
-V
captainsmirk
Mongoose
vitalis6969 said:
Perhaps being perdantic here but the Nova appears only once in the show, where as the Omega is a much more prominent and recognisable ship...
(Plus what's so phallic about the Vorchan? The Liati (not in the show admitedly) is much worse...)
Nick
I've gone for the one off games but let me elaborate:
A ship should have its concept and basic design based off of the show (or at least if not seen on the show then it should follow the general philosophy shown on the show). In addition to this B5W is a great source of information and should be used as a basis but in this case the information can be slightly altered if it means a better feel and balance to the fleet.
Once the general fleet styles are settled I believe every ship should be balanced so that it fairs well in one-off games of all sorts (by that I mean it has at least one sort of game where it will perform as well as any other ship). For most ships this means they can be taken fairly in any game at all.
Finally I believe that the campaign rules ought to take these fleet lists and allow more options and variety with any radically different effects (e.g. Self-Repair ships regaining all of their Damage) being balanced out with other rules.
Overall this keeps one-off game balance, fleet style and campaign balance all in check.
A ship should have its concept and basic design based off of the show (or at least if not seen on the show then it should follow the general philosophy shown on the show). In addition to this B5W is a great source of information and should be used as a basis but in this case the information can be slightly altered if it means a better feel and balance to the fleet.
Once the general fleet styles are settled I believe every ship should be balanced so that it fairs well in one-off games of all sorts (by that I mean it has at least one sort of game where it will perform as well as any other ship). For most ships this means they can be taken fairly in any game at all.
Finally I believe that the campaign rules ought to take these fleet lists and allow more options and variety with any radically different effects (e.g. Self-Repair ships regaining all of their Damage) being balanced out with other rules.
Overall this keeps one-off game balance, fleet style and campaign balance all in check.
One of games.
I don't mind if certain style of ships are stronger eg
Centauri better fast attack
Earth Carrier
but every race needs ships in the same role but don't have to be as strong as others if the specialise in it.
On the Sharlin thing you see Whitestars getting killed in one shot from Thridspace aliens yet sharlins take numerous hits, so much for dodge & adaptive armour ( guess the armour didn't learn in time)
I don't mind if certain style of ships are stronger eg
Centauri better fast attack
Earth Carrier
but every race needs ships in the same role but don't have to be as strong as others if the specialise in it.
On the Sharlin thing you see Whitestars getting killed in one shot from Thridspace aliens yet sharlins take numerous hits, so much for dodge & adaptive armour ( guess the armour didn't learn in time)
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
captainsmirk said:
the Nova appears a few times not just in "GROPOS"
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Triggy said:
I 100% agree with triggy. Take the show as a starting point and then work balance in
captainsmirk
Mongoose
emperorpenguin said:
Still not quite the iconic ship that the Omega was; which was the point of my comment. The Nova was only seen in any detail once.
Nick
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
captainsmirk said:
true, i did think it odd he picked that over the omega
