Being weak at certain Priority Lvls

[Target]

First go at a poll.
Just wondering how other people felt certain races being very limited at low priorities and extremly hard to win with due to weak ships at that lvl.
I feel that it should be that with good tactics and fleet selection should have more to do with the game instead of having races with crap ships at low lvls to try to balance the Fleet List.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Sounds absolutely fine by me.

Wulf

 

[prelude_to_war]

Disparities in PLs is a simple equalizer.

Also works from a fluff standpoint - Minbari wouldn't really bother with skirmishes...but if you stumble around and wake the dragon, you'll get a war.

 

[Celisasu]

Well imbalanced priority levels is part of why nobody is interested in campaigns around here and that all you see is 5 point Raids with tourney lists(well once saw 5 point Raids with tourney lists until Armageddon merged everything. Now we're all kind of testing out other wargames instead. Hate to say it, but Armageddon was a killing blow to an already faltering game here). After all why should we bother to fight an engagement where the forces aren't equal? If Minbari get a Patrol engagement they'll just start with their fleet at the table edge and fly off of it on Turn 1.

Balancing fleets by imabalancing them in different engagements isn't balance. It's just a quick dirty fix that does more damage than good.

 

[LordClinto]

Disparities in PLs is a simple equalizer.

Also works from a fluff standpoint - Minbari wouldn't really bother with skirmishes...but if you stumble around and wake the dragon, you'll get a war.

I agree, some fleet lists (aka Early EA) are supposed to be on the lighter side, while some (Crusade anyone) are supposed to be top heavy. It helps to reflect technological advances.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hi guys,

I can give some input here

One of the factors we are looking at with new fleet lists (being playtested now, though won't appear for many months yet) is to give most fleets a good spread at pretty much any PL.

I say most, not all. Fleets such as the EA, ISA and Centauri will find their capabilities a lot broader. However, the more 'marginal' fleets (and I mean marginal in terms of their spread and concept, rather than raw capabilities) such as the Vorlons, Shadows and Raiders will not change much from what you have seen already. These fleets simply do not fight 'fair' and so, in an equal battle, will suffer accordingly in some areas. In the 'real world', you may muster your 5 point Raid level fleet, but the Shadows will be coming in with 10 points at Armageddon level!

 

[The Eagle]

I'm fine with it under two conditions.

1. that people randomize the levels they play at , so every fleet will be big dog at some points and underdog at others.

2. Dont go overbord. I don't mind some fleets having advantages in certain pl's/scenarioes but everybody should have a chanse to pull trough.

 

[Hash]

I know I'm in the minority here but I play the game for the game, not any devotion or love of B5, so for me I would like there to be a fair chance of winning the game at any PL vs any race...the deciding factor should be tactics and fleet selection.

I don't mind one race having better battle ships comparatively than they have skirmish to reflect fluff etc (for example) but this should be reflect by the race with good battle choices tending to take a 5pt raid fleet with battle ships (say 2 battle, 1 Raid).

This should have a fair chance against a race who has good skirmish choices (but poor battle ones.)

e.g 5pt Raid
Race 1 (with good battle choices)
Race 2 (with good skirmish choices)

Race 1 selects: 2 Battle, 1 Raid
Race 2 selects: 8 Skirmish, 1 Raid

They should be fairly evenly matched in my opinion...anything else just isn't too much fun for me I'm afraid. Shadows only being good if they're allowed 10pt Armageddon vs. other races 5pt Raid is abhorrent to me, sorry :evil:

 

[Triggy]

Hi guys,

I can give some input here

One of the factors we are looking at with new fleet lists (being playtested now, though won't appear for many months yet) is to give most fleets a good spread at pretty much any PL.

I say most, not all. Fleets such as the EA, ISA and Centauri will find their capabilities a lot broader. However, the more 'marginal' fleets (and I mean marginal in terms of their spread and concept, rather than raw capabilities) such as the Vorlons, Shadows and Raiders will not change much from what you have seen already. These fleets simply do not fight 'fair' and so, in an equal battle, will suffer accordingly in some areas. In the 'real world', you may muster your 5 point Raid level fleet, but the Shadows will be coming in with 10 points at Armageddon level!

Excellent, make sure the ships are balanced in their fleets and although some fleets may have more choice, most should be capable of a fight at any PL. This means few selections at a given PL is OK, underpowering all selections at a given PL is not so good

 

[Commador Q]

i think it's alright in some cases. i think every fleet should have an optimal priority level at which they perform the best, and outside that level they while till competitive will have to deal with a slight loss in overall efectivnes. For example the Vorlons have very large, very powerfull ships, but as a consequence they will be outnumbered at lower priority levels because their smallest ships are so powerfull. this is fine because the vorlons should still have a fair change at winning, but the vorlon player can't use the same tactics as he would at a war level game when he's playing a skermish.

what is not alright however is making a fleet unbeatable at one priority level and unwinable at another. for exaplme let's say a fleet has a war level ship that could take on any armagedon level ship one on one, but it's only raid and lower choices are fighters with one attack die and the week trait. that fleet would be badly balanced because regradless of tactics it just can't field a low level ship worth the counter it's printed on, but at war level it'll have a decided advantage over every other fleet.

 

[LaranosTZ]

I have no problems with fleets having limited ship selections at certain priority levels, as long as those ships are = to other races at the same priority level.

 

[Chernobyl]

I think I'm with Laronz on this one, I think its more important for ships of equal PL in different fleets to be well matched/equivalent. Gaps exist in fleets, thats fine, but I think there's a larger issue of the priority level structure. I think it can be made to work, but requires more...balance.

Chern

 

[Slightly Norse John]

Scaling up and down between PLs is, or at the very least magnifies, the problem. A larger ship will generally get beaten by it's equivalent value in small ships, even from the same list, unless they are very different in basic quality.
We actually tried the extreme case today; an Ancient (the Dark Knife) against a 6-Battle Dilgar pack, 8 Targrath 4 Omelos 6 Jashakar. The Dilgar, me, managed to kill it early in the fire sequence on turn 4, losing one Targrath and one Jashakar in the process, and two more Jashakar plus light damage to several other ships when it exploded.
All right, there was a large element of luck- three successive loss of fire arc crits. That, too, is part of the system.
Broadly speaking, a wolfpack of ships 2 PLs lower or below will take a single large ship, in my experience, with light enough losses and damage to fight another battle immediately afterwards, without significantly decreased chances.
What makes the Minbari scary is that they are basically good enough to swim against the tide, what makes the early EA scary is that their lighter ships can swim with it and make up that wolfpack. Being good at lower PL's means to me that you can rip higher- level- optimised fleets apart.

What does real life have to do with anything? The fluff should fit the reality on the table, not the other way around. In 'reality', the Minbari would never fight an even battle- the whole art of strategy is arranging uneven battles, slanting the odds in your favour. Game balance matters more to game players. By all means, unbalanced set scenarios, with appropriate victory conditions, but we need equal value selections to have equal combat power in their own different ways, I reckon.

 

[H]

I think disparities in levels makes for good tactical battles, with differing philosophies and people will gain or loose depending on the situation.

taking the crusade era EA, which I believe is the issue, 5 Chronos at raid is interesting, and my own Marathon, 2 chronos and a delphi is not to be sniffed at.

 

[Hash]

...course this could all be avoided with 1pt Armageddon tournaments...

 

[Locutus9956]

yes 1 pt Armageddon ftw

ps Hiff that is odly enough EXACTLY my current 5 pt raid fleet as it happens

pps. I still want my fecking War level Warlock back though

 

[Silvereye]

...course this could all be avoided with 1pt Armageddon tournaments...

There are a couple of minor faults with it, try picking a Drazi fleet as you normally would want to break it at Skirmish, with a Raid and Patrol choice or two. In this instance it does not quite break down favourably to do what you can with 5 (or the equivalent 6 Armagedon) Raid. 2 War sort of solves this as you get two split breaks, but you also technically have more PL bits and flexibility floating about at Battle/Raid level.

Back to the topic, I don't too much mind the facts of the races philosophy is imprinted on their design and fleet selection, as long as that fleet list is fair to play at all PLs. The Drazi are probably the best example of the lower end of the PL scale - most fleets will feature lot of Skirmish choices and the Minbari the other end, they'll want their war-ships. The campaign PL conflict generator kind of balances this out as Minbari player can add +3 to their roll to try and push things up,and the Drazi player can ad -3 to the roll and push things down.

When the 2 fleets meet what I would like to see is that the battle will be resolved by Good tactics (i.e playing to your races strenghts and exploiting your opponents weakness), a sound fleet selection from your races list, and a dollop luck and a small blessing from the dice godess (all wargames need this).

What I would like to see is less balancing of a fleet list with itself. I want a Kutai gunship to be a good choice for the Centauri depending on the circumstances. I want to be able to fairly consider taking a Troligan. Whilst I don't expect a Poseidon to be able to take on an 8 ship Narn Bat squad (fleet carrier Vs ship killers), I do expect a Poseidon to be a very valid option as part of a large EA fleet.

 

[Target]

Good that Mr Sprange has said most fleets are getting more balance but can't understand why do the same with Vorlons,Shadows and Raiders. If they aren't going to be viable in all priorities why have fleet lists for them. I think all races don't play fair if they can manage it. It's not really a good reason. If i had one those 3 races mentioned i would be a little annoyed that i won't be able to win at certain priorities.

 

[Ripple]

Agree with Target here...

Star Fleet Battles wrestled for years with a 'historical' order of battle issue. Folks cried for years over the shoehorning in of new ships there was no basis for just to keep product rolling out the door. Folks cried for years that their open campaigns needed non-historical hulls for when race A started to dominiate their universe. The solution to a large degree was to make ships that were 'what if' ships. Conjectural designs allow the designers to have their view of the races position and philosophy but allow the players to tell their own stories without all the haggleing over homebrew ships.

Keep tourneys to historical lists and let the players have their fun with 'campaign' or conjectural lists. To some degree we already have this with the Shadow Omega. Almost no one I know has used the ISD in any game, so the Shadow shows up far more often than it should according to the designers. Marketing is to some degree about letting your customer have their cake and eat it too.

Ripple

 

[DrSeltsam]

I have to agree with Target and Ripple.

Im also playing the game for the game and not for the pure love of B5 - i like the serie but that's it. A fluff based fleet can also be build with a balanced fleet list - the other way will be difficult to impossible.

Quotes like "Centauri will find their capabilities a lot broader" and "Vorlons, Shadows and Raiders will not change much from what you have seen already" will only start a nervous twitch of my eyebrow ...

If they aren't going to be viable in all priorities why have fleet lists for them.

... summarize everthing pretty well !
If you don't want those fleets to be played and sold stop producing it - it's cheaper for Mongoose and the people playing the game will not feel betrayed ( yes im really happy with my now 4pt-Armageddon-useless-in-Campaign Shadow Fleet box and list ).


Real War was/is/will never be fair.
If you have the possibility to kick your enemy were it hurts (without taking a risk!) you will do it. You don't ask yourself : hmmm i will only send 2 green units instead of 5 veteran units available to give him a chance to win also - that's only fair !

But this is a War-Game were i compare my tactical talent with that of my opponent. I want to have equal chances to win for me and my opponent to see who can master the current match better - not who is using the best fleet for the current PL. And in a campaign or scenario with different FAP per side no additional degree of difficulty is needed. Some fleets are already punished enough with the (to-high/to-low for my fleet) PL ...