Boresight mod

[Sulfurdown]

Any reviews of balance of fleets or initiative or movement usually involve a discussion of what impact it will have for boresight ships. As is boresight seems to be a gentlemen's declaration during movement that a specific ship is targeted. I have to ideas that I want to sound off the boards.

-----------------------------
How does it change the game if boresight is instead declared as only being able to target one ship within the superarc and range of the weapon?

Turreted weapons can split AD across any target in range, arc weapons can split AD across any target in range and in arc, beam weapons can split AD inbetween targets in range, in arc and within a 3" spread... so my suggestion would be that a boresight weapon cannot split AD at all.
I'd expect the Narn players to be happy with this change for their G'Quan.

-----------------------------
A second slightly narrower change would be that in addition to not being able to split AD between targets, a ship with Boresight weapons must declare the target during the movement phase as if it was CAF! (with no special action). It still has the range of the superarc but is limited to a specific target and telegraphing the target.

 

[emperorpenguin]

I'd like it because I've never liked boresight, so there's a biased answer for you! :wink:

 

[Triggy]

I like boresight and from a game balance point of view this wouldn't provide any real downside to being boresight compared to forward arc at all. All ships with boresight weapons would need rebalancing.

If you accept this, I still wouldn't actually prefer your suggestion.

There, I guess EP and I have just provided two biased points of view, one supporting each end of the spectrum.

 

[Taran]

I just don't like the universe mechanics that make Boresight neccessary.

A ship the size of the Omega that has 1 main weapon in a spinal mount? Come on. How many more weapons could it mount on its flanks if it weren't for the spinal laser?

This is one major reason I am such a fan of the Honorverse. He got his universe in order. Whereas as JMS gell victim to Star Trek disease...

 

[emperorpenguin]

This is one major reason I am such a fan of the Honorverse. He got his universe in order. Whereas as JMS gell victim to Star Trek disease...

what has it to do with JMS? :?

 

[Da Boss]

enjoy the Honorverse - but isn't it written to make it 18th Centruy ships in space - broadsides and such. Nothing wrong with that but I kinda got the idea the author had designed a cool reason for it to be like that ? Could be wrong - often am!

 

[texican]

The way my group has played boresight is that the ship that is claiming has moved so that when it turned it has more than enough turning ability to cover the line to the target that conforms to boresight rule. The other requirement is that the target does not move in the remainder of the turn. Also we use a marker to designate the boresight (i.e. pipe cleaner ro straw) Also if the target does not move the next turn the boresight continues unless the firing ship does not move or only moves straight.

 

[David Anla Shok']

I would rather the boresight be a narrow field of fire, say 22 degrees or so, encompassing a wider area further out, rather than a straight lineal tangent. Boy, that sounded spiffy, didn't it? Anyway, it would simplify game mechanics a bit and make the boresight weapons a bit more useful, at least at range.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I would rather the boresight be a narrow field of fire, say 22 degrees or so, encompassing a wider area further out, rather than a straight lineal tangent. Boy, that sounded spiffy, didn't it? Anyway, it would simplify game mechanics a bit and make the boresight weapons a bit more useful, at least at range.

Unfortunately, I don't think that such small arcs would work too well in a miniatures game. Hell, I think that some people would have enough problems with 45° arcs.
On the other hand, if I get around to writing the computerised version of ACTA that I've been considering, one of the first changes will be to make the boresight a small (10°?) arc rather than a line.

 

[David Anla Shok']

I would rather the boresight be a narrow field of fire, say 22 degrees or so, encompassing a wider area further out, rather than a straight lineal tangent. Boy, that sounded spiffy, didn't it? Anyway, it would simplify game mechanics a bit and make the boresight weapons a bit more useful, at least at range.

Unfortunately, I don't think that such small arcs would work too well in a miniatures game. Hell, I think that some people would have enough problems with 45° arcs.
On the other hand, if I get around to writing the computerised version of ACTA that I've been considering, one of the first changes will be to make the boresight a small (10°?) arc rather than a line.

45 should be doable as well...

 

[Ripple]

The only reason boresight is an issue is because you can only target ships that have moved before you. This creates a whole host of issues with suspension of disbelief (what do you mean I can't target the lumbering hulk in front of me...oh right, you moved the crippled scout in the corner first), distorted fleet structures (I must have more ships than the enemy or my best ships can't find targets...see Hermes swarm with Hyperions/Omegas) and the creation of unbalanced weapons (my beam is better cause it's boresight, but that may not matter at long range and lots of ships). Bore sights issues are also vary depending on the size of the fight.

If you had to designate a target for bore when you moved, but could continue to stay on that target as long as you don't exceed your total turns, even if it moved and you had to turn to face, you eliminate the issues with bore clogging your initiative system and creating scaling issues.

An Omega virtually cannot duel, has a real hard time in a three or four ship fight, but has superb firepower in the first half of a ten ship game. Why because it gets easier and easier to find targets and use the 'extra dice' being bore gives you to get a dominant advantage early. Not completely unbalancing but definately means ships value changes a lot based on the pl and the number of points.

Ripple

 

[Hans Olo]

I'm afraid I have to disagree in parts here.
It is right that in larger games the bore side will have not trouble to find a target.
But in order to destroy a ship you will have to concentrate fire, if the target ship gets destroyed because of a luck crit (or a big beam hit in 2ed) you cant redirect the fire from the remaining bore sides targeting the same ship.
So you effectively waste lots of firepower, where a Front beam simply can choose a new target in its arc. That's a big disadvantage.
When the fight gets close you "lose" your bore side fore most of the turns because you will not be able to line the ship up properly. of course some ships in your fleet will achieve a lock on but again your fleet looses a huge amount of firepower, where the Front arc beams still can fire nearly every turn in full effectively.
So bore sides are at a serious disadvantage that is in my opinion not even out by some few extra dice.
Bore side should have significantly more firepower, maybe double the amount of a comparable front arc.

 

[emperorpenguin]

the bore side

aaargh!

I'm sorry but I keep seeing you write this and I have to correct you now, it's getting as bad as all those people saying "Mimbari" :lol:

it is BORESIGHT

 

[Lord David the Denied]

The man is German, though...

 

[emperorpenguin]

The man is German, though...

I understand but his english is very good, he spells most things right and the term "boresight" is everywhere in this thread :wink:

Put it this way, if I was mis-spelling in German, I'd want to be corrected

 

[H]

The man is German, though...

I understand but his english is very good, he spells most things right and the term "boresight" is everywhere in this thread :wink:

Put it this way, if I was mis-spelling in German, I'd want to be corrected

try saying something in German and see if we can correct it, not me personally, my German is aweful.

 

[Locutus9956]

I personally like the 'narrow arc' idea over declareing stuff, but as noted it makes things tricky to measure. I personally think the SIMPLEST fix would be to make boresights line up not with the stem but with the targets base.

Now before the inevitible 'but base sizes arent standard' argument gets thrown back at me I'd just refute that with 'Its about damn time they WERE then'. There are already rules to do with fighters, stealth and escorting that are affected by base size and base size DOES effect manuevering, so frankly there really should be official base sizes now. I dont use them on most of my ships so I would have to rebase all my ships or at least make card circles to stick to the bottom of most of them so I'm fully aware that it would make more work for some people but thats just the way it goes with rules changes sometimes. Putting a standard base size and making boresights target them is something that should be done. The end.

 

[Myrm]

I personally like the 'narrow arc' idea over declareing stuff, but as noted it makes things tricky to measure. I personally think the SIMPLEST fix would be to make boresights line up not with the stem but with the targets base.

Now before the inevitible 'but base sizes arent standard' argument gets thrown back at me I'd just refute that with 'Its about damn time they WERE then'.

Get round the need for standard basing by measuring from the stem. Say if the line of fire of a boresight goes within 1" of the stem its on target. Stem location is how arc is defined already in a number of games. Use the same figure for those items in ActA that say 'be on the base', perhaps.

The slight arc represents a fixed line of fire between two ships with one trying to intersect at some point over a turn rather well IMHO. The closer you are the more likely the overlap is to happen in a turn as the target driven angle widens, which seems logical. However is still not being a swingable wide arc. You still are forced to line up on a ship with a boresight weapon, and your opponent can manoeuvre round this, but get the option to fire at another if they line up properly. This is unlikely at long range, but if a close range furball with multiple targets occurs its more likely for another ship to get in the way. Again this seems logical to me.

To me that idea just seems to work well for the way boresight weapons are described in fluff terms.

 

[Locutus9956]

yep, and the main thing with it is it would avoid fiddly line up issues and allow for accidental boresighting. I agree with the within 1" idea as an option to go against set base sizes but I still personally think having a set base size would just make more sense and be quicker and simpler in play.

 

[Myrm]

Agreed, a set base size is always useful.

However, legacy problems crop up in any game where either the base size changes between game versions, but the miniatures remain current (or current enough) or when you choose to introduce rules on standard basing when there has not been a standard size to date. Telling everyone to re-base their minis is not going to go down well. This also holds for new games that use generic components in miniature wargames that try and introduce their own new basing systems for their system as opposed to lining up with popular existing rulesets.

IIRC Mongoose also inherited a number of miniatures from a 3rd party and so immediately inherited legacy issue if base sizes were standardised in the game.

As such I suggest that any rule in ActA that can be made to step round the use of 'base size' as a measure is going to have a LOT going for it.

The measuring doesnt have to be too bad. First the hard bit is going to be the long straight edge for the boresight. Also, larger bases would allow people to draw the 1" circle on them. Its only the smaller bases that have problems and then they arent too hard to measure a few ships (and IIRC most will have 1" radius or larger bases anyway). Fighters in ActA is where I see the hardest issue but similar ideas could be put on them.