Boresight question

[harikaridog]

What i meant to say was:

To put my money where my mouth is (so to speak)...
At first, I liked the 1/2 AD if F arc but not dead ahead, but now I'm not so sure. In the shows, the boresight style weapons seem to be more all or nothing than that. You either lined it up, or you didn't.

Now I'm thinking that a roll of 3+ to fire if not dead ahead might serve the feel better.

ShopKeepJon

Does "not dead ahead" mean anywhere in the forward arc?...

 

[Greg Smith]

Getting rid of boresight would take away a lot of that feel for me. I don't like the actual mechanic, but I don't want to get rid of boresight itself.

My feelings exactly.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

Does "not dead ahead" mean anywhere in the forward arc?...

Sorry, I should have made that more clear... What I meant was...

Allow B arc weapons to fire anywhere in the F arc, but require a 3+ roll to do so. This would simulate the difficulty of lining up the shot. If the target is actually straight ahead (i.e. you could target it with a B arc weapon using the rules as written), then the 3+ roll is not required. Fire away!

ShopKeepJon

 

[Hannibal]

we are trying to play a game that "feels" like Babylon 5 space battles. The theoretical capabilities of a ship don't really matter as much as what we have actually seen on screen.

(I say this with no snideness or disrespect meant) Then go play B5 Wars. It is the canon game of Babylon 5. Heck it's even been endorsed by JMS.

Me personally, I am willing to take some liberties with a game to make it enjoyable. Boresight, while it may feel right, also causes many problems with the game, namely the absolute necessity of initiative sinks. I agree that in a system like this, canon and playability must strike a balance. However, when a game mechanic created to keep in line with canon has the end result of making the tabletop look less canon, then there's something wrong.

Now I'm thinking that a roll of 3+ to fire if not dead ahead might serve the feel better.

No way. That just makes the game seem more artificial. With this rule, strategy takes a back seat to luck. Now you have to manuever your ships to be in the right arc and then hope you pass this targeting shot. Nu-uh. You either have the shot or you don't.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

we are trying to play a game that "feels" like Babylon 5 space battles. The theoretical capabilities of a ship don't really matter as much as what we have actually seen on screen.

(I say this with no snideness or disrespect meant) Then go play B5 Wars. It is the canon game of Babylon 5. Heck it's even been endorsed by JMS.

Me personally, I am willing to take some liberties with a game to make it enjoyable. Boresight, while it may feel right, also causes many problems with the game, namely the absolute necessity of initiative sinks. I agree that in a system like this, canon and playability must strike a balance. However, when a game mechanic created to keep in line with canon has the end result of making the tabletop look less canon, then there's something wrong.

Now I'm thinking that a roll of 3+ to fire if not dead ahead might serve the feel better.

No way. That just makes the game seem more artificial. With this rule, strategy takes a back seat to luck. Now you have to manuever your ships to be in the right arc and then hope you pass this targeting shot. Nu-uh. You either have the shot or you don't.

Offense taken...

To say that I should go play Babylon 5 Wars shows that you haven't bothered (really) reading my posts.

If you will go back and read my posts, you will see that I am not arguing for feel over mechanics, just that I want to keep the feel. I have repeatedly said that I don't like the boresight mechanic. It is not necessary to throw away "feel" to get a good and balanced game. This isn't a black or white issue. It is possible to have both the right feel and working mechanics.

Also, please reread my suggestion for boresight. The 3+ roll is only for shots that could not be taken under the current rules. If the target is straight ahead, there is no roll. This means that you can take more shots with boresight and luck plays no part in firing a normal, straight ahead boresight shot.

ShopKeepJon

 

[SylvrDragon]

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/ea/alexfirefront1.jpg

I'll let you decide if that's boresighted or not.

Well I guess that shows and Omega class destroyer firing a big laser somewhere into the forward arc......probably cos the target happens to be straight in front of it

The point was it wasn't firing boresighted. It's off by a few degrees which shows some movement in the laser. People had been making references to it how it fires and so, instead of listing an episode, I'd put something people could actually see.

 

[SylvrDragon]

I actually like the suggestion of moving and immediately firing. This reduces the penalty of boresight to almost nothing at long range and at short range it makes the ship a bit more clunky, plus it still has a major effect on tactics because the boresight using fleet still has to point in the direction they're firing instead of turning cock eyed and shooting out of the edge of the front arc. This is a serious game change, but it really solves boresight and it has things to offer outside of that too. Think about it, that has the possibility of cutting game time down. Just move and shoot all at once. It makes it seem more like the actual combat. I never liked how all the ships move into place and then take turns firing. In combat, both real and fiction, it's all fluid. One ship moves and shoots, so another maneuvers to answer, while another freshly wounded ship tries to move away. I think that could add a fluidity to the game that would truly make it feel less artificial as a whole and the elimination of phases could make it move a little faster. Now that's got to be the funnest idea I've seen in a while.

 

[DaBogmu]

I actually like the suggestion of moving and immediately firing. This reduces the penalty of boresight to almost nothing at long range and at short range it makes the ship a bit more clunky, plus it still has a major effect on tactics because the boresight using fleet still has to point in the direction they're firing instead of turning cock eyed and shooting out of the edge of the front arc. This is a serious game change, but it really solves boresight and it has things to offer outside of that too. Think about it, that has the possibility of cutting game time down. Just move and shoot all at once. It makes it seem more like the actual combat. I never liked how all the ships move into place and then take turns firing. In combat, both real and fiction, it's all fluid. One ship moves and shoots, so another maneuvers to answer, while another freshly wounded ship tries to move away. I think that could add a fluidity to the game that would truly make it feel less artificial as a whole and the elimination of phases could make it move a little faster. Now that's got to be the funnest idea I've seen in a while.

But in all actuallity every ship is moving at the same time. So you move the ships and then you see who is quicker on the trigger.

 

[SylvrDragon]

But in all actuallity every ship is moving at the same time. So you move the ships and then you see who is quicker on the trigger.

But in combat every ship doesn't move, or even shoot, at the same time. My point was that it's like all the captains agreeing to move into position and then fire. The move-shoot in the same action is more free form and more fluid.
And what do you mean you see who is quicker on the trigger? That's determined when initiative is rolled, not when the firing phase commences.

 

[Da Boss]

Can the Vorchan?

Actually ACTA says atmospheric ships can land, but somehow I doubt the Vorchan can. An example of an extrapolation that goes too far..

It can probably "crash" but taking off again is unlikely after that crash!

And I still maintain that the Full AD Boresight, Half AD FA addendum would be an awesome way to correct the problem.

I agree completely.

yep seems a nice idea

 

[mollari_uk]

I actually like the suggestion of moving and immediately firing.......

I played D&D minis the other day and they use this system. I wondered if it would work in ACTA and I'm glad some else has suggested it.

I think it would solve the Boresight problem and would help with the initiative problem, but would it create more?

 

[harikaridog]

This is probably way too wild a suggestion...but what about changing the move fire mechanics. What if a ship fired immediately it completed its movement, this would at least allow you to leave boresight rules as they were, but at least give them a more realistic range of targets.
If you did not want to make this a generic rule...well perhaps it could become a 'special order'.........just a brainstorm thought

Glad that this has been picked up.....I've played quite a few games now using this concept and it cetainly makes boresight much more playable...however was reluctant to suggest it as it is pretty radical....so far not come up with many cons to this idea...however would be interested in what perceived drawbacks there might be from others

 

[Da Boss]

would be a massive change to the game - without playing it don't know if it would make it better or worse.........but it would be very different.

 

[Greg Smith]

One thing that immediately springs to mind, the ability to essentially fire a ship at the same target twice.

eg, turn 1, as my last ship, I manuever my Omega into a jammy and unlikely superior position, with both fore and aft boresights lined up, and every arc with a target. And fire.

turn 2, I win initiative, select the Omega, all stop and let rip again from my superior position without allowing the enemy ships to manuever, to escape my arcs, or move away from the boresights.

----
Initiative also becomes very different, as you will probably be moving your big ships first, to fire first. Although you may want to leave them in the hope the enemy moves his prime targets into range first.

With the 2e stealth rule, it would make playing against Minbari a nightmare, deciding which ship to move and fire first. It could make it very difficult to select your targets in order to try and beat stealth.

On the whole it is kind of a cool idea, but it would change the way the game is played quite radically.

 

[Goldritter]

I like the Idea too.
And yes, some mechanics must be changed dramaticaly.

But I play Heavy Gear (Blitz) and there you can shoot before you move, after you move and when you move.

And it´s a cool game. And it´s not too hard to learn.

And it have the flair of more action, espacialy the enemy has the chance to shoot too, when you move.

I think such a game mechanic wpuld be cool for Bablyon 5 too. But then you must write the entire rules new. Because it is a huge change.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

I've played games which use a do everything with one unit then move on to another unit mechanic. They work well and are fun to play, but they play very, very differently from ACTA. This approach to initiative/movement/firing could radically change the balance of some of the fleets in the game. It would require reevaluating every fleet.

It would make for a very interesting variant, but it seems a bit too much like throwing out the baby with the bath water...

I like ACTA. I'd rather keep playing it (more or less) as is. Sure there are things that I would like to see change (shadow fighters, for example), but overall I have a lot of fun with it.

ShopKeepJon

 

[harikaridog]

I've played games which use a do everything with one unit then move on to another unit mechanic. They work well and are fun to play, but they play very, very differently from ACTA. This approach to initiative/movement/firing could radically change the balance of some of the fleets in the game. It would require reevaluating every fleet.

It would make for a very interesting variant, but it seems a bit too much like throwing out the baby with the bath water...

I like ACTA. I'd rather keep playing it (more or less) as is. Sure there are things that I would like to see change (shadow fighters, for example), but overall I have a lot of fun with it.

ShopKeepJon

Oh yes for sure it is radical but probably something that could be investigated and maybe considered for another edition of ACTA....if you get the chance.... give it a go and see what you think...and what your likes/dislikes are.

 

[Ripple]

The move then fire approach feels a bit sudden to me. Large lumbering ships able to jump in among a number of fast agile hulls and pound them in all directions would break 'feel' for me.

Right now the only two issues I'm seeing with our activation system is boresighted ships not being able to line up, and that fielding large numbers of small ships breaks the system down.

Reserving a turn until after normal movement solves the boresight issue (must choose target before movement). It feels fluffy (follow that ship!) and is superior to the 1/2 AD in feel for me, as that really only makes sense with the Omegas'/Hyperions' twin lasers on half turrets. Why do the Drazi get half AD in to the side of the bore? The Ka'Toc? Additional benefit would be that it would allow a boresighted Whitestar, which would feel fluffy.

To handle the swarm issue you will have to make buying down less efficient. Initiative sinks are only really viable right now because they are significantly cheaper than they should be based solely on initiative control. I would have suggested buying down follow a more strait line down one =2 ships, down 2 = 3 ships, down 3 = 4 ships, down 4 = 5 ships.

Between those two you have a fixed the targeting issue and the 'swarm' fleet issue, without adding in oddities to clearly straight ahead ships or creating a 'fast and nimble' Omega feel.

Ripple

 

[SylvrDragon]

I seem to recall Omegas jumping in only to fire a few seconds later. The ship being cumbersome is represented by the 1/45 tturn. Just because a ship moves slow doesn't mean it takes time for it to fire. There's no grounds for negating the move-fire idea when it comes to slow ships because it doesn't change movement at all.
Oh, and so what if you move your Omega last and then first. That shows planning, which last I checked was part of this game, and you can do that right now anyway. There's no difference as far as having an advantage due to position from having 2 phases or 1.

 

[harikaridog]

The move then fire approach feels a bit sudden to me. Large lumbering ships able to jump in among a number of fast agile hulls and pound them in all directions would break 'feel' for me.
Ripple

Have a quick look at All Alone in the Night where the Agamemnon spears the Streib Ship

Right now the only two issues I'm seeing with our activation system is boresighted ships not being able to line up, and that fielding large numbers of small ships breaks the system down.

Indeed

Reserving a turn until after normal movement solves the boresight issue (must choose target before movement). It feels fluffy (follow that ship!) and is superior to the 1/2 AD in feel for me, as that really only makes sense with the Omegas'/Hyperions' twin lasers on half turrets.

Hmm not sure if I like the concept of giving a ship the potential to turn an extra 45' just because its boresight.....thats well open for rules abuse, You'd get the same affect by saying ok I can hit any nominated ship in the forward arc...without the artificial 'bolt on' of an extra turn if youu have a boresight ship. Also what happens if the free turn also brings a another target into a broadside arc....your opponent is not going to be happy........ you will probably end up with having to add loads of caveats...

Why do the Drazi get half AD in to the side of the bore? The Ka'Toc? Additional benefit would be that it would allow a boresighted Whitestar, which would feel fluffy.

My personal fluff interpretation of the 1/2 AD effect is that the Boresight weapon spends less time focussed on the target.......most of the classic boresight shots in the Show has the beam 'moving' along the target either due to the movement of the target or the firing vessel....I was not considering specfic mounting of weapons (which of course is liable to change from edition to edition )

To handle the swarm issue you will have to make buying down less efficient. Initiative sinks are only really viable right now because they are significantly cheaper than they should be based solely on initiative control. I would have suggested buying down follow a more strait line down one =2 ships, down 2 = 3 ships, down 3 = 4 ships, down 4 = 5 ships.

Can't really comment in depth on the whole 'swarm' issue thing but to me this seems a problem with the whole priority level concept of balancing competative battles....however have read enough on the forum to see that this is probably another 'sacred cow' that will result in constant tinkering with ships stats to attempt to balance.

Between those two you have a fixed the targeting issue and the 'swarm' fleet issue, without adding in oddities to clearly straight ahead ships or creating a 'fast and nimble' Omega feel.

Again my personel view is that its worth looking at modifying fundamental elemets of the game mechanics rather than introducing what I see as 'bolt ons'....

I think the 1/2 AD thing is something you could easily introduce into the current system, without messing with fundamentals like movement.

As for the move/fire option as I said previously this would need careful analysis/playtesting and is probably best suited for a new edition