Campaign questions B5 ACTA

[AdrianH]

You would prefer to keep all the advantages of the original 2nd Ed space station rules without having to pay triple cost plus 5 RR points per turn any more?

About the first thing the chapter on space stations says is that it replaces the system in the main rulebook. Also note that other special rules which are kept are specifically mentioned.

Space stations do still have some advantages over ships of equivalent priority level. For one thing, they're indestructible. (Which I always found odd - it's supposedly because they're so big, but if Babylon 5 is about 8km long and is Battle level, a Patrol level station is probably no bigger than an Omega. Babylon 5 itself is a lot smaller than a Drakh mothership.) Also, you can customise the station by adding your choice of modules - it's effectively a ship which you get to design yourself. Interceptors are more effective because you can decide how many dice to use against each attacking ship, which means using something with popguns to wear down interceptors before firing the big guns won't work.

 

[Anbar]

Well i never played the older system so i cant really prefer anything about them - i've never used them.

I just cant see the point of them as they stand as described in P&P.

In most scenarios they would be a BIG handicap, and having a War level station means that you will never really get to use it in a scenario to defend that strategic target (as most scenarios will be lower than War level)...so, what is the point of them?

In addition within many of the scenarios they would be, literally, useless, or a major handicap of no benefit at all due to their immobility.

Thus, once more, what is the point of them?

They seem to offer absoltuely no strategic benefits and lots of tactical penalties, plus an investmentinto a war level space station can see you lose both it AND the strategic objective to a Patrol level scenario that the space station cant even play a part in.

I just dont get the point of them.

i.e. in 2nd Editon the *point*, the *role* of a space station is to defend a strategic objective.
in P&P what is their role in the game?
Bearing in mind that you can lose an Armageddon level space station to a patrol level convoy scenario game, resulting in the enemy getting both the strategic objective and the space station for the *cost* of a patrol level game.

Meh, sorry, really do not see a *role* here, it makes no sense at all. :?

 

[Anbar]

Also, you can customise the station by adding your choice of modules - it's effectively a ship which you get to design yourself. Interceptors are more effective because you can decide how many dice to use against each attacking ship, which means using something with popguns to wear down interceptors before firing the big guns won't work.

so what?

The "big guns" are beams and you cant intercept beams.

/end of benefit. :roll:

 

[Mean Mutton]

Well i never played the older system so i cant really prefer anything about them - i've never used them.

I just cant see the point of them as they stand as described in P&P.

In most scenarios they would be a BIG handicap, and having a War level station means that you will never really get to use it in a scenario to defend that strategic target (as most scenarios will be lower than War level)...so, what is the point of them?

In addition within many of the scenarios they would be, literally, useless, or a major handicap of no benefit at all due to their immobility.

Thus, once more, what is the point of them?

They seem to offer absoltuely no strategic benefits and lots of tactical penalties, plus an investmentinto a war level space station can see you lose both it AND the strategic objective to a Patrol level scenario that the space station cant even play a part in.

I just dont get the point of them.

i.e. in 2nd Editon the *point*, the *role* of a space station is to defend a strategic objective.
in P&P what is their role in the game?
Bearing in mind that you can lose an Armageddon level space station to a patrol level convoy scenario game, resulting in the enemy getting both the strategic objective and the space station for the *cost* of a patrol level game.

Meh, sorry, really do not see a *role* here, it makes no sense at all. :?

There are stations other than War level stations. The problem about not being able to field a war-level station applies equally to a war-level ship.

Look at, say, an Abbai Border Station (Raid Level) (I chose this because it was first)

Hull 4
Damage 60/30/15
Troops 15
Hardpoints 9 (Combat Laser, Disrupter Module, 2x Particle Array Module)
Special Rules: Anti-Fighter 4, Immobile, Space Station
Combat Laser Arc: Turret Range: 27", AD: 6 (B, P)
Comms Disrupter Arc: Turret Range: 21", AD: 4 (SAP)
Quad Particle Array Arc: Turret Range: 12", AD: 12 (TL)

Compare it to the Abbai Bimith-class Defender (Raid Level)
You get way more damage in the space station, an impressive laser weapon, some comms disrupters, longer-ranged particle array (although only 12 total dice but you can up it to 18 if you dump the disrupters), and only really lose interceptors and shields. Plus, you have a more favorable critical hit table and critical hit rules. Oh, and if you win your battle but your space station is destroyed? You still have it.

Honestly, I don't think that a space station is a be-all, end-all super awesome, much better than a ship thing but they seem to be rather balanced against the same level of other ships.

 

[Mean Mutton]

Also, you can customise the station by adding your choice of modules - it's effectively a ship which you get to design yourself. Interceptors are more effective because you can decide how many dice to use against each attacking ship, which means using something with popguns to wear down interceptors before firing the big guns won't work.

so what?

The "big guns" are beams and you cant intercept beams.

/end of benefit. :roll:

It depends on what race you're playing against. Dilgar, for instance, have some nasty big guns which aren't beams.

 

[Burger]

The "big guns" are beams

Tell that to a Drazi Warbird :twisted:

4AD beam, this will on average get 4 hits.
"Secondary" weapon is 12AD TL, this will on average get 9 hits against hull 4 or 7 hits against hull 5.

Unless you're shooting a target with interceptors or hull 6, the non-beam is twice as powerful. Even against hull 6 it is almost the same.

 

[Anbar]

we play Narn and EA, so its beams and beams and e-mines.

--------

I dont see a space station as being that great either Mutton, my problem is the opposite: I fail to seee any point in it.

The enemy can capture it, which they cant do with a ship.
A ship can move.
A ship can be elsewhere. etc etc.

The example of the War level is just to highlight the oddity of being able to lose a higher-priority level space station to a lower-priority scenario (in which it can often not even take part).

That made sense in 2nd edition as you could not take the objective without taking the space station.

Now it makes no sense at all and renders the space station almost entirely superfluous: the points would be far better spent on ships.

 

[Anbar]

The "big guns" are beams

Tell that to a Drazi Warbird :twisted:

4AD beam, this will on average get 4 hits.
"Secondary" weapon is 12AD TL, this will on average get 9 hits against hull 4 or 7 hits against hull 5.

Unless you're shooting a target with interceptors or hull 6, the non-beam is twice as powerful. Even against hull 6 it is almost the same.

except that most beams (we use) have double or treble damage which kinda skews the results, particularly with criticals thrown in.

 

[Mean Mutton]

The "big guns" are beams

Tell that to a Drazi Warbird :twisted:

4AD beam, this will on average get 4 hits.
"Secondary" weapon is 12AD TL, this will on average get 9 hits against hull 4 or 7 hits against hull 5.

Unless you're shooting a target with interceptors or hull 6, the non-beam is twice as powerful. Even against hull 6 it is almost the same.

except that most beams (we use) have double or treble damage which kinda skews the results, particularly with criticals thrown in.

With a hull of 4 and a very favorable critical chart, space stations aren't hurt as badly by beam weapons as other ship.

 

[Mean Mutton]

we play Narn and EA, so its beams and beams and e-mines.

--------

I dont see a space station as being that great either Mutton, my problem is the opposite: I fail to seee any point in it.

The enemy can capture it, which they cant do with a ship.
A ship can move.
A ship can be elsewhere. etc etc.

The example of the War level is just to highlight the oddity of being able to lose a higher-priority level space station to a lower-priority scenario (in which it can often not even take part).

That made sense in 2nd edition as you could not take the objective without taking the space station.

Now it makes no sense at all and renders the space station almost entirely superfluous: the points would be far better spent on ships.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Space Stations tend to have more weapons and can absorb more damage. They have trade-offs which make them, on balance, about as powerful as an equally sized ship.

Like everything else in the game, it really depends on who you're playing. and what scenario.

Against the Shadow or Gaim, I love them. Shadows = stations have everything turreted so the Shadow maneuverability advantage isn't as big of an advantage, plus lots of races have some impressive long-range beam weapons. Gaim = stations have a ton of troops and usually have some really good anti-fighter scores (and can get extremely good anti-fighter scores).

EA can just sit out there with their super long-range missiles and pound you to death.

 

[Burger]

except that most beams (we use) have double or treble damage which kinda skews the results, particularly with criticals thrown in.

Then it is the double damage, triple damage or precise traits that make them devastating, not the beam trait.

 

[Anbar]

EA can just sit out there with their super long-range missiles and pound you to death.

Never had much success with missiles tbh, although recently we've been playing EA v EA which rather negates all the good EA aspects, lots of interceptors, lots of anti-fighter etc etc.

I took the missile cruiser (battle) and it never hit a thing other than when using multi-warhead, then didnt really cause any significant damage..... swap them all to nukes (e-mines) and they do some decent damage, but being one-shot its a waste of a ship.

-- = --

Getting back OT:

Did anybody come up with a defined role for Space Stations in the campaign then now that they cannot hold an objective, or an alternative system for loosing any space station to a lower priority level game?

I think its the latter that annoys me the most and makes me question if space stations have any real value strategically... I just cant see any logic in spedning the RR on a space station that may well not be able to participate in a battle that sees you losing it and the strategic objective.

 

[Mean Mutton]

EA can just sit out there with their super long-range missiles and pound you to death.

Never had much success with missiles tbh, although recently we've been playing EA v EA which rather negates all the good EA aspects, lots of interceptors, lots of anti-fighter etc etc.

I took the missile cruiser (battle) and it never hit a thing other than when using multi-warhead, then didnt really cause any significant damage..... swap them all to nukes (e-mines) and they do some decent damage, but being one-shot its a waste of a ship.

-- = --

Getting back OT:

Did anybody come up with a defined role for Space Stations in the campaign then now that they cannot hold an objective, or an alternative system for loosing any space station to a lower priority level game?

I think its the latter that annoys me the most and makes me question if space stations have any real value strategically... I just cant see any logic in spedning the RR on a space station that may well not be able to participate in a battle that sees you losing it and the strategic objective.

Missiles -- use scout redirects

Space Stations -- they have more weapons and take more damage than a ship at the same priority level, plus they can have some fun advantages on in the campaign. The "can't be used in a small-priority battle" issue is identical to one facing a ship of the same size.

 

[AdrianH]

I think Anbar's point is that the difference between a War level ship and a War level station is that if you don't choose to use the ship, it is not in any danger. If you choose not to use the station and lose the scenario in which you're defending the strategic target where the station is located, you lose the station - worse, the other side gets the station to use against you! On the other hand, someone in a previous thread some time ago pointed out the weakness in the rule where a strategic target can't be taken if there's a station, which is that if you build a War level station and only get lower level scenarios, that strategic target is invulnerable.

I propose a house rule that although the strategic target can be taken even if there's a station sitting over it, the station itself is not captured unless it is actively involved in the scenario. However, with that strategic target now under enemy control, the station can not be used again until you retake the target. Nor can you make any repairs to the station because it is now blockaded by the enemy. Only when you retake the strategic target is the station fully back under your control.

 

[Greg Smith]

Adrian's suggest works, but it doesn't make stations very appealing.

I would go one further, and suggest that the minimum level of engagement is equal to the PL of the station. If a lower level scenario is rolled, the scenario is fought at a level equal to the station. The station must be included in the scenario and the scenario must be suitable for the station.

That makes the station important and useful. But I would probably restrict the station to starting small and increasing in size/level over time, simply to stop someone plonking a big station on a high RR target.

 

[Tolwyn]

Good morning.

I've tried to set up the Campaign of Terror and got a question.
The rules tell that the defender gets a trategic target every turn. Is this additional to the one he targets duruing the initiative phase?

 

[AdrianH]

I've tried to set up the Campaign of Terror and got a question.
The rules tell that the defender gets a trategic target every turn. Is this additional to the one he targets duruing the initiative phase?

The defender gets a strategic target at the end of each turn.

During the initiative phase, if the defender wins initiative then he picks a target to try to search for the Raiders' base. He does not capture that target, regardless of how the battle goes.