couple questions

[Triggy]

I still see the point about "how does a hiding Hermes increase the manouevrability of the other one?"

It's an issue and at the moment, the best solution appears to be the talked about "follow that target" special action.

Could you explain then? I'm not getting how an agile ship is being outmaneuvered.

The [agile] Firehawk only has boresighted weaponry so can only line up its shot on an enemy ship if the enemy ship has moved first. When playing one-on-one, this is fine as it's a simple matter of winning the initiative roll.

However, with two enemy ships (no matter how small) that are split apart on the board, one can always move to a point where the Firehawk can't target it (e.g. behind the Firehawk), then the Firehawk moves, then the other Hermes evades the boresight and fires on the Firehawk. The second Hermes in this case makes the first Hermes much more manoeuvrable and is the principle behind initiative sinks.

 

[dag'karlove]

So dont get your ships Blown up or choose a swarm fleet tactic that your fleet allows for and dont get outmanuvered. Theres Nothing in the game mechanics that should have to fix that. Plain and simple The Drazi Get Beat beccause either A Thier commander got out manuvered. B. He got out thought. C. Both. D Hes Just unlucky. E He brought the wrong ships

 

[wkehrman]

I still see the point about "how does a hiding Hermes increase the manouevrability of the other one?"

It's an issue and at the moment, the best solution appears to be the talked about "follow that target" special action.

Could you explain then? I'm not getting how an agile ship is being outmaneuvered.

The [agile] Firehawk only has boresighted weaponry so can only line up its shot on an enemy ship if the enemy ship has moved first. When playing one-on-one, this is fine as it's a simple matter of winning the initiative roll.

However, with two enemy ships (no matter how small) that are split apart on the board, one can always move to a point where the Firehawk can't target it (e.g. behind the Firehawk), then the Firehawk moves, then the other Hermes evades the boresight and fires on the Firehawk. The second Hermes in this case makes the first Hermes much more manoeuvrable and is the principle behind initiative sinks.

The problem is no one is explaining how having a wingman makes that first Hermes "more maneuverable". It can still only move so many inches and turn so many times for so many degrees. I can still line up the shot. Are you suggesting that I WORRY about the other Hermes? There's nothing I can do about it, short of abandoning my objectives. Lock in one Hermes and stick with him like a tick on a hound dog. Once he's dead, you've now got your chance to go after the other one.

Remember, that second Hermes COULD roll badly (needing 3's every other turn and 5's otherwise) and since you can turn inside both of them, you should be able to wiggle out of the forward arc of one of them for a turn or two. Plus, there's always dodge.

Or did I miss that dodge breaks boresighting?

Again, this does go back to the poor quality of the example. If this is a 1 FAP Raid scenario then why did the Drazi not take more, lower FAP ships? If it was a larger battle, well, it sounds like the game is over. Either way, the scenario sounds more and more like human error than the game mechanics.

It's starting to sound like the Drazi are a swarm fleet

 

[Harry Lonsdale]

The problem is no one is explaining how having a wingman makes that first Hermes "more maneuverable". It can still only move so many inches and turn so many times for so many degrees. I can still line up the shot. Are you suggesting that I WORRY about the other Hermes? There's nothing I can do about it, short of abandoning my objectives. Lock in one Hermes and stick with him like a tick on a hound dog. Once he's dead, you've now got your chance to go after the other one.

The point is that you can't do that--simply having another ship on the board means that the Firehawk will be forced to move before his target, which means it can't get a boresight shot. The best the Drazi can hope for is to win initiative and pull off a Come About to try and target the other Hermes.

It's starting to sound like the Drazi are a swarm fleet

They are a swarm fleet--they have to be, based on the boresight and initiative mechanics.

 

[wkehrman]

The problem is no one is explaining how having a wingman makes that first Hermes "more maneuverable". It can still only move so many inches and turn so many times for so many degrees. I can still line up the shot. Are you suggesting that I WORRY about the other Hermes? There's nothing I can do about it, short of abandoning my objectives. Lock in one Hermes and stick with him like a tick on a hound dog. Once he's dead, you've now got your chance to go after the other one.

The point is that you can't do that--simply having another ship on the board means that the Firehawk will be forced to move before his target, which means it can't get a boresight shot. The best the Drazi can hope for is to win initiative and pull off a Come About to try and target the other Hermes.

Ah, got it. Sometimes the 2x4 is necessary.

It's starting to sound like the Drazi are a swarm fleet

They are a swarm fleet--they have to be, based on the boresight and initiative mechanics.

 

[Ripple]

I begin to see why my sarcasm has been going astray.

wkehrman didn't understand the rule (and thus the controversy), thank you Harry for clearling that up...

Dag'Kar has a list of what's wrong with the Drazi (or the person selecting the Drazi)....

Don't get your ships blown up.... can't argue here... good idea.

Don't choose a swarm fleet... Drazi cannot line up targets without it, it's the basis of their entire fleet structure. If they had more than a single non-bore sight ship though I would agree with you. It's the reason I don't tend to use EA or Narn for examples of what's wrong with bore sight.

Don't get out maneuvered... as Harry and Triggy have tried to point out, it's not about maneuver. It's about not being able to line up a shot on something that hasn't moved. While in the early game, when there are plenty of enemy targets to choose from maneuver matters, at some point the game gets down to a few ships. If the Drazi don't have more, they tend not to fire at all.

Since you think its the drazi commanders fault why don't you pull out some counters and push them around a bit. Tell me how you win if the early earth player drops a raid point worth of two for ones behind an asteroid field for the first three turns. Aside from just unlucky not sure where any other part of your rant applies.

I should not have gotten drawn into this and appreciate the tolerance of the other board members, but I really hate folks who get on and basically say 'you only lose because your stupid'. The discussion of boresight and it's related mechanics is never really addressed, just vague pronouncements about 'maneuver', 'thinking' and 'wrong ships'.

Address the issue, explain, in fluff, real world or other terms how the actual situation works out. Then explain how the game mechanics help reflect that, or don't, and what if anything you would change. Then you have a discussion. What we've been having is an argument, and they don't do much good.

It was said in another thread by ShopKeepJon I think, that you bring these things up on the forums because that is how the game becomes better down the line. It's the biggest reason to bring up you concerns here, but also to get views from outside your own group.

I've learned from these forums a few things that helped me when I thought something was broken, that proved it wasn't. But only because I brought them up. More commonly, I've heard the same concerns I've had... once I brought up what the issue was, and had folks go try it for themselves.

Anyway, not good at this board communication thing... thanks again for the translation Harry and Triggy.

Ripple

 

[dag'karlove]

I begin to see why my sarcasm has been going astray.

wkehrman didn't understand the rule (and thus the controversy), thank you Harry for clearling that up...

Dag'Kar has a list of what's wrong with the Drazi (or the person selecting the Drazi)....

Don't get your ships blown up.... can't argue here... good idea.

Don't choose a swarm fleet... Drazi cannot line up targets without it, it's the basis of their entire fleet structure. If they had more than a single non-bore sight ship though I would agree with you. It's the reason I don't tend to use EA or Narn for examples of what's wrong with bore sight.

Don't get out maneuvered... as Harry and Triggy have tried to point out, it's not about maneuver. It's about not being able to line up a shot on something that hasn't moved. While in the early game, when there are plenty of enemy targets to choose from maneuver matters, at some point the game gets down to a few ships. If the Drazi don't have more, they tend not to fire at all.

Since you think its the drazi commanders fault why don't you pull out some counters and push them around a bit. Tell me how you win if the early earth player drops a raid point worth of two for ones behind an asteroid field for the first three turns. Aside from just unlucky not sure where any other part of your rant applies.

I should not have gotten drawn into this and appreciate the tolerance of the other board members, but I really hate folks who get on and basically say 'you only lose because your stupid'. The discussion of boresight and it's related mechanics is never really addressed, just vague pronouncements about 'maneuver', 'thinking' and 'wrong ships'.

Address the issue, explain, in fluff, real world or other terms how the actual situation works out. Then explain how the game mechanics help reflect that, or don't, and what if anything you would change. Then you have a discussion. What we've been having is an argument, and they don't do much good.

It was said in another thread by ShopKeepJon I think, that you bring these things up on the forums because that is how the game becomes better down the line. It's the biggest reason to bring up you concerns here, but also to get views from outside your own group.

I've learned from these forums a few things that helped me when I thought something was broken, that proved it wasn't. But only because I brought them up. More commonly, I've heard the same concerns I've had... once I brought up what the issue was, and had folks go try it for themselves.

Anyway, not good at this board communication thing... thanks again for the translation Harry and Triggy.

Ripple

OK Point By point:

We agree dont get your ships Blown up.

Yes it is about Manuver. Putting your ships In a position in one or 2 turns to be able to line up you Boresights is always about manuver. Its the wya i think. I set Myself for 2 or 3 ships to be able to line up 2 or 2 differents ships and this is using the lumbering trait on narn ships. I have several possibilities at all times for different ships to boresight others. That is always about manuver.

I have pushed drazi around on the table 3 times and 2 I have won with them. In a Recent game a friend of mine Hid a Bunch of ships (About 2 arm points behind an asteroid field and about 6 points in Hyper space. I just sat and waited for them to come out (Both of em). I engaged what i could with the other parts of the fleet that werent tied up waiting and i then forced him into going where i wanted. Its Really that simple. If you get to that point where you are out numbered You have made the mistake. Kill initiatve sinks first and make it to where you can make him go the way you want.

When I did address the issue in game terms you decided that i was Lemme Quote "Hiding In fluff". No i was hiding in Science but ill make sure i make that plain next time. Now correct me if im wrong But there are really 4 parts to this game: Dice rolling, Manuver, Fleet composition, and luck. (Altough you can throw Dice and luck into the same category.)

I dont disagree that The forums are a way to bring up concerns however when i feel that i get attack i attack back and with vigor. The only way to really make sure that you win in an argument is with overwhemling firepower. Thats what i brought. Im sorry if you feel that i was calling you stupid. You can ask any of the gamers from my club on here if i think you are stupid i wont intimate it, Ill just come out and say it. Im very direct. My opinion is that you werent using the right ships or you just didnt understand what the rules meant.

 

[Triggy]

Ripple - no problems

Drazi are for the most part a balanced fleet, but this doesn't make them frustrating to play in battles with few ships [remaining]. It's a bit like the Stealth arguament. Few people claim that Stealth is unbalanced, the people with issue say that it isn't fun as it's too random. The complaint with boresight is that with a fleet entirely of boresighted ships, there is no chance to fire them if the enemy can out-initiative sink you and this isn't realistic.

Sure the "follow that target" special action would require a little rebalancing (potentially) but it would solve a major headache for some players.

 

[wkehrman]

Each fleet is unique, that's the charm of the game. The differences are significant enough to warrant radical changes in play from one fleet to another. Even if I'm playing my usual EA, I still have to make dramatic changes when I face different races. I don't squadron as much when I play against Narn, I keep an extra scout about against Minbari, etc.

One other issue is the change in composition of a fleet, my OTHER hangup during this discussion. The scenario of one Firehawk vs. two Hermes seemed overly contrived. The scenario smacks of either poor fleet selection or the last turn or two of a larger game. Who brings Hermes to an Annihilation scenario anyway? Yet it was being used to suggest that boresighting was dumb. A Drazi player that builds a single ship fleet is asking for trouble. In the game, as in life, the players must adapt to the rules, not the other way around...

 

[Triggy]

Each fleet is unique, that's the charm of the game. The differences are significant enough to warrant radical changes in play from one fleet to another. Even if I'm playing my usual EA, I still have to make dramatic changes when I face different races. I don't squadron as much when I play against Narn, I keep an extra scout about against Minbari, etc.

One other issue is the change in composition of a fleet, my OTHER hangup during this discussion. The scenario of one Firehawk vs. two Hermes seemed overly contrived. The scenario smacks of either poor fleet selection or the last turn or two of a larger game. Who brings Hermes to an Annihilation scenario anyway? Yet it was being used to suggest that boresighting was dumb. A Drazi player that builds a single ship fleet is asking for trouble. In the game, as in life, the players must adapt to the rules, not the other way around...

This was being used as a hypothetical scenario (although Drazi players will know that it is all too common in a game that is being marginally lost) to demonstrate not that a player needs tactics but how having another ship that is hiding and hypothetically one billion inches away can have an affect on other ships in the game. The issue Ripple is raising isn't actually boresight but the initiative sinking of ships.

 

[Ripple]

I've said a few times now, that the scene I brought up is happening at the end of a game. There were once a bunch of other ships. Here's the 2x4 again... it is an end game scenario that is easy to see, it can just as easily come up in other ways, using other ships.

Early EA can buy a stack of two for ones (tethys) that hide in the corner, while sending their hyperions in to do the fighting. The drazi player cannot target the hyperions while the tethys live, and give the ranges/terrain in annihalation, that could easily be two to four turns of chasing to the tethys without firing a shot at the hyperions while they destroy you. Does that feel less contrived?

Let's say... 8 beam tethys (1 raid) 1 oracle 1 Olympus (1 raid) 2 Hyperion (2 raid) 1 command hyperion (1 raid) vs 2 guardhawk 2 wings of star snakes (1raid) 2 darkhawhk (1 raid) 2 warbirds (1 raid) 1 solarhawk 1 jumphawk (1 raid) 1 firehawk (1 raid).

The drazi player has nine ships, the EA player has thirteen ships. If the EA player keeps all but the hyperions back even if he loses initiative the drazi player will only be able to fire his two darkhawks (ten AD of sap precise) vs the three hyperions total out put. In most circumstances for at least a couple of turns. The Drazi force is not unreasonable to fight an early ea force which could be very fighter heavy, so you buy some wings and guardhawks. The fight could very well end up being a few tethys vs a single drazi hull, anything but the darkhawks and you have the can't fire scenario I outline using the firehawk vs hermes.

Additionally in tourney play, as well as random pick ups, you don't always know who your opponent is so you can't build to suit. And in some cases the fleets just don't work well against each other. So specializing a fleet to beat someone is not the same as having balance. Facing ISA take all e-mine ships... do the same vs the brakiri... not as useful... does that make the game balanced and fun? One two three shoot.... my rock smashes your scissors... next game...

This isn't real life, this is a game... one of the few opportunities we have in life to change the rules to make things more fun for all playing. In life you play by the rules of physics and economics because the writer is notoriously hard to reach for comment. Here we have at least something like a direct line and can ask the question 'why', know at some point things will change, and try to have some impact on them. Your telling me if you had the chance to re-write biology you wouldn't try to get the writer to change phlem (sp?) to something a bit less nasty?

back to Dag...

I win more than I lose playing my Drazi. They are not an unbalanced fleet, I didn't claim that they were. My claim was that there are some real rock paper scissors moments in the game. The Drazi are easy to use to show some of these, as the interaction of bore sight and initiative sinking is dramatic. Drazi are good for aux craft and boarding oddities as well. There are a lot of scenarios that come up where the Drazi cannot win if they didn't pick a specialist fleet. Our group doesn't like the need for specialist fleet builds.

You comment that you always set yourself up to have more than one target to go after. So do I, but if my opponent has enough ships to move all those targets after I do, then I cannot shoot, no matter what I do, or where I go. I can sit an wait as you say, but if he doesn't wait and attacks while still keeping his sinks hidden I die. Two or three turns of unreturned fire in a game that is closer to the 5 raid is usually fatal. If your playing games where an opponent is able to hide 8 Arm. points, then I can see where you don't have an issue finding targets, space is crowded enough.

You didn't address the point in game terms, you addressed it using an example of how you thought a bore site works outside of the game. You did not then relate this to actual game mechanics. You said that an axial laser would be difficult to point at a target... and stopped. You never got to the game mechanic part. Your reference above to having two potential targets for the following move each turn is your first reference to a 'maneuver' or game mechanic that is at all specific.

I gave a concrete example of what I saw as an issue, your answer was to discuss an 'axial' laser and it's potential problems as seen by yourself and 20th/21st century weapon makers. As the discussion went on you moved to discussions of unspecified maneuver, unspecified 'better builds' and a discussion of luck and the relative intelligence of the player. Nothing I could refute, agree with or discuss in terms of actual game play.

Ripple ....

(gah....dog and bone moment....damn new year blues...)

 

[wkehrman]

Additionally in tourney play, as well as random pick ups, you don't always know who your opponent is so you can't build to suit. And in some cases the fleets just don't work well against each other. So specializing a fleet to beat someone is not the same as having balance. Facing ISA take all e-mine ships... do the same vs the brakiri... not as useful... does that make the game balanced and fun? One two three shoot.... my rock smashes your scissors... next game...

Once again, let me point out the HUMAN element in this. How I use the fleet I have is just as important as how it is constructed. My Narn example spoke to that issue. My tourney fleet needs to address the multitude of possibilities. Narn, Drazi, Minbari and Vree all present different challenges and my tourney fleet needs to be able to meet them all at some level and my use, my decisions, must take care of the rest. THAT'S where it becomes fun. If I wanted a game where my opponent and I had exactly the same everything, I'd be playing chess.

This isn't real life, this is a game... one of the few opportunities we have in life to change the rules to make things more fun for all playing. In life you play by the rules of physics and economics because the writer is notoriously hard to reach for comment. Here we have at least something like a direct line and can ask the question 'why', know at some point things will change, and try to have some impact on them. Your telling me if you had the chance to re-write biology you wouldn't try to get the writer to change phlem (sp?) to something a bit less nasty?

Actually, I understand the need for the nastiness. Our bodies process infections, waste, etc. in certain ways. The farther away we can get these byproducts from our daily activities the healthier we can be in the long term. Demanding a change because "No mi gusta" does not address the issue of WHY it is the way it is.

As for getting things changed, I tend to operate under the assumption that the designer knows what he is doing. The whys were argued during playtesting and what we see is the final product.

 

[wkehrman]

Ripple
I went back and looked, yes, I missed your reference to this being an endgame, but I could only find the one, it was in your first post.

Perhaps I do need to play more games. However, using the fleet you described, I'm not sure why you're not swarming the Tethys with your fighters. The EA fleet has two fighters, you have 12. The fighters move last and attack first, they should be whittling those Tethys down. Yes, you have to roll 5+ to hit, but that's no different than what you're having to do with the other ships. This leaves 9 Drazi vs 6 EA, depending on what the Guardhawks are doing. I'd be all over the Oracle and Olympus. Yes, the EA has initiative sinks, but there are also 9 ships with hull 4 and only 4 with hull 5. Your short term goal is to eliminate 5 ships before he eliminates one of yours.

If the EA player brings more fighters, he's giving up something somewhere else, which means giving up initiative sinks.

It would seem that, with a swarm fleet, one is defeated when one has lost the swarm characteristic. This makes sense--if I rely on numbers, and I lack numbers, I've lost. I'm still not seeing how this makes the boresight "dumb".

 

[Triggy]

What about the fact that a single small ship one billion inches away can influence the game to the point that it can stop a ship shooting?

 

[ShopKeepJon]

Once again, let me point out the HUMAN element in this. How I use the fleet I have is just as important as how it is constructed. My Narn example spoke to that issue. My tourney fleet needs to address the multitude of possibilities. Narn, Drazi, Minbari and Vree all present different challenges and my tourney fleet needs to be able to meet them all at some level and my use, my decisions, must take care of the rest. THAT'S where it becomes fun. If I wanted a game where my opponent and I had exactly the same everything, I'd be playing chess.

He never said that he wanted the same things in each fleet, just that each fleet (taking into account all of their special and unique abilities and flaws) should have an equal chance of winning. Assuming that both sides have chosen well balanced and reasonable fleets, the player that adapts best to his opponent's strengths and weaknesses should win. As far as this goes, you're both saying the same thing. "THAT'S where it becomes fun." The difference between you and Ripple is that he believes that some mechanics so favor one fleet over another that it can become less fun.
(Note that he says that he plays Drazi and wins with them more often than not. Clearly he knows how to play them and likes them. This is not the issue...)

Actually, I understand the need for the nastiness. Our bodies process infections, waste, etc. in certain ways. The farther away we can get these byproducts from our daily activities the healthier we can be in the long term. Demanding a change because "No mi gusta" does not address the issue of WHY it is the way it is.

Given the opportunity to remove the nastiness and still get the same beneficial effect, I'd get rid of the nastiness. A better alternative was clearly implied...

As for getting things changed, I tend to operate under the assumption that the designer knows what he is doing. The whys were argued during playtesting and what we see is the final product.

I've playtested games and I don't believe this. If you ask most of the playtesters who worked on 2nd ed. ACTA you would find that most of them don't believe this either. You do the best you can with the time and materials that you have. Then, if you truly care about the game, you keep working on it so that you can make the next edition even better.

ShopKeepJon

 

[k3ndawg]

*snip*

As for getting things changed, I tend to operate under the assumption that the designer knows what he is doing. The whys were argued during playtesting and what we see is the final product.

I've playtested games and I don't believe this. If you ask most of the playtesters who worked on 2nd ed. ACTA you would find that most of them don't believe this either. You do the best you can with the time and materials that you have. Then, if you truly care about the game, you keep working on it so that you can make the next edition even better.

ShopKeepJon

Only if you're a playtester. If you're not, like the majority of us, you just gotta play on. Start doubting the system and you spend more time arguing rules and intent and less time playing.

I say plunge in and let the missiles and fighters fly!

Seriously, this debate has made me REALLY wanna play this game. Guess I need to find a demo. wkehrman? dag'karlove? How about it fellas?

 

[ShopKeepJon]

*snip*


I've playtested games and I don't believe this. If you ask most of the playtesters who worked on 2nd ed. ACTA you would find that most of them don't believe this either. You do the best you can with the time and materials that you have. Then, if you truly care about the game, you keep working on it so that you can make the next edition even better.

ShopKeepJon

Only if you're a playtester. If you're not, like the majority of us, you just gotta play on. Start doubting the system and you spend more time arguing rules and intent and less time playing.

I say plunge in and let the missiles and fighters fly!

Seriously, this debate has made me REALLY wanna play this game. Guess I need to find a demo. wkehrman? dag'karlove? How about it fellas?

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I meant this to refer only to playtesters and to answer the comment that the game is the "finished product." It's been my experience that no miniatures game is ever really the "finished product." Gamers are always testing the limits of a rule set, no playtest group is big enough to find all of the problems with the rules, and designers are always coming up with a "better way" to do things...

I didn't playtest ACTA and am not actively working on the system. Like everyone else, I play with the rules as written (and really like them). I don't think the system is perfect and will gladly argue about the rules outside of a game. During a game, however, we just play! Having doubts about individual rules hasn't caused any problems at all!

So by all means, let the missiles and fighters (and beams and railguns...) fly!

ShopKeepJon

 

[Ripple]

As ShopKeepJon said above, during a game I never throw in more than a comment of, 'really?...hmmm...like to come back to that later...'

My group was asked to go over some of the playtest material (through Davesaint) and maybe that has given me a swelled head. But I have always looked at making additions to games as part of our experience. It tends to add a lot of longevity to a game that we otherwise find the big holes in and then just put away and never play again, as we've found, at least for local play, the 'cookbook' to the game.

When possible we pass up the line things we think work, and wait and see if they make second or subsequent editions. I could be less vocal, and simply do what target and his group does, change the game to such an extent its hardly recognizable and move on. I tend to think if I've found an issue in a game big enough a group of people are talking about changing it, it is probably worth comment though.

Ripple