Fighter Swarms

If Armageddon does away with the tourney list, then the Balvarin will return to its crappy SFoS incarnation and the main carrier for the Centauri will be the Balvarix variant. Carrier 2, Fleet Carrier, Command +2, 8 flights.

Rutarian replacement wings will also be worth buying again, as the tourney list put the price up to a skirmish point for 4 flights, the same cost as buying two Rutarian wings in addition to your normal fighter complement. Can anyone suggest a reason why you'd replace your Sentris with Rutarians when you can buy Rutarians and keep the Sentris for the same price?
 
Just getting my Corphammer out again......

Probably the same reason why the Var'nic had no precise torps until Armagegeddon.

And the Drakh cruiser has Anti-fighter Netronlasers out its aft......
 
The decent carriers are battle-level and above. The Balavarix is the very basic model of carriers - no carrier trait, no CD player, no alloy jets. It's the Nissan Micra of carriers.

I guess the tourney list is imperfect because of the Rutarians. And SfoS is imperfect because of the Balvarin. What do you like about the game, Lord David? (I'm not being facetious, just curious as you seem to point out the faults a lot - I know usually folk like a game and want it to be better so spend time trying to get it fixed).
 
If you want it to get better, you need to find the faults first.

And MGP has enough of em........and thats just starting with the typos ^^.

Oh yeah and its always more fun to point out faults, than to give someone a pat on the back and say good job.

Same way my LGS handles MGP stuff. "It would be great, if they kinda stopped making obvious typos......."
 
Voronesh said:
I mean the Morshin is broken, because it gets more fighters than you could get via just buying fighters.

And I said that it is the value of the fighters that causes this, not the Morshin hull. If you got two flights of Nials for your patrol point, the Morshin would still be good value.

Voronesh said:
Its like saying: call now and you get 2 extra flights and this nice carrier on top.

To be fair, it is more like four extra flights and some fliers....

Voronesh said:
Why does not get the Avenger 24 Thunderbolts?

Because it can only carry 8 flights of 'furies. This is again simply down to the price/quantity of a races fighter wings. Not any real differences in the carriers themselves. What I was suggesting you do was compare the hulls, traits and weapons sytems etc. while ignoring any auxillary craft (which was the problem) and you have two pretty equally matched ships for their particular roll overall (fighter delivery). It is only when you add the fighters that the problems occur, and the Morshin becomes fantastic value.
 
Greg, I don't believe you substantivley answered any of my points. However, we aren't going to convince one another here, and I don't want to get into a long debate. Time (and the Second Edition) will tell. Please feel free to have the last word.

Trotsky. "...blow up to fighter or warship fire..." Empasis added. Grouping ships in - now ineffective - anti-fighter formations simply makes them vulnerable to other forms of attack. If you have not seen ships damaged, crippled or lost to the explosions of their consorts, I commend you for your good fortune. I have not been so lucky, and keeping my ships at least 4" apart is a major concern for me; Armageddon will not change this.
 
Just noticed this...

Firstly the EA fighters are a balancing factor in EA ships - compare the Omega with the Primus (the primus has better weapons, is faster and can take more damage but the Omega has more and better fighters).

With respect, that wasn't a balancing factor, that was a mistake. That's why the Omega just got an upgrade in Armageddon.
 
Nomad said:
Greg, I don't believe you substantivley answered any of my points. However, we aren't going to convince one another here, and I don't want to get into a long debate. Time (and the Second Edition) will tell. Please feel free to have the last word.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you will feel better about it after playing. The proof as they say is the pudding.

I'm glad I don't have to spend more time constructing posts _ I'd rather be writing for S&P. :)
 
Couple of quick responses,

I do not believe I have lost my temper or been unreasoned in my posts as Greg implies but perhaps I have missed somethng.

The Vree Xill does not have to be on a large base. There are no basing conventions. If I am willing to have it tip over, or use FA scale, or a wieghted base, or smaller fighter bases, etc. The number was taken from actually putting fighter bases around a whitestar which does hava a small base, so your point is somewhat valid, but I did not count how many fighters with longer than two inch guns could add to the stack. T-bolts have a 4 inch weapon and could easily add one to two other rings of fighters depending on the base I use. In my case my Vree are on the slightly large GW flying bases right now for the Xill so slightly less.

And yes why a individual hermes could indeed be swarmed before, other hermes nearby could have also fired into the swarm. What made fighter swarms ineffective before was that formations of ships had enough firepower to eliminate the majority of fighters before they fired, not individual ships. Now formations do nothing to 'prevent' fighter attack, they only act as a retributive strike. This is where several of the questions have come from.

Again, I am looking for a discussion of what changes due to these new rules. I see a large swing in effectiveness, and I am asking how did they rebalance things to account for this. The answer I am getting is we did not rebalance at all. So if this change helps some races more than others, and actually hurts certain races badly, well too bad. That makes me question whether there is any attempt at game balance being made, particularly in regards to league races.

Anyway, as Nomad said we are not going to convince each other. Last post for me on the subject until I can bring some playtest pictures along.

Ripple
 
Ripple said:
The Vree Xill does not have to be on a large base. There are no basing conventions.

Actually there kind of are basing conventions:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/ctashipbases.pdf

That size chart was constructed for the possible future application of official base sizes, while not currently enforced, it is a good guideline to stick by.

LBH
 
I can see this rule as unbalancing the game in favor of the higher lvl fighter fleets. i.e Earth, Minbari, ISA, Narn. Fleets with weaker fighters will be affected, but in not as much of a way. League fleets, and the Centauri whose fighters suck, will get screwed by this, as they won't be able to make as much use of it. Earth fleets will probably be composed of nothing but T-Bolts. Minbari fleets won't see any flyers or Tishats, not that I've seen any anyways. ISA already have Nials in every WS, but will load the VCD with T-Bolts. Narn have the Frazi with 4 AD. Even if the fighters don't kill ships, or don't crit them out, they'll still be effective for killing Interceptors for the larger ships to fire at later. Once the fighters have fired, it becomes irrelevant to fire at them, as they've already done what they are supposed to do.

I haven't played with the rules, so can't be sure just how much the new rules will unbalance fighters, but time will see the argument go in favor of finding another way to balance the fighters while keeping the game as a whole balanced as well.

Greg Smith said:
And playtesters aren't perfect - we don't spot every potential problem the designer creates.

True, UNFORTUNATELY, Playtesters aren't perfect, they don't spot every potential prblem the designers create. However, they are supposed to put the game through every concievable situation to see that the rules are balanced. They are supposed to break the rules in as many ways as they can to fix them. This is their job. This is why they are playtesters. Playtesters aren't supposed to play the rules as they would in a friendly game with the buds on a friday night.

If a rule if broken and still gets incorporated, its not the designers fault for putting it in there. It's the playtesters fault for not doing their jobs, which is finding it and fixing it.
 
Fighters and their use and role in the game have always been a contentious issue that splits players right down the middle. There are those who beleive fighters are an integral part of the game and those who beleive their use/effect should be minimal.

In the original ACTA rules fighters were dominant. They had higher AD and a lot more weapon traits. Players, as players do, maximised on a weakness that Mongoose hadn't thought of when they designed the game. Mongoose didn't think that players would turn up with fleets of fighters. After all, ACTA was a game about BIG ships, fleet conflict, capital ships going toe to toe, fighters were thrown into the mix without much thought. But Mongoose didn't take into account the fact that the average gamer can spot and exploit a loop hole faster than a Thunderbolt on afterburners.

Players complained, see the earlier threads from the very beginings of the game, if they still exist. Some players complained and complained. The two biggest moans groans and whines were stealth and fighters. With cries of fix it fix it, it isn't broke don't touch it, again depending on which camp you fell into.

So in SFOS fighters had most of their traits removed, weapon AD was reduced and within weeks players cried and moaned and groaned, fix it fix it, you destroyed my lovely fighters. It's broken fix it fix it. Low and behold, before SFOS is even a year old the rules are changed again to assuage the constant gripes of players. So now the pendulumn has swung back in favour of fighters. Vree, the fleet with the best anti fighter ships in the game are retired from the game against fighter heavy fleets before a signle dice is cast. Shadows and vorlons are going to get beaten up, Shadows more than vorlons by all accounts, and as fighters move last, escaping from the range of anti fighter escorts, they are free to plague, pester and whittle down ships at will.

Ok there will be an increase in dog fights, big deal, this isn't a world war 1 fighetr game. dog fights are an irrelevance. Under Armageddon dogfights will decide who has the fighter advantage and whomever gets that takes a huge advantage into the game.

Interceptors? Ha ha ha no trouble, target the ship with fighters and the inteceptors are used up before they can do the job they were designed to do.

Players won't take mass swarms of fighters that move last and fire first? Why the hell not? Gamers have always sought the advantage, if gives a huge advantage and it is within the rules then even better, so what if it is sad, geeky, and shows that you can'tplay with real ships, actually what is shows is that you a a cheese ball and should be laughed at, derided, and then ignored as players refuse to play with you.

Playtesters didn't spot any of this? Tsk tsk tsk, who ever said that playtesting is about grinding things out and not having a game with your buds on a Friday night was dead right. The playtesters should have spotted this. There is hardly any way they couldn't unless they were playing in the spirit of the game instead of playing as the rules allow. The spirit of the game is the unwritten rule of how the game is meant to be played. As any rules lawyer will tell you, unwritten rules aren't worth the paper they are written on. But that's not playtesting, thats just playing. If this had been properly playtested, Mongoose would be aware that several fleets have been royally ****ed, and that interceptors can now be sidestepped, skirmish and some raid ships destroyed by fighters before doing a single thing. Maybe they were aware and just weren't bothered, after all, I bet the sale of fighters will go up now!

The only hope now, for those that fall into the camp who were happy with what was done to fighters in SFOS, is to moan and groan and whine, loudly, continuously and without ceasing. This has been shown to work twice beofre, there is noreson why it should not sway mongoose once again to put out another set of rules that fixes the problem again, swinging the pendulumn back the other way. SFOS lasted what...6-8 months before the rules were changed...complain loud enough, hard enough and often enough and see if you can get them changed again, eeven faster this time. It will give Mongoose something to put into next year's update to the rules.

As for putting all your ships into a big circle....... hmmmmm I would so love to comment on the tactical sagacity this shows but for once, I am just lost for words.... to busy laughing to type more......
 
Fighters and their use and role in the game have always been a contentious issue that splits players right down the middle. There are those who beleive fighters are an integral part of the game and those who beleive their use/effect should be minimal.

In the original ACTA rules fighters were dominant. They had higher AD and a lot more weapon traits. Players, as players do, maximised on a weakness that Mongoose hadn't thought of when they designed the game. Mongoose didn't think that players would turn up with fleets of fighters. After all, ACTA was a game about BIG ships, fleet conflict, capital ships going toe to toe, fighters were thrown into the mix without much thought. But Mongoose didn't take into account the fact that the average gamer can spot and exploit a loop hole faster than a Thunderbolt on afterburners.

Players complained, see the earlier threads from the very beginings of the game, if they still exist. Some players complained and complained. The two biggest moans groans and whines were stealth and fighters. With cries of fix it fix it, it isn't broke don't touch it, again depending on which camp you fell into.

So in SFOS fighters had most of their traits removed, weapon AD was reduced and within weeks players cried and moaned and groaned, fix it fix it, you destroyed my lovely fighters. It's broken fix it fix it. Low and behold, before SFOS is even a year old the rules are changed again to assuage the constant gripes of players. So now the pendulumn has swung back in favour of fighters. Vree, the fleet with the best anti fighter ships in the game are retired from the game against fighter heavy fleets before a signle dice is cast. Shadows and vorlons are going to get beaten up, Shadows more than vorlons by all accounts, and as fighters move last, escaping from the range of anti fighter escorts, they are free to plague, pester and whittle down ships at will.

Ok there will be an increase in dog fights, big deal, this isn't a world war 1 fighetr game. dog fights are an irrelevance. Under Armageddon dogfights will decide who has the fighter advantage and whomever gets that takes a huge advantage into the game.

Interceptors? Ha ha ha no trouble, target the ship with fighters and the inteceptors are used up before they can do the job they were designed to do.

Players won't take mass swarms of fighters that move last and fire first? Why the hell not? Gamers have always sought the advantage, if gives a huge advantage and it is within the rules then even better, so what if it is sad, geeky, and shows that you can'tplay with real ships, actually what is shows is that you a a cheese ball and should be laughed at, derided, and then ignored as players refuse to play with you.

Playtesters didn't spot any of this? Tsk tsk tsk, who ever said that playtesting is about grinding things out and not having a game with your buds on a Friday night was dead right. The playtesters should have spotted this. There is hardly any way they couldn't unless they were playing in the spirit of the game instead of playing as the rules allow. The spirit of the game is the unwritten rule of how the game is meant to be played. As any rules lawyer will tell you, unwritten rules aren't worth the paper they are written on. But that's not playtesting, thats just playing. If this had been properly playtested, Mongoose would be aware that several fleets have been royally ****ed, and that interceptors can now be sidestepped, skirmish and some raid ships destroyed by fighters before doing a single thing. Maybe they were aware and just weren't bothered, after all, I bet the sale of fighters will go up now!

The only hope now, for those that fall into the camp who were happy with what was done to fighters in SFOS, is to moan and groan and whine, loudly, continuously and without ceasing. This has been shown to work twice beofre, there is noreson why it should not sway mongoose once again to put out another set of rules that fixes the problem again, swinging the pendulumn back the other way. SFOS lasted what...6-8 months before the rules were changed...complain loud enough, hard enough and often enough and see if you can get them changed again, eeven faster this time. It will give Mongoose something to put into next year's update to the rules.

As for putting all your ships into a big circle....... hmmmmm I would so love to comment on the tactical sagacity this shows but for once, I am just lost for words.... to busy laughing to type more......
 
Ripple said:
I do not believe I have lost my temper or been unreasoned in my posts as Greg implies but perhaps I have missed somethng.

I have not implied that you have lost your temper at all. Our discussions were perfectly civil.

Again, I am looking for a discussion of what changes due to these new rules. I see a large swing in effectiveness, and I am asking how did they rebalance things to account for this. The answer I am getting is we did not rebalance at all.

The general opinion on the boards was that the game was unbalanced against races that used fighters. The rule change is to rebalance.

So if this change helps some races more than others, and actually hurts certain races badly, well too bad. That makes me question whether there is any attempt at game balance being made, particularly in regards to league races.

All of the changes in Armageddon are to rebalance things that players have considered in need of changing.

Anyway, as Nomad said we are not going to convince each other. Last post for me on the subject until I can bring some playtest pictures along.

Ripple
 
Benjamen the Wolf said:
True, UNFORTUNATELY, Playtesters aren't perfect, they don't spot every potential prblem the designers create. However, they are supposed to put the game through every concievable situation to see that the rules are balanced. They are supposed to break the rules in as many ways as they can to fix them. This is their job. This is why they are playtesters. Playtesters aren't supposed to play the rules as they would in a friendly game with the buds on a friday night.

First of all playtesting is not a job. We put in a lot of hours, which are unpaid. In exchange we get a copy of the work we playtest. I work a minimum wage job which would pay me far more if I put in the hours doing that instead of playtesting.

I have playtested the Drakh list for which I got a book worth £5.
I have playtested Armageddon for which I will get a book worth £20.
I have playtested the tournament list - you can work out how much that was worth.

If a rule if broken and still gets incorporated, its not the designers fault for putting it in there. It's the playtesters fault for not doing their jobs, which is finding it and fixing it.

If a playtester finds a rule that he considers broken, all he can do is point that out to the designer and back up his reasons. The designer is in no way obligated to fix it.

I don't usually lose my temper, but I've had it with you. You don't know what you are talking about. Shut up.
 
Hear Hear Greg, well all except the shut up part.

Playtesters are pretty much a volunteer force. They do their best. If you can't appreciate that, just think how much worse the games might potentially be if they weren't playtested.

LBH
 
Back
Top