Gaim in P&P
- Thread starter Kosh127
- Start date
CZuschlag
Mongoose
If you're a lumbering ship, and getting your range 15 guns in for a shot, you're going to end up in a position very similar to this.
With your range 25 guns, you've got big interceptor problems. The best way to solve them is to soak 'em with the front Heavy Plasma Cannons, then let the torpedoes through.
Any locally large number of prelaunched Starfuries can be bombed from any number of sources (you'll also get the ship, too, as they are escorting -- an added bonus). Prelaunched Klittikas (no EA mines to fear) can pin one or two this-turn launched Starfuries in a dogfight long enough to keep them from interfering with the Breaching Pods for one turn. That should be enough (even if it's a very dead Klittika).
It's harder against the Nova, granted -- Novae have more troopers (but no antifighter), for one thing, so you will likely only get 3 of the 5 past the Nova's Troopers (remembering that the Breaching Pod troopers shoot first.). That's not enough to kill out the crew, but it should be enough to skeleton it.
Nova vs. Skrunnka broadsides, by the averages:
14 TL --> 7.78 hits --> 3.98 past interceptors --> 4.38:4.71
2 DD,B --> 2 hits (exactly) --> 4.73:4.73
and, of course, this is the best the Nova will get .... the Skrunnka has better range, isn't lumbering, is faster, has pods and suicide Klittikaks if needed, has better traits, is bigger
... I find absolutely no rational reason to improve the Skrunnka. You trying to make sure no gaming group buys the figs because they end up merely as art pieces?
With your range 25 guns, you've got big interceptor problems. The best way to solve them is to soak 'em with the front Heavy Plasma Cannons, then let the torpedoes through.
Any locally large number of prelaunched Starfuries can be bombed from any number of sources (you'll also get the ship, too, as they are escorting -- an added bonus). Prelaunched Klittikas (no EA mines to fear) can pin one or two this-turn launched Starfuries in a dogfight long enough to keep them from interfering with the Breaching Pods for one turn. That should be enough (even if it's a very dead Klittika).
It's harder against the Nova, granted -- Novae have more troopers (but no antifighter), for one thing, so you will likely only get 3 of the 5 past the Nova's Troopers (remembering that the Breaching Pod troopers shoot first.). That's not enough to kill out the crew, but it should be enough to skeleton it.
Nova vs. Skrunnka broadsides, by the averages:
14 TL --> 7.78 hits --> 3.98 past interceptors --> 4.38:4.71
2 DD,B --> 2 hits (exactly) --> 4.73:4.73
and, of course, this is the best the Nova will get .... the Skrunnka has better range, isn't lumbering, is faster, has pods and suicide Klittikaks if needed, has better traits, is bigger
... I find absolutely no rational reason to improve the Skrunnka. You trying to make sure no gaming group buys the figs because they end up merely as art pieces?
Greg Smith
Mongoose
silashand said:
That is correct. And the sum of that series tends to 1.
Or for the non mathematically inclined, if you add up all of the possible beam results the first roll onwards - the average number of hits gets closer and closer to one, the more times you roll.
1 roll = 0.5 average hits
2 rolls = 0.75
3 rolls = 0.875
4 rolls = 0.9375
5 rolls = 0.96875 and so on.
CZuschlag said:
Explain to me how you can use an example scenario where the ships start 10" apart and are not in a position to manouver away? The Skrunnka has only one 45 degree turn so what is stopping the Pak from APTE and zipping past the Gaim ship, then doing it again in the subsequent movement phase, thus being *far* out of range of the pods. Then in the shooting phase the plasma web in combination with a couple other ships will make short work of the pods.
That's false. Assuming your scenario and the ships are 10" apart at the end of turn when the pods are launched, there is *no* way they can hit the Urik'Hal if the Pak player doesn't want them to do so. All Stop comes to mind. If somehow you manage to allow the Gaim ship to end up closer than that to the ship in the end phase, I think that's simply a mistake in judgement. Besides, the Urik has Anti-Fighter 4 which should do a number on a couple pods at least.
They don't need to. Unless the Skrunnka executes a Scramble special order (which happens in the movement phase when activated so the Pak player will obviously know it can do so), it's launching a *maximum* of 3 pods at the ship. As I said, with AF4 it's probably going to do in a couple of them, leaving 1 left which needs a 5 to kill the Pak troop on board. Without the old super-troop rule, 1 enemy troop isn't horribly overpowering given that the Urik'Hal has 32 crew on board. Odds are good the troop will be dead before he kills them all.
The only way it's a free and easy kill is if it's already crippled, in which case *any* fleet with pods can do it.
Hardly. And beside, it's not asking for an "upgrade." It's asking to put it back where it was.
As do I.
Agreed. However, as I said I am asking for *real* evidence that the Skrunnka is broken and so far no one has been able to provide any. The original Gaim fleet as a whole was certainly broken and yes, it needed to be toned down. For the most part the changes they made are excellent, however, in some cases -the Skrunnka being one- I think they went too far. I keep harping that fleets are balanced as a whole, not necessarily on an individual ship level, though that does have to happen to a certain extent. The problem with the old Gaim fleet was generally the combination of the pods and the super troops, and to a lesser degree the emines, all of which have been significantly toned down. In the games I have played with the new Gaim the Skrunnka dies far too easily in my experience, mostly due to all the double damage, AP, SAP, twin linked weaponry out there at the Raid level.
As you are well aware it is designed to close with the enemy so that it *can* launch the pods. It is neither fast enough or manouverable enough to do that reliably at hull 5 IMO and it lacks the range and firepower to consistently do enough damage to an enemy in order to cripple/adrift them in order to use its shuttles. Realistically, I can't remember the last time I was in a position with the Skrunnka to use them so for me at least they are useless. Thus I have to rely on the pods. However, as I said given the changes to them they are a *lot* easier to avoid now. The 6" speed change for the pods has in my experience toned them down *significantly*, making their use a *lot* more judicious than you state in your example.
Anyway, I know we all have biases, including me. It just seemed that you were using yours as a justification for your desired result which I think is wrong. I do play Gaim, but I don't want them to be unfair to play against. I don't think they are now (ignoring the absolute hatred some people have for emines) and I honestly don't think putting the Skrunnka back to Hull 6 will make them so or even make the ship itself broken. However, what it will do is fit its background more closely as well as let it hopefully have a decent chance of surviving long enough to do what it's supposed to do. As it stands now I don't think it does either its background or its role justice. *That* is *my* opinion and my bias with regard to this particular change. I've said I would reconsider it if someone could provide evidence that it would be overpowered (evidence that can be proven in play), but as I said so far no one has provided anything but theories. At least in the last two cases that you and Ripple supported, both can easily be discounted with corresponding evidence to the contrary. In some ways I just get tired of people using arguments that seem reasonable at first glance, but upon closer inspection are demonstrably false. I have no objection to real evidence. I just haven't seen any yet.
Cheers, Gary
Da Boss said:
An interceptor value of 2 tend to be useful only against the first volley from an enemy vessel (or vessels) and will protect against roughly 5-6 hits before dropping to just 6's on the dice. If there is more than one salvo coming your way then hull 5 or 6 matters considerably. Given the amount of TL/AP/SAP/etc. weaponry at the Raid level the difference between hull 5 and 6 is an order of magnitude. Considering the drop in speed of the Gaim pods as well as any AF/AAF an enemy might have, they have to ensure they can get close enough to the enemy in order to use them effectively since the ship does not have the firepower to cripple its target reliably on the way in. *That* is why it needs to return to Hull 6 because in the games I've played with the new Gaim, the Assault ship either dies, crippled or speed crit'ed relatively early in the game, usually due to long range, average damage weaponry. This is my experience anyway and I always use at least one Skrunnka in my Gaim fleet (mostly because I think it's one of the Gaim's best looking models
).Cheers, Gary
Burger said:
Agreed. IMO they are far too random for my tastes. Personally, I would change them to hit on 2's on the first roll, 3's on the second, and 4's on the third with a maximum of three total rolls for any one die. This would make them more consistent as well as eliminate the super lucky rolls and the super unlucky ones too. Might have to adjust attack dice for individual ships, but that would be a small matter I think and definitely worth it to eliminate the all-or-nothing effect they seem to have now. JMO though...
Cheers, Gary
PS. I've heard of Vassal, but never used it. Not much for computer games really as I prefer real dice
.Unfortunately that would make them far too good. Average hits would be 1.67 instead of 1, so almost a doubling in beams power.silashand said:
Best solution so far IMO is 1-2 = no hits, 3-5 = 1 hit, 6 = 3 hits... with no rerolls. Maintains average, and has very good distribution. Unfortunately it does lose a bit of the beamy feel and the fun of rolling again and again but hey you can't have everything.
That is one of the main issues sure 2AD doesn't sound like much but then where you roll a hand full of hits and a few crits it can quiet easily destroy a vessel the same class combine this with enemy ships in multipule arcs and the ship quiet easily makes it's cost back, The pods are a bonus and the speed reduction well frankly everyone else part from the minbari has speed 6 so I don't see why the gaim should be any faster they are assault orientated yes but there not the most technologically advanced race around.
silashand said:
That's why I said you'd have to adjust the AD on most ships with beams. I certainly wouldn't advocate it with ships as they are now. The Minbari, Drakh and ISA would rule the entire galaxy
.The alternative is simply to steal the Eldar pulsar rule from BFG. It works and with the number of damage points for ACtA ships would hardly be overpowering.
Cheers, Gary
Okay, going back a bit, as I a bit peeved at being misrepresented...
I said you get two to four hits per arc...
Well you have 2 AD arcs and 4 AD arcs... so you will on average get 2 hits and 4 hits depending. We can argue over the fractional bits of the 2 hits all you want, but it's going to be more than 1 hit and 2 hits respectively by arc.
Beams are just as damn good as we say they are... why, because they ignore hull/interceptors and have the room to roll up. You may not think that happens but I've seen it happen at least once a game since the change... and one good roll up changes the whole game.
And yes you might have to attack two targets... but guess what, you get to attack two targets! Two chances to roll hot... and a with a couple of these ships working together lots of chances. Any one roll up is a big deal with a DD beam...
You say we're providing no evidence... but we are and your skipping over it. We're showing you other ships that are designed to come close and duke it out... and showing you that your weapons are better... plus you have the pods... this means you have to suffer somewhat in defense.
Any stance that says my weapons can be better, my secondary weapon can be better (pods) and I get flights... but I need equivalent or better defenses is just broken.
Ripple
I said you get two to four hits per arc...
Well you have 2 AD arcs and 4 AD arcs... so you will on average get 2 hits and 4 hits depending. We can argue over the fractional bits of the 2 hits all you want, but it's going to be more than 1 hit and 2 hits respectively by arc.
Beams are just as damn good as we say they are... why, because they ignore hull/interceptors and have the room to roll up. You may not think that happens but I've seen it happen at least once a game since the change... and one good roll up changes the whole game.
And yes you might have to attack two targets... but guess what, you get to attack two targets! Two chances to roll hot... and a with a couple of these ships working together lots of chances. Any one roll up is a big deal with a DD beam...
You say we're providing no evidence... but we are and your skipping over it. We're showing you other ships that are designed to come close and duke it out... and showing you that your weapons are better... plus you have the pods... this means you have to suffer somewhat in defense.
Any stance that says my weapons can be better, my secondary weapon can be better (pods) and I get flights... but I need equivalent or better defenses is just broken.
Ripple
Somewhat calmer now...
'Fleets are balanced, not individual ships'
This crap has been around since the beginning of the game and has been the greatest excuse for broken fleets yet thought up. This is the reason the Saggi fleet came to be.
A ship has to be balanced within it's PL, within it's fleet (ie is it cover the supposed weaknesses of other ships in it's fleet) and within the game as a whole.
Anything else and your right back to the old maxim, if its worth taking one, its worth taking two, and... This is what is wrong with the whole PL system, it was balanced by saying that taking two gave you a small boost, say 5% to 10%. Well everyone figured out that stacking up the little boosts was the way to go pretty darn quick.
Even small imbalances will be seized on quickly and exploited to the max.
Ripple
'Fleets are balanced, not individual ships'
This crap has been around since the beginning of the game and has been the greatest excuse for broken fleets yet thought up. This is the reason the Saggi fleet came to be.
A ship has to be balanced within it's PL, within it's fleet (ie is it cover the supposed weaknesses of other ships in it's fleet) and within the game as a whole.
Anything else and your right back to the old maxim, if its worth taking one, its worth taking two, and... This is what is wrong with the whole PL system, it was balanced by saying that taking two gave you a small boost, say 5% to 10%. Well everyone figured out that stacking up the little boosts was the way to go pretty darn quick.
Even small imbalances will be seized on quickly and exploited to the max.
Ripple
Ripple said:
Given the current PL mechanism, your reasoning is the "crap" excuse, not the other way around. You simply cannot compare unlike situations and say they are balanced no matter how you look at it, yet that is what you are supporting. To use the Pak'Ma'Ra example from earlier, saying that the Breaching Pods are unbalanced vs a single Urik'Hal given the scenario provided is ludicrous. The Plasma Web *requires* multiple ships, just like the Dilgar Pentacon requires multiples. You *CANNOT* say that such an ability can *ever* be balanced on a ship-by-ship level because it *DOES NOT WORK*.
Unless the system were to move to a point-based mechanism then fleet-based balancing is the *only* way to make fleets balanced given the vast disparity between abilities and the lack of granularity in the separations. In fact, the only way ship-by-ship, ability-by-ability balancing works is when the level of granularity of separation is high enough. The lower the level the less it works and the more you have to balance things as a whole rather than individually. *THAT* is the fundamental reason why ship-based balancing plays the minimal part that it does in ACtA. There are only 6 levels of granularity and you are asking to fit what, several hundred into those few categories and hope they balance out? Sorry, it doesn't and can't work that way. That's why your claim is smoke & mirrors and does not accurately reflect how the system is currently designed.
To some extent yes. However, as I said, the limitations of the PL system do not lend themselves to completely accurate ship-based balancing. It just doesn't work that way regardless what some people wish to believe.
Cheers, Gary
Ripple said:
Sorry, that's exactly what I debunked. That happens *only* in the front arc which means vs *one* ship as a target. Any other beams would have to happen in the P/S/A arcs which as I demonstrated produce almost negligible results.
No, averages for a 2 dice beam are 1-2 hits. Averages for a 4 dice beam are 3-4 hits. In fact, averages for any beam weapon are equal to or slightly less than the number of starting attack dice. Anything beyond that number has a less than 25% probability that it will occur. Given that the majority of arcs on the Skrunnka are 2 dice beams that is what I showed.
I play an all-beam fleet and yes, they *can* be as good as you say. However, they can also be horribly ineffective. I've had just as many games where I rolled 20+ dice and got 2 hits as I have where I've rolled 2 dice and gotten 20 hits. However, they average out over a game usually. One volley they will do nothing, one they will do everything. Given timing and everything else, i.e. when you need them to hit they may not, I have to stand by my claim that they are not nearly as good as you claim them to be.
Again you use the luck factor to justify why something is balanced or not. Sorry, but "rolling hot" is not a valid rationale to balance any fleet since "rolling cold" is just as likely. That's like saying because my girlfriend ran a 20-roll streak on the craps table in Vegas last year that somehow the game is unbalanced and needs to be changed. Luck is not and cannot be a factor in any statistical analysis. In fact, it is specifically *excluded* from that analysis because it falls outside of the control group.
What "evidence?" I just showed you how your arguments don't stand up to actual analysis with regard to luck and balance and how in a lot of cases ship-by-ship comparisons do not work. That is a falacy that some folks here (obviously you included) would like to believe, but given the existing mechanics in the game is actually untrue. The only way it can be made even remotely true is to revise the PL system granularity such that all ships in a given level are indeed equal. With only 6 levels and probably a hundred ships total in each, you're looking at an almost impossible situation unless you simply nerf everyone so they are all the same. Sorry, games design doesn't work that way. And yes, I've done my share of games design in a past life, notably in computers where even the smallest error can unbalance everything. I don't claim to be an expert by any means and I haven't done it in over 10 years now, but I do know how it works and your claim simply isn't accurate given all the factors present in this game.
As to the ship in question I said my actual gaming experience shows that the defenses of the Skrunnka are insufficient in a lot of cases to do its job given the now toned down assault troops and breaching pods. Short range, average speed, low attack die weaponry and a hull value that even modest weaponry can drop to a 4+ or better have resulted in many instances where the ship simply cannot close with the enemy before it is either destroyed or crit'ed out of the game.
First, the weapons aren't better as I *proved*. Second, the pods (including the troops) have been downgraded already and no one's asking for them to be boosted. Two flights of fighters, even if you turn them to suicide bombers is hardly a significant threat no matter how you look at it since they are just as vulnerable to AF/AAF as everyone else and generate only a single hit each. Even using them as actual fighters is iffy seeing that their dogfight score is average. Sorry, asking that the ship be able to actually *do* what it's designed to do is not broken in any context.
Cheers, Gary
OK; lets assume that during the course of a game, you will get one 20+ beam hits roll, and a whole bunch of 0 or 1 hits, from your 6AD beam. I think we can all agree, that is how most games go.silashand said:
If you get the 20+ hits at the start of the game, the damage you do will probably kill a high-PL ship, taking it out of the game, no return fire form it. So you are more likely to win.
If you get your lucky hit it at the end of the game, you are down to only 2 ships left yourself while your enemy hasn't lost anything, even if you kill his flagship he will probably finish you off quite easily.
So timing has a lot to do with it. Get your good beam rolls early in the game, they are horribly, horribly effective.
