Game Balance - Hopes and fears for 2nd Edition

[Alexb83]

I would tend to disagree - if they're small and moving fast, they get a dodge score. Their hull should be their hull strength, not some wishy-washy combination of the two.

Giving a fighter ludicrously high hull and then throwing in ludicrously high dodge smacks of giving them double for their money - less dice are likely to hit it in the first instance. And even less of them are likely to actually make it past their evasive action.

What you're effectively saying is that for any given weapon system, a 25m long fighter with 25mm armour plating (or whatever) is just as tough to slice in half as a 25million tonne battlecruiser, with plating 10m thick.
And the fighter has a dodge score, too!

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Well, first off I think that those with the "I'm not going to play 2e," Should cool down at take a breather. It isn't even out yet. Give it a chance before you write it off.

One the issue of balancing, well your going to have to live with the possibility of somebody bringing an unbalanced fleet to the table, especially if its competative.

Why you ask?

Because there is no way to create a balanced game using unique and individual sides. As long as this ship has different stats then that ship then there will be a way to unbalance it. Unscrupulous players are a part of the game (unfortunately) and you can always just refuse to play them. If they go to the Tourny and you are forced to play them, well suck it up and walk away in the knowledge that your are the better person for taking a balanced fleet.

It is not a good idea to continuosly bash, point out errors or bad mouth the playtesters or the good people who write the rules. They will eventually stop reading the forums and develope a deep resentment towards us. They are doing a good Job. I love ACTA and I love what they have planed (or at least what little I have seen).

 

[Alexb83]

Thinking about it, dodge should really come before AD are rolled to penetrate the hull. You don't hit and then suddenly find that you've missed, you hit with any shots that aren't dodged - declare the no. of AD being rolled at the target. They roll to dodge. Any that you have left to roll, roll and see if you damage. This would be compensated for by realistic hull scores on fighters (2s and 3s, say).

 

[katadder]

you could also think of dodge as being they go evasive when the enemy has a lock on (which is what your hits could represent).
also you ever seen me use fighters, get 2 hits and guaranteed i will roll a 1

 

[Alexb83]

Giving them a high hull because theyre 'tough to hit' and then giving them dodge on top (which is where they're 'tough to hit') is giving them the same bonus twice, simple as.

Bad/Good dice rolls aside, hull 5 or 6 fighters with a dodge (of any kind) on top - they're not right. Hull 4 is even a stretch when you consider how many fleets have major warships with those hull values.

Either they need changing, or the dodge/hull mechanic needs amalgamating into one value.

 

[Burger]

Why do they need to bother trying to dodge an AD that is going to miss anyway?

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Giving them a high hull because theyre 'tough to hit' and then giving them dodge on top (which is where they're 'tough to hit') is giving them the same bonus twice, simple as.

Bad/Good dice rolls aside, hull 5 or 6 fighters with a dodge (of any kind) on top - they're not right. Hull 4 is even a stretch when you consider how many fleets have major warships with those hull values.

Either they need changing, or the dodge/hull mechanic needs amalgamating into one value.

This is why I still favour rolling to hit, then rolling again for damage effects. VaS does it, why not adopt it for ACtA 2nd ed?

 

[katadder]

would increase the length of time. would also completely change the whole game/fleets and so add more time before a release.

 

[Alexb83]

Well, we're waiting anyways. You may as well get it right.

 

[TGT]

Fortunately there are always different levels of interest and opinion upon all issues. Some people bring a pesermistic view some are just sycophantic in their out look.
Others can see this wholesale change and lack of play testing new ships really annoying a lot of people. I know those who game the revised edition regularly, are play testers and enjoy the game and the craic we all bring to tourneys. I don't think they've expressed any major issues with the rules just the unbalancing and lack of logic behind the cannon of new revised fleets.
To be honest it would be interesting to know how many players there are for ACTA revised edition? B5 has been finished for a while how many people actually pick up the game each month, I'd be surprised if it was in double digits.

 

[Reaverman]

would increase the length of time. would also completely change the whole game/fleets and so add more time before a release.

Which to me, sounds like its being rushed. A lot have people on here have mentioned (myself included), we would rather you take your time and get right, than rush it and watch the forum implode from angst gamers!

 

[Lord David the Denied]

would increase the length of time. would also completely change the whole game/fleets and so add more time before a release.

It works for VaS. That simple fact puts the lie to any argument about clunky mechanics. You're re-balancing all the fleet lists anyway. It's not hard to add an extra stat to each unit and a few more paragraphs to the "shooting" section of the main rulebook. Hell, much of the text could be lifted from the VaS rulebook and modified slightly.

Like the man said, take as much time as needed to get this right. The community as a whole doesn't seem to mind waiting for a good product.

 

[Burger]

Yes indeedy, take your time and get it right else you'll be facing the Reaverman/Burger tag team when it is released

 

[H]

and obviously I'll have to join in as well.

 

[Hash]

There have been a number of comments that address the attitude of my original post. As I stated, I did not intend to bash anyone (let alone playtesters - I specifically asked Mongoose to listen to them!) or put forward a, "screw you I'm going home" viewpoint forward. That isn't constructive I fully agree. Rather, I wanted to get across that ACTA V1 is a game I very much enjoy and I'm growing worried at the breadth of changes that 2e seems to hold especially since, and I will be quite frank on this, I was dissapointed with Armageddon which I saw as rushed and a missed opportunity.

With that in mind this post was effectively intended as an open letter to Mongoose to take your time with ACTA 2e, not to pander to anyone's pet likes and dislikes (including MINE!) and to release an improved and balanced game that will appeal to the broadest possible gaming audience while retaining the existing ACTA 1e fan base. Tall order but I have every hope that Mongoose, supported by their playtesters, can achieve this given time and proper consideration of new ideas and ship concepts.

I didn't make this quite clear before but I very much enjoy ACTA as a game and it's really the first wargame of ANY description that has encouraged me to invest and play in. My local gaming group is stronger and meets more regularly because of it, running (on-line reports) campaigns, creating support tools (Burger's Shipviewer) and we've even been prompted to rent halls and run tournaments (recent Conflicts of Interest) to promote the game.

Mongoose, as a whole, are a gaming company I have great fondness for and their friendly and very human approach is something that is both refreshing and admirable in an age of increasing alienation of gaming companies from their fan bases.

In short - not bashing anyone - just want to encourage Mongoose to get 2e right please

 

[Alexb83]

I only play at tournaments and on vassal whenever I can (or whenever I can get up to Aldershot as Neil knows) - no local players here. After failing to convert my local group to either ACTA or SST, they sit in the box waiting for Mongoose events for the most part.

 

[katadder]

its not being rushed, thats for sure.
but ACTA is a differant game to VaS as well.
most of ACTAs game mechanics are not changing in a huge way. some of the changes have been listed by Matt. the idea is to streamline the game without changing the fundamental basics that people such as Hash and hopefully the rest of you already love.
there is more clarification of rules with more examples, so that hopefully there will be alot less need for rulesmasters.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

There have been a number of comments that address the attitude of my original post.

Actually, Hash, you came across as very reasonable as far as I could see. Maybe it's the Baltar avatar you're using, but this whole thread has seemed very thoughtful and encouraging to me.

I think we've all got our concerns about 2nd ed, things we want to see, things we don't want to see, and ideas on how things could work. So far, I think, the community has been very open about these issues, expressed our collective concerns rationally, and offered plenty of support and patience to Matt and the crew at Mongoose.

I, personally, don't like the beam fix as you're all aware, but so far that's my only gripe with the way things are going. I'm just hoping the Centauri - my own fleet - gets the attention needed to make them balanced, accurately represent the source material and eliminate the "broken!" cries that have dogged them since I got involved in this game.

 

[Burger]

the idea is to streamline the game without changing the fundamental basics

The new stealth rule does exactly the opposite of that. Keeping track of which ships have already broken the stealth on certain enemies and haven't broken it on others, is not streamlining, it is making it way more complicated! Bin it.

 

[H]

their is a new stealth mechanism?