Hydrans
- Thread starter Phoenix44
- Start date
I massively hand waved fighters in my conversion by assuming the presence of warp booster packs on all of them, basically doubling their speed and halving their damage.
Thus using a piece of SFB technology (so fitting in with the background) to have quick moving but fragile fighters that can keep up with ships or outpace them due to their maneuverability.
The 'date' for ACTA:SFU isn't stated, but seems to be around Y180, making Warp Booster packs something that would be in common use.
It means the average SFB fighter is better than the equivalent Noble Armada fighter, but they also cost more points. I think the average fighter (F-18/Z-Y) will probably clock in at 17.5 points each, as 15 is too cheap but 20 too much. At 105 points a flight you are essentially trading a frigate for a half squadron of fighters, and having a carrier means less firepower (particularly with an interdiction carrier).
As soon as ships start exploding then fighters can get taken off in huge quantities though, as we found out in our playtest.
I completely forgot to sort out an amended fighter playtest pack (memory is still crap). I'll try and do that over the holidays. However I'd like some people to try it out.
Thus using a piece of SFB technology (so fitting in with the background) to have quick moving but fragile fighters that can keep up with ships or outpace them due to their maneuverability.
The 'date' for ACTA:SFU isn't stated, but seems to be around Y180, making Warp Booster packs something that would be in common use.
It means the average SFB fighter is better than the equivalent Noble Armada fighter, but they also cost more points. I think the average fighter (F-18/Z-Y) will probably clock in at 17.5 points each, as 15 is too cheap but 20 too much. At 105 points a flight you are essentially trading a frigate for a half squadron of fighters, and having a carrier means less firepower (particularly with an interdiction carrier).
As soon as ships start exploding then fighters can get taken off in huge quantities though, as we found out in our playtest.
I completely forgot to sort out an amended fighter playtest pack (memory is still crap). I'll try and do that over the holidays. However I'd like some people to try it out.
Tried a Hydrans vs Romulans game and it was ugly.
Three KRs vs a Dragoon and two Lancers. The Roms decloaked and launched, but most of the plasma was shredded by gatlings, and the fusion beams on the Lancers, within 3", were impossible to avoid and totally lethal.
My suggested solution - a 'Short-Ranged Weapon' trait for the fusions. While the other weapons on the ship fire during her activation as normal, the fusion beams may only shoot at the end of the firing phase after all other shooting has taken place. This represents the ship having to weather enemy fire as she closes to take the shot, and gives an enemy ship under attack by a fusion armed ship a chance to defend herself.
It might also be an appropriate trait for ESGs used in offensive (ramming) mode. Prevents ESG rams being either too easy or too random (CQ check).
Three KRs vs a Dragoon and two Lancers. The Roms decloaked and launched, but most of the plasma was shredded by gatlings, and the fusion beams on the Lancers, within 3", were impossible to avoid and totally lethal.
My suggested solution - a 'Short-Ranged Weapon' trait for the fusions. While the other weapons on the ship fire during her activation as normal, the fusion beams may only shoot at the end of the firing phase after all other shooting has taken place. This represents the ship having to weather enemy fire as she closes to take the shot, and gives an enemy ship under attack by a fusion armed ship a chance to defend herself.
It might also be an appropriate trait for ESGs used in offensive (ramming) mode. Prevents ESG rams being either too easy or too random (CQ check).
Nomad said:
How did you model Fusions? In SFB, while they are technically usable out to 10 hexes, normally one fires them at 3" or less, with sub-1" being preferred (and most deadly). But I have seen times where an entire Ranger's worth of fighters dumped their fusions at 10 hexes and ran away, having dropped the facing target's shield for the mothership to go beat on. That is the kind of thing you only generally try once per game due to the time it takes to reload the fighter's expended fusion charges.
Also note, that "historically", the Hydrans only fought the Lyrans and Klingons, never any plasma-using empires. Rom vs Hydrans is a match-up that can only end badly for the plasma users
The Fusions look like this;
From my post on the previous page. Since then, I've dropped the maximum range to 6".
I've used the 'range 10 fusion barrage' a few times in SFB. On one occasion, eighteen Stinger 2s (two Rangers' full squadrons) blew up an LDR CW from five hexes away (through a down shield. He'd tried to T-bomb the fighters, but messed up the mine's placement and they safely HETed out of trouble. Happy days).
However, I've treated the fighters as recoverable seeking weapons, which is only meant to represent knife-range Stinger attacks rather than other empire's drone armed fighters which operate quite differently.
The hellbores seemed to work OK though. Take a look and tell me what you think.
The Roms were just the nearest fleet to hand
And there were a few historical Hydran vs Rom fights with Roxanna Vulpes' fleet's short lived deployment as Klingon allies.
From my post on the previous page. Since then, I've dropped the maximum range to 6".
I've used the 'range 10 fusion barrage' a few times in SFB. On one occasion, eighteen Stinger 2s (two Rangers' full squadrons) blew up an LDR CW from five hexes away (through a down shield. He'd tried to T-bomb the fighters, but messed up the mine's placement and they safely HETed out of trouble. Happy days).
However, I've treated the fighters as recoverable seeking weapons, which is only meant to represent knife-range Stinger attacks rather than other empire's drone armed fighters which operate quite differently.
The hellbores seemed to work OK though. Take a look and tell me what you think.
The Roms were just the nearest fleet to hand
And there were a few historical Hydran vs Rom fights with Roxanna Vulpes' fleet's short lived deployment as Klingon allies.Myrm, Energy Bleed is a good rule, but it is calibrated specifically for plasmas. Plasmas can do huge damage, but as seeking weapons they can be mitigated by defensive phaser fire or APEing away from the threat.
There's no way to defend against fusion fire. The suggested "Short-Ranged" rule is to prevent them becoming overpowered "I move-you die" gamebreakers.
There's no way to defend against fusion fire. The suggested "Short-Ranged" rule is to prevent them becoming overpowered "I move-you die" gamebreakers.
I'll be interested to see how hydrans are not a 'I move you lose' empire. Anything that has fusions has gatlings and other phasers as well. Its not just the fusion to worry about. Fusions probably do need to be somwhat weaker than other heavy weapons to balance out the whole package of fusions, gatlinigs, 1s, 2s, stingers etc.
Using your suggestion hydran cruisers with 4 of them are rolling a possible 8d6 damage at range 3 or less just from 1 weapon line. That seems pretty game breaking to me. For some cruisers where the 4 fusions are likely to be 1 weapon line that is going to make APE pretty abusable. Not to mention that a single roll of a 6 can see 2D6 hits pentrate the shields. That makes even photons start to look a bit wimpy, given that they do not have to use an overload action to gain that much power.
APE - charge in with your 4 fusions, if you roll two 6s then the enemy cruiser is probably crippled by the average 14 internal hits (+2 crits) that 4d6 produces. Small ships like the Buffalo hunter with 3 fusions and 2 gatlings are going to be awesome.
Fusion are on a par with photons at point blank range, but very very rapidly worsen, being more like a 2 turn disrupter by range 3. Getting in and delivering all that damage is hard in the base game (FedCom), you need to move fast to get the range close enough, so it's a case of close or overload, but very hard to do both.
I'd suggest something more like:
Range 15, multihit 2, killzone 2 or 3, overload, cooldown.
That makes them feel more like where they ought to be relative to other weapons. They do have a decent range, its just that the cooldown generally means you save them till they are closer. Upto range 7.5 (half range) they are not far off disrupters per shot which is about right. In kill zone they are more like a standard photon, which again is about right. Like a photon they can overload, so a killzone overload delivers similar punch to an overloaded photon, again about right. In terms of balance, they are cleary a short range weapon that you want to get very close with (in combo with gatlings etc), but to get uber maximum punch you want the overload which requires a special action, and is hence much harder to use and get in killzone. They still beat out photons in not requiring the reload action though which balances their lack of devastating.
Dislike the 'short range' idea, just seems like introducing another phase for 1 weapon, which will slow things down. It also makes fusions even nastier in one way, as they will get to shoot after all other fire and can therefore plan according to how everything else has gone.
Using your suggestion hydran cruisers with 4 of them are rolling a possible 8d6 damage at range 3 or less just from 1 weapon line. That seems pretty game breaking to me. For some cruisers where the 4 fusions are likely to be 1 weapon line that is going to make APE pretty abusable. Not to mention that a single roll of a 6 can see 2D6 hits pentrate the shields. That makes even photons start to look a bit wimpy, given that they do not have to use an overload action to gain that much power.
APE - charge in with your 4 fusions, if you roll two 6s then the enemy cruiser is probably crippled by the average 14 internal hits (+2 crits) that 4d6 produces. Small ships like the Buffalo hunter with 3 fusions and 2 gatlings are going to be awesome.
Fusion are on a par with photons at point blank range, but very very rapidly worsen, being more like a 2 turn disrupter by range 3. Getting in and delivering all that damage is hard in the base game (FedCom), you need to move fast to get the range close enough, so it's a case of close or overload, but very hard to do both.
I'd suggest something more like:
Range 15, multihit 2, killzone 2 or 3, overload, cooldown.
That makes them feel more like where they ought to be relative to other weapons. They do have a decent range, its just that the cooldown generally means you save them till they are closer. Upto range 7.5 (half range) they are not far off disrupters per shot which is about right. In kill zone they are more like a standard photon, which again is about right. Like a photon they can overload, so a killzone overload delivers similar punch to an overloaded photon, again about right. In terms of balance, they are cleary a short range weapon that you want to get very close with (in combo with gatlings etc), but to get uber maximum punch you want the overload which requires a special action, and is hence much harder to use and get in killzone. They still beat out photons in not requiring the reload action though which balances their lack of devastating.
Dislike the 'short range' idea, just seems like introducing another phase for 1 weapon, which will slow things down. It also makes fusions even nastier in one way, as they will get to shoot after all other fire and can therefore plan according to how everything else has gone.
I'm not overly sold on the idea of getting rid of Stingers as discrete units entirely.
A Call to Arms: Noble Armada puts each fighter on its own stand, with a range of units from ponderous boarding shuttles to highly agile superiority fighters, and from bulky gunships to self-immolating suicide fighters; all of which able to be covered under the same broad category.
I would argue that Stingers (both Main Era Stinger-2s and Midle Years Stinger-1s) should be statted up akin to ACtA:NA fighters, to include their respective dogfight ratings (which could be ported over on a one-to-one basis from their listings in SFB to the Dogfight score in ACtA). Even if true carriers were still a ways off, including the DFR (which a NA-style stat sheet would easily support) would "future-proof" the Stingers, and make "civil war" battles that bit more interesting.
Plus, it would make a good precedent for other fleets with casual carrier doctrines, such as the Borak, Hivers, Souldra, or Mallarans. (Not that any of those would be on the cards any time soon, but still.)
In any case, the presence of actual Stinger units on the board would help distinguish the Main Era Hydran fleet from a Middle Years counterpart; a Stinger-2 that fires its fusion shots can still be a threat thanks to its gatling phaser, while a Stinger-1 (with only a lone phaser-3 to call on) is far less of a hassle to deal with in the same circumstance.
A Call to Arms: Noble Armada puts each fighter on its own stand, with a range of units from ponderous boarding shuttles to highly agile superiority fighters, and from bulky gunships to self-immolating suicide fighters; all of which able to be covered under the same broad category.
I would argue that Stingers (both Main Era Stinger-2s and Midle Years Stinger-1s) should be statted up akin to ACtA:NA fighters, to include their respective dogfight ratings (which could be ported over on a one-to-one basis from their listings in SFB to the Dogfight score in ACtA). Even if true carriers were still a ways off, including the DFR (which a NA-style stat sheet would easily support) would "future-proof" the Stingers, and make "civil war" battles that bit more interesting.
Plus, it would make a good precedent for other fleets with casual carrier doctrines, such as the Borak, Hivers, Souldra, or Mallarans. (Not that any of those would be on the cards any time soon, but still.)
In any case, the presence of actual Stinger units on the board would help distinguish the Main Era Hydran fleet from a Middle Years counterpart; a Stinger-2 that fires its fusion shots can still be a threat thanks to its gatling phaser, while a Stinger-1 (with only a lone phaser-3 to call on) is far less of a hassle to deal with in the same circumstance.
Storey - you may be right about the d6 mechanic being overpowered. However, the significant difference between fusions and photons is that photons can miss, even at relatively close ranges. At ranges where their damage matters, fusions don't miss.
Nerroth - I haven't seen or played NA, so I didn't realise it treated fighters as individual units. That is certainly more applicable to the SFU than the Babylon 5 'flight of six' approach that some folk were insisting on a while back. Given the smaller number of fighters and the varying numbers carried on each Hydran ship (or other empire's carriers).
Couple of things to consider;
1) If Stingers are individual fighters, do they carry two fusions each (SFB) or one (FedCom)?
2) Is it worth representing the rather small amount of damage each fusion can do outside knife range? The 'range-10 Stinger volley' tactic was deliberately eliminated from FedCom, after all;
3) How fast are fighters in ACtA? A 6" move, 3" range Stinger won't be much use. Neither will two dozen of them.
Nerroth - I haven't seen or played NA, so I didn't realise it treated fighters as individual units. That is certainly more applicable to the SFU than the Babylon 5 'flight of six' approach that some folk were insisting on a while back. Given the smaller number of fighters and the varying numbers carried on each Hydran ship (or other empire's carriers).
Couple of things to consider;
1) If Stingers are individual fighters, do they carry two fusions each (SFB) or one (FedCom)?
2) Is it worth representing the rather small amount of damage each fusion can do outside knife range? The 'range-10 Stinger volley' tactic was deliberately eliminated from FedCom, after all;
3) How fast are fighters in ACtA? A 6" move, 3" range Stinger won't be much use. Neither will two dozen of them.
Nomad said:
If you know anyone who has a copy of ACtA:NA (and/or the FotFS expansion), I would recommend checking those rules out; or, if you prefer, you can get both files on DriveThruRPG.
(FotFS includes some adjustments to the way fighters and carriers work in the wider game system. Eeven if you don't play the game system, they make for a very useful set of references, in terms of showing other ways in which the core mechanics of A Call to Arms have been made to work so far.)
Stingers (-1s and -2s) have two fusions each in FC, according to (5Q2b). Both even come with a pair of charges, too.
Um, you still can fire a Stinger's fusion beam out to range 10 in FC; though it does require using up both charges, instead of the range-3 shot it can take using a single charge.
Fighter speeds in ACtA:NA vary significantly, but I think a speed of 12 (or whichever speed equates to speed 16 in FC; is it 8, 10, or 12?) might be fair enough to work with.
ACtA:NA has a One-Shot weapon trait which is commonly used for fighter-based ordnance. Carriers are able to make a Crew Quality check in order to reload such weapons when the fighters are back on board.
So, any weapons which require re-arming (or re-loading) here could be given the same trait (and re-load requirement, with the limit that only carriers and carrier escorts can attempt to re-arm them).
I'm not sure if Stingers need to have both fusion charges per weapon; you could simply abstract each into a One-Shot weapon (perhaps by assuming the Stinger is using both charges at once in order to take a range-10 shot).
In FC, Stingers may have two fusions, but they may only fire one of their fusions per turn. A late and rather arbitrary nerf from SVC himself:
Emphasis added.
The One Shot rule seems reasonable, if only because Stingers (or their targets) rarely live long enough for a second to be either possible (or necessary). It could also apply to drones on other fleet's fighters.
I'd be happy with a 12" per move Stinger. I suppose you could retcon it as a fudge to make up for the lack of proportional movement in ACtA, with only one firing opportunity per turn as opposed to eight in FedCom or 32 in SFB.
Emphasis added.
The One Shot rule seems reasonable, if only because Stingers (or their targets) rarely live long enough for a second to be either possible (or necessary). It could also apply to drones on other fleet's fighters.
I'd be happy with a 12" per move Stinger. I suppose you could retcon it as a fudge to make up for the lack of proportional movement in ACtA, with only one firing opportunity per turn as opposed to eight in FedCom or 32 in SFB.
Assuming you are talking Fed Com then at ranges where fusion matters, which is generally 0 or 1, photons can't miss either. Once you get to range 2 then the average fusion damage (even though it can't miss) is a good bit less than a photon which can just miss on a 6.
Average damage ranges where 1 = average standard photon damage at that range
0 = 1.23
1 = 0.79
2 = 0.58
3-4 = 0.34
5-8 = 0.46
Basically the fusion is somewhat better (raw damage wise) than a photon at absolutely point blank range. Range 0 and 1 averaged between them are roughly the same average damage as a photon. It then plummets to being seriously less effective than a photon.
ACTA doesn't really have the same range effects of FC, but the multi hit 2 with kill zone 2 and overload would sort of give the same 'feel' as they have in that game in terms of destructive capability.
Again in FC fusion are really scary when they get overloaded at point blank range, and SFB (but not FC) had the suicide overload (i.e. fusions were very overloadable). I'd expect the overload feature, and multihit 2 + killzone keeps the point blank overload really scary, whilst toning down an overload beyond that range, which fits FC.
Killzone 2 would give fusion and photon the same average damage output as a photon up to range 2 then half the damage from range 3 onwards. That is somewhat closer to FC than your proposal, which makes fusions seriouly more potent in terms of raw damage up close. I can see shortening the range as they are not used much at range and it fits the fluff, but then the photon in FC is not much used beyond overload range either, yet that is where the photon is pretty good on ACTA.
Though my main concern is that your proposal makes it very easy to do a lot of damage without the overload function, which leaves you free to APE into uber effective range and still deliver a good punch with some cruisers or the destoyers (with a 3 or 4AD bank of fusions), which is likely to be hard to counter. Then again APE plus phasers only is going to be quite gross if gatlings follow your proposal.
Moving onto gatlings. I'd actually like to see gatlings lose the killzone. So a 4AD weapon that looks like a phaser 3 but minus killzone (rapid firing makes them less potent as a handwavium explanation). Gatlinigs were supposed to be more a defensive weapon, but they ended up being the ultmate offensive weapon in SFB/FC. Removing the killzone pushes them more to the defensive role they were intended for. They would still hurt offensively, but not the ludicrous extent they do in FC.
As it currently stands in FC the fusion is the last weapon you fire, as it is so inefficient power wise. You rely on gatlings, then other phasers then fusions. That just feels wrong - why bother with a heavy weapon that you don't use unless you have nothing else left to fire. I think converting gatlings straight over will leave the same issue in terms of feel. Removing killzone would put more emphasis on the Fusions for the heavy hitting.
It would also make the Hellbore ship feel more like a long range ship, rather than a primarily short range ship that just happens to have a bit of long range punch.
Average damage ranges where 1 = average standard photon damage at that range
0 = 1.23
1 = 0.79
2 = 0.58
3-4 = 0.34
5-8 = 0.46
Basically the fusion is somewhat better (raw damage wise) than a photon at absolutely point blank range. Range 0 and 1 averaged between them are roughly the same average damage as a photon. It then plummets to being seriously less effective than a photon.
ACTA doesn't really have the same range effects of FC, but the multi hit 2 with kill zone 2 and overload would sort of give the same 'feel' as they have in that game in terms of destructive capability.
Again in FC fusion are really scary when they get overloaded at point blank range, and SFB (but not FC) had the suicide overload (i.e. fusions were very overloadable). I'd expect the overload feature, and multihit 2 + killzone keeps the point blank overload really scary, whilst toning down an overload beyond that range, which fits FC.
Killzone 2 would give fusion and photon the same average damage output as a photon up to range 2 then half the damage from range 3 onwards. That is somewhat closer to FC than your proposal, which makes fusions seriouly more potent in terms of raw damage up close. I can see shortening the range as they are not used much at range and it fits the fluff, but then the photon in FC is not much used beyond overload range either, yet that is where the photon is pretty good on ACTA.
Though my main concern is that your proposal makes it very easy to do a lot of damage without the overload function, which leaves you free to APE into uber effective range and still deliver a good punch with some cruisers or the destoyers (with a 3 or 4AD bank of fusions), which is likely to be hard to counter. Then again APE plus phasers only is going to be quite gross if gatlings follow your proposal.
Moving onto gatlings. I'd actually like to see gatlings lose the killzone. So a 4AD weapon that looks like a phaser 3 but minus killzone (rapid firing makes them less potent as a handwavium explanation). Gatlinigs were supposed to be more a defensive weapon, but they ended up being the ultmate offensive weapon in SFB/FC. Removing the killzone pushes them more to the defensive role they were intended for. They would still hurt offensively, but not the ludicrous extent they do in FC.
As it currently stands in FC the fusion is the last weapon you fire, as it is so inefficient power wise. You rely on gatlings, then other phasers then fusions. That just feels wrong - why bother with a heavy weapon that you don't use unless you have nothing else left to fire. I think converting gatlings straight over will leave the same issue in terms of feel. Removing killzone would put more emphasis on the Fusions for the heavy hitting.
It would also make the Hellbore ship feel more like a long range ship, rather than a primarily short range ship that just happens to have a bit of long range punch.
I can assure you that it wasn't. I've used it on a number of occasions. Stingers can still fire Fusions and gatlings at range 10 in FC. The 2010 tourney rules limited the number of stingers, I suspect partly due to some discussion I started on just how brutally effective 18 stingers doing that were in the 2009 tourney scenario where it hard to keep away from them due to map limits.
I'm prepared to agree with you concerning the fusions, except to note that in ACtA:SF photon to-hit scores are never better than 4+ so they certainly can miss in this game.
But;
Simply not true. After all, you yourself contradict this;
Which does not sound very defensive. I've not used the range-10 volley in FedCom due to the halving of Stinger fusion shots vis SFB; if it has worked for you, then I'm delighted. But much of my Hydran tactics in FedCom - especially against Lyrans - hinge on setting up a range-2 phaser volley, inside effective Ph-2 and ph-G range but outside the ESG radius (yes, that requires 24+1 and usually a smaller and more agile ship. Since they have no seeking weapons, what would you defend against? But I digress).
But;
Simply not true. After all, you yourself contradict this;
Which does not sound very defensive. I've not used the range-10 volley in FedCom due to the halving of Stinger fusion shots vis SFB; if it has worked for you, then I'm delighted. But much of my Hydran tactics in FedCom - especially against Lyrans - hinge on setting up a range-2 phaser volley, inside effective Ph-2 and ph-G range but outside the ESG radius (yes, that requires 24+1 and usually a smaller and more agile ship. Since they have no seeking weapons, what would you defend against? But I digress).
I don't contradict myself at all!
I clearly state that the gatlings are a far too effective offensive weapon in FC, but that they were supposed to be a more defensive one.
Anyway, the range 10 stinger volley relies on the fusions to work not the gatlings.73% of the stingers range 10 damage is from the fusion not the gatlings.
18 stingers at range 10 will inflict the same sort of damage as many empires 3 ship cruiser squadrons at that range (45 damage average for the stingers) for a fraction the points. The large number of small volleys also means they strip the important stuff fast if shields are down. They can do this twice and then close for gatlings. It's a common mistake that people think the stinger is only effetive at range 3 or less. In fact it is highly effective for its points at range 10, it just happens to be stupidly deadly at range 3 or less.
Gatlings are totally over the top when you get close, whilst being not too far off a phaser 1 at longer range. There's a reason a gatling is seen as more or less an auto include on orions for example. Or that the escorts with 4+ gatlings are seen as rather broken, forget the escort bit, 4+ gatlings - yes please! go kill stuff.
As to photons, yes I know photons miss at 4+ in this game, but I was comparing the 2 weapons in the base game. In ACTA a photon averages 2 damage to range 7.5. with your fusion line you would be 75% higher than that up to range 3 inches. Add in the potential for 2D6 leaky hits with no special action required and that seems to just a bit to uber. As you said earlier, its about maing sure they are not a 'I move I win weapon', but you have to account for the other stuff as well, the hydrans do have good forward firing phasers and then stingers.
Using all your stats a Ranger can move to optimmum range and average:
4D6 from fusions
4 from Ph1s
4-6 from ph2s
10 from gatlings
63 from stingers
that is 96ish damage, and didn't need a special action.
A fed cruiser is
8 from photons
2 from ph3s
~14 from ph1s
so he does 24, not including drones (which add another 14).
The hydran doesn't even need a special action to reload his fusions. On a good day the hydran hits with 3 or 4 fusions and adds in another 7-14 damage, where as the photons have the same odds of adding in another 4-8.
Going with my suggestions for fusions and gatlings.
8 from fusions
4 from Ph1s
4-6 from ph2s
5 from gatlings
That is 22 not including the stingers. Much closer to the Fed ship. The Fed has the bonus of devastating crits, the hydrans has the bonus of not requiring reloads. The Fed has drones, the hydran stingers. I am not keen on treating stingers as just a weapon line effetively, nor know other ACTA fighter stuff at all, but I suspect 9 stingers will be better than 2 drones over all, and will affect the way the game plays a lot when they are around.
If that feels too weak then I can see a case for giving fusion accurate, and maybe shortening the range like you suggest to compensate. Range 6 would certainly fit the very short range that fusions are usually used at. Whilst accurate +1 would make them more effective when up close.
In ACTA, where getting close never seemd that much of a problem I don't think you can allow he hydrans to be too good up close though. FC is different in that you couldn't go from out of range to point blank without lots of firing chances for either side.
I clearly state that the gatlings are a far too effective offensive weapon in FC, but that they were supposed to be a more defensive one.
Anyway, the range 10 stinger volley relies on the fusions to work not the gatlings.73% of the stingers range 10 damage is from the fusion not the gatlings.
18 stingers at range 10 will inflict the same sort of damage as many empires 3 ship cruiser squadrons at that range (45 damage average for the stingers) for a fraction the points. The large number of small volleys also means they strip the important stuff fast if shields are down. They can do this twice and then close for gatlings. It's a common mistake that people think the stinger is only effetive at range 3 or less. In fact it is highly effective for its points at range 10, it just happens to be stupidly deadly at range 3 or less.
Gatlings are totally over the top when you get close, whilst being not too far off a phaser 1 at longer range. There's a reason a gatling is seen as more or less an auto include on orions for example. Or that the escorts with 4+ gatlings are seen as rather broken, forget the escort bit, 4+ gatlings - yes please! go kill stuff.
As to photons, yes I know photons miss at 4+ in this game, but I was comparing the 2 weapons in the base game. In ACTA a photon averages 2 damage to range 7.5. with your fusion line you would be 75% higher than that up to range 3 inches. Add in the potential for 2D6 leaky hits with no special action required and that seems to just a bit to uber. As you said earlier, its about maing sure they are not a 'I move I win weapon', but you have to account for the other stuff as well, the hydrans do have good forward firing phasers and then stingers.
Using all your stats a Ranger can move to optimmum range and average:
4D6 from fusions
4 from Ph1s
4-6 from ph2s
10 from gatlings
63 from stingers
that is 96ish damage, and didn't need a special action.
A fed cruiser is
8 from photons
2 from ph3s
~14 from ph1s
so he does 24, not including drones (which add another 14).
The hydran doesn't even need a special action to reload his fusions. On a good day the hydran hits with 3 or 4 fusions and adds in another 7-14 damage, where as the photons have the same odds of adding in another 4-8.
Going with my suggestions for fusions and gatlings.
8 from fusions
4 from Ph1s
4-6 from ph2s
5 from gatlings
That is 22 not including the stingers. Much closer to the Fed ship. The Fed has the bonus of devastating crits, the hydrans has the bonus of not requiring reloads. The Fed has drones, the hydran stingers. I am not keen on treating stingers as just a weapon line effetively, nor know other ACTA fighter stuff at all, but I suspect 9 stingers will be better than 2 drones over all, and will affect the way the game plays a lot when they are around.
If that feels too weak then I can see a case for giving fusion accurate, and maybe shortening the range like you suggest to compensate. Range 6 would certainly fit the very short range that fusions are usually used at. Whilst accurate +1 would make them more effective when up close.
In ACTA, where getting close never seemd that much of a problem I don't think you can allow he hydrans to be too good up close though. FC is different in that you couldn't go from out of range to point blank without lots of firing chances for either side.
Sorry, but supposed by who? I'd say gats are exactly as effective in SFB and FC as they are meant to be - a balancing factor for the generally weak Ph -1/2 batteries Hydran ships carry wrt their opponents, class for class.
Hydran ships - fusion ships in particular - are meant to be ineffective at range but lethal close in. The gatlings are a critical part of that, and always have been. If you nerf them at short range, what is the Royal Hydran Navy for?
I think your points re the fusion beam were valid, but the removal of the gats' Kill Zone would be quite wrong.
I wanted to try and put a sample Stinger profile together, based on the broadly NA-esque template I used in some of the non-Alpha threads to work up some sample fighters there. (Such as these Mæsron examples.)
-----
STINGER-2 FIGHTER - 15 POINTS (ST-2)
[insert appropriate background info here]
Turn: SM
Shields: 0
Damage: 1
Marines: 0
Craft: None
Traits: Dogfight +4, Fighter
Weapon Range Arc AD Special
Phaser-G 6 F 4 Accurate +1, Kill Zone 2, Precise
Fusion Beam 10 F 2 [insert appropriate weapon stats here], One-Shot
-----
The Stinger-1 would replace the phaser-G with a phaser-3, and be a little cheaper (say, 10 points).
As for the fusions, if it turns out that the Stingers are too dangerous if allowed to throw out both AD of them in a single turn, they could have an FC-esque note limiting them to one AD per turn instead. (That is the kind of decision that might need to be weighted on playtest results.)
I didn't bother adding in a particular speed, since I was guessing that fighters would use a "standard" speed of 12 (again based on the speed 16 set for FC).
I also skipped the Dodge Trait from NA; I'm not overly convinced it has a place in ACtA:SF, and the Dogfight rating is enough to handle fighter-on-fighter operations.
-----
Also, one key factor which has been looked at in NA which may want to be considered in SF is whether or not to have the carriers show up "empty" (as in, minus its fighters) for the base points cost.
In the NA core rulebook, the carriers started off with no craft aboard; you had to buy the fighters for them separately. This has been changed in Fleets of the Fading Suns, in that carriers now come with a full complement of their operating faction's "default" fighter type as standard. Now, you only have to pay for any fighter upgrades (which replace pre-existing fighters on a one-by-one basis) instead.
I'm not overly convinced the latter option ought to be considered here, however. The main reason why carriers were given a boost in FotFS was to make them more appealing for players to take. Here, it might be wiser to make all fighters cost extra, if only to keep a natural brake on the amount of attrition units people may feel tempted to allocate points for.
-----
STINGER-2 FIGHTER - 15 POINTS (ST-2)
[insert appropriate background info here]
Turn: SM
Shields: 0
Damage: 1
Marines: 0
Craft: None
Traits: Dogfight +4, Fighter
Weapon Range Arc AD Special
Phaser-G 6 F 4 Accurate +1, Kill Zone 2, Precise
Fusion Beam 10 F 2 [insert appropriate weapon stats here], One-Shot
-----
The Stinger-1 would replace the phaser-G with a phaser-3, and be a little cheaper (say, 10 points).
As for the fusions, if it turns out that the Stingers are too dangerous if allowed to throw out both AD of them in a single turn, they could have an FC-esque note limiting them to one AD per turn instead. (That is the kind of decision that might need to be weighted on playtest results.)
I didn't bother adding in a particular speed, since I was guessing that fighters would use a "standard" speed of 12 (again based on the speed 16 set for FC).
I also skipped the Dodge Trait from NA; I'm not overly convinced it has a place in ACtA:SF, and the Dogfight rating is enough to handle fighter-on-fighter operations.
-----
Also, one key factor which has been looked at in NA which may want to be considered in SF is whether or not to have the carriers show up "empty" (as in, minus its fighters) for the base points cost.
In the NA core rulebook, the carriers started off with no craft aboard; you had to buy the fighters for them separately. This has been changed in Fleets of the Fading Suns, in that carriers now come with a full complement of their operating faction's "default" fighter type as standard. Now, you only have to pay for any fighter upgrades (which replace pre-existing fighters on a one-by-one basis) instead.
I'm not overly convinced the latter option ought to be considered here, however. The main reason why carriers were given a boost in FotFS was to make them more appealing for players to take. Here, it might be wiser to make all fighters cost extra, if only to keep a natural brake on the amount of attrition units people may feel tempted to allocate points for.
Nomad said:
The odd comments I've seen from SVC over the years. I don't really think the gatling was meant to be the most effective close range offensive weapon (by a big margin) in the game.
I believe it was meant to be the secondary system of the Hydrans. Like ADD, nuisance drone racks etc. Reinforced by the fact that it is the weapon that you see on escorts (defensive ships).
The impression I have got is that it was intended to be a counter to klingon drones and have some offensive use, but not that it became the most important weapon. Instead Fusions were meant to be the close range weapon.
It maybe that I have the wrong impression, but there are things in SFB that I know he thinks are mistakes in retrospect, and has said he wouldn't do again if starting from scratch. Just because the gatling is an uber weapon doesn't mean that is was meant to be, and it doesn't mean that ACTA has to make it so. ACTA certainly redefined the photon.
Bear in mind that removing killzone from gatlings does not mean they are not useful offensively, it just means they are not some 'I win weapon' because I happen to get 2" away. 2 gatlings without killzone still dish out decent damage, and are useable with all other phasers on power drains etc. Again it is mechanics like power drains and APE etc that you have to keep in mind when dealing with balance.
