Interceptors (the dead horse topic)
- Thread starter Joe_Dracos
- Start date
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Omnipotent said:
Why? Not every race is as laden with Interceptors as the EA, so it really is no solution at all.
Regards,
Dave
Omnipotent
Mongoose
Good to here David, not that u are loosing but that u are getting a good fight against EA 3rd, wish I had.
I doubt that I´m such a tactical genius or my opponents are poor players.
U talk about EA having good range on there weapons true, but oh so few dices, just check the amount of missiles u get with Dilgar WITHOUT sacrifising ANYTHING, they still get almost the same amount of fighters, and I dare to say T-bolts don´t rule the fighting when there are almost even numbers, there contribution usually is pritty small. As with medium range weapons (10-18 ) EA also looses against both Vree, Centauri and Dilgar. The thing is, sure EA has alot of dices all around, but ouh so few in one arc, which both Dilgar and Centauri have (front arc)...What do u think happens, the Dilgar/Centauri player measures the needed range to get there long range weapons to bear (here the Centauri arn´t at there best), then u check where your opponent can come, place your squads ready to blast a critical ship on turn one from EA, while he fire a Beam and few missiles, wohoo.
Don´t take this personally since I don´t know ANYTHING about your games, and maybe I´m barking up the wrong tree here but I feel it just wierd how one can loose to a fleet that u simply measure the range where they can move, fire etc, then with your superiour movement just place your ship in place where he does minimum damage and u do maximum, nothing more then placing markers on the board, which takes a minute and u controll the other player almost totally. This might sound as a bit pitiful thing to do put as it is clearly stated in the rules u can measure ANYTHING before moving, shooting etc. We all do it, and it does not slow down the game much, since this measuring clearly will show u where to move to get which weapon of yours and which weapon of the opponent in range. Actually this thing I might want to change too :?
I very much like to here what u guys think of this as my gaming group has more or less moved back to play WHFB...me I want a game of ACTA so bad I´ve even offered my Centauri fleet to a friend to get some games
edit I hate smilies popping up here and there when using ")" =/
I doubt that I´m such a tactical genius or my opponents are poor players.
U talk about EA having good range on there weapons true, but oh so few dices, just check the amount of missiles u get with Dilgar WITHOUT sacrifising ANYTHING, they still get almost the same amount of fighters, and I dare to say T-bolts don´t rule the fighting when there are almost even numbers, there contribution usually is pritty small. As with medium range weapons (10-18 ) EA also looses against both Vree, Centauri and Dilgar. The thing is, sure EA has alot of dices all around, but ouh so few in one arc, which both Dilgar and Centauri have (front arc)...What do u think happens, the Dilgar/Centauri player measures the needed range to get there long range weapons to bear (here the Centauri arn´t at there best), then u check where your opponent can come, place your squads ready to blast a critical ship on turn one from EA, while he fire a Beam and few missiles, wohoo.
Don´t take this personally since I don´t know ANYTHING about your games, and maybe I´m barking up the wrong tree here but I feel it just wierd how one can loose to a fleet that u simply measure the range where they can move, fire etc, then with your superiour movement just place your ship in place where he does minimum damage and u do maximum, nothing more then placing markers on the board, which takes a minute and u controll the other player almost totally. This might sound as a bit pitiful thing to do put as it is clearly stated in the rules u can measure ANYTHING before moving, shooting etc. We all do it, and it does not slow down the game much, since this measuring clearly will show u where to move to get which weapon of yours and which weapon of the opponent in range. Actually this thing I might want to change too :?
I very much like to here what u guys think of this as my gaming group has more or less moved back to play WHFB...me I want a game of ACTA so bad I´ve even offered my Centauri fleet to a friend to get some games
edit I hate smilies popping up here and there when using ")" =/
Omnipotent
Mongoose
Foxmeister said:
generalising a bit
Bigger ships tend to have more interceptors, which would mean that three dices of interceptors on an Omega would be better then before, hence u might take the Omega instead of two hyperion cruisers and so on.
True, but the races without interceptors tend to be more powerful/mobile etc. EA 3rd might finally have some use of that twin-linked weaponry that everyone is complaining about too.
Making it a EA specialty in lets say 3rd age onwards, would that be an idea?
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Omnipotent said:Good to here David, not that u are loosing but that u are getting a good fight against EA 3rd, wish I had.
I doubt that I´m such a tactical genius or my opponents are poor players.
U talk about EA having good range on there weapons true, but oh so few dices, just check the amount of missiles u get with Dilgar WITHOUT sacrifising ANYTHING, they still get almost the same amount of fighters, and I dare to say T-bolts don´t rule the fighting when there are almost even numbers, there contribution usually is pritty small. As with medium range weapons (10-18 ) EA also looses against both Vree, Centauri and Dilgar. The thing is, sure EA has alot of dices all around, but ouh so few in one arc, which both Dilgar and Centauri have (front arc)...What do u think happens, the Dilgar/Centauri player measures the needed range to get there long range weapons to bear (here the Centauri arn´t at there best), then u check where your opponent can come, place your squads ready to blast a critical ship on turn one from EA, while he fire a Beam and few missiles, wohoo.
Don´t take this personally since I don´t know ANYTHING about your games, and maybe I´m barking up the wrong tree here but I feel it just wierd how one can loose to a fleet that u simply measure the range where they can move, fire etc, then with your superiour movement just place your ship in place where he does minimum damage and u do maximum, nothing more then placing markers on the board, which takes a minute and u controll the other player almost totally. This might sound as a bit pitiful thing to do put as it is clearly stated in the rules u can measure ANYTHING before moving, shooting etc. We all do it, and it does not slow down the game much, since this measuring clearly will show u where to move to get which weapon of yours and which weapon of the opponent in range. Actually this thing I might want to change too :?
I very much like to here what u guys think of this as my gaming group has more or less moved back to play WHFB...me I want a game of ACTA so bad I´ve even offered my Centauri fleet to a friend to get some games
edit I hate smilies popping up here and there when using ")" =/
That's what Triggy does. He knows my ranges and movements as well as I do, better in fact, and he measures where everything can be before moving. I'm only just learning to play the ranges the way he does, but the fact is, unless the EA player is incompetent, I (as a Centauri player) can't totally control the game. He can measure and plan as well as I can, and there's always All Stop for those times I'm banking on him moving his half move to bring him into weapons range.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Losing to Raiders, though... :?
Joe_Dracos
Mongoose
Locutus9956 said:
A simple fix to that would be to make it so the max interceptors would be 4 or 5 to remove statistical assurances... mind you its not like there aren't some present already (twin-linked mini-beams anybody?)
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Even allowing a max-out at four,
0.833^4 = 0.482253.
This means, that, typically a ship with interceptors would stop the first three interceptable weapons, plu 51.7747% of all Dilgar firepower would be stopped. Let's look at what a Targrath is then:
Hull 5
Move 12, 2/45's.
32/4:36/4.
1 Thorun
4 Bolters, F, Range 10, AP DD
4 Pulsars, T, Range 8
2 Anti-Ship Missiles, F, range 24, AP DD S-L
2 Anti-Ship Missiles, F, range 24, AP DD S-L
vs.
Hull 5
Move 8, 2/45's
28/4:32/4
Intercpetors 2
1 Thunderbolt
4 Heavy Lasers, B, Range 18, B DD
2 Heavy Lasers, B(a), Range 18, B DD
4 Plasma Cannon, F, Range 10, AP T-L
6 Pulse, F, Range 8
6 Pulse, A, Range 8
8 Pulse, P, Range 8
8 Pulse, S, Range 8
-- A Hyperion.
Joe Dracos, that's not balanced -- that's a joke. When you make a proposal, please grind out the math, first.
0.833^4 = 0.482253.
This means, that, typically a ship with interceptors would stop the first three interceptable weapons, plu 51.7747% of all Dilgar firepower would be stopped. Let's look at what a Targrath is then:
Hull 5
Move 12, 2/45's.
32/4:36/4.
1 Thorun
4 Bolters, F, Range 10, AP DD
4 Pulsars, T, Range 8
2 Anti-Ship Missiles, F, range 24, AP DD S-L
2 Anti-Ship Missiles, F, range 24, AP DD S-L
vs.
Hull 5
Move 8, 2/45's
28/4:32/4
Intercpetors 2
1 Thunderbolt
4 Heavy Lasers, B, Range 18, B DD
2 Heavy Lasers, B(a), Range 18, B DD
4 Plasma Cannon, F, Range 10, AP T-L
6 Pulse, F, Range 8
6 Pulse, A, Range 8
8 Pulse, P, Range 8
8 Pulse, S, Range 8
-- A Hyperion.
Joe Dracos, that's not balanced -- that's a joke. When you make a proposal, please grind out the math, first.
Joe_Dracos
Mongoose
Hmm, comparing a Dilgar ship to an EA ship? Isn't that like comparing an EA ship to a Minbari ship?
Joe_Dracos
Mongoose
Now that I've taken some time to cool down, I'd like to respond.
Since you seem all hoped up on your statistics, perhaps you should ammend this, the 48% is the correct number. In either case, in the example below, the actual rate of stoping fire with 2 burned out interceptors would be 1 in 3, not 1 in 2.
This ships stats are wrong. It has 2 Thorun dart fighters, it has 8 Bolters, 6 light pulsars, and 4 AD on the anti-ship missiles (each).
Your crew score should also be 34/6. Your also missing the energy pulsar.
Vs a Third age Hyperion.
In not going to get started on the Hyperion. Besides, you have the range, the manouverability and the speed to out flank and heavily damage the ship from its sides or aft arc. The Targath isn't even your best choice to go after a Hyperion, The Omelos is a far superiour choice for this. Its agile, has longer range bolters and port and starboard weapons.
Your math is pointless (especially when you get it wrong) cause I've seen exactly how often things go according to the odds. That 6 does not come up once out of every 6 rolls. A new interceptor rule would simply make it so you had to think a little harder then just flying up in somebodys face and unloading your weapons.
Besides, in the end, I was mearly offering a solution to Locutus's problem. You didn't have to get in my face about it. Perhaps when you write a response you should concider your wording a little more carefully.
CZuschlag said:
Since you seem all hoped up on your statistics, perhaps you should ammend this, the 48% is the correct number. In either case, in the example below, the actual rate of stoping fire with 2 burned out interceptors would be 1 in 3, not 1 in 2.
CZuschlag said:
This ships stats are wrong. It has 2 Thorun dart fighters, it has 8 Bolters, 6 light pulsars, and 4 AD on the anti-ship missiles (each).
Your crew score should also be 34/6. Your also missing the energy pulsar.
Vs a Third age Hyperion.
In not going to get started on the Hyperion. Besides, you have the range, the manouverability and the speed to out flank and heavily damage the ship from its sides or aft arc. The Targath isn't even your best choice to go after a Hyperion, The Omelos is a far superiour choice for this. Its agile, has longer range bolters and port and starboard weapons.
CZuschlag said:
Your math is pointless (especially when you get it wrong) cause I've seen exactly how often things go according to the odds. That 6 does not come up once out of every 6 rolls. A new interceptor rule would simply make it so you had to think a little harder then just flying up in somebodys face and unloading your weapons.
Besides, in the end, I was mearly offering a solution to Locutus's problem. You didn't have to get in my face about it. Perhaps when you write a response you should concider your wording a little more carefully.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Point by point:
A max-out at four is exactly to the fourth power. This is a direct address to the idea that interceptors need to improve more than they currently exist as the statistic improves.
Probability of a hit = (5 in 6)*(5 in 6)*(5 in 6)*(5 in 6)
-----------------------Die#1^----#2^----#3^-----#4^
= (0.8333)^4
Probability of a hit = 0.482253
Probability of interceptors stopping a hit = 1-0.482253
=.517747
Quad Erat Demonstratum.
...nothing to to ashamed of there ... I do this stuff for a living!
The reduction of firepower
0.482253 * 8 Bolters = 3.858 Bolters, round to 4,
and so forth.
I absolutely did miss the Energy Pulsars and the extra Thorun ... thank you! I was trying to remember all the statistics from work without a text, and got the number of hyperion pulse fore and aft wrong by 2 .. not bad, without anything to refer to!
I respond the way I do because I keep hearing off-the-cuff solutions to issues that either don't exist or aren't thought completely through. The worst of the issues out there are Fleet Breakdown Structure, Drazi, Abbai, Raiders, the two-fers, and the overpowered hulls like the Demos, G'Vrahn, Jashakar Tae, and Xaar. The Gaim might be a similar issue --- we haven't heard enough reports on them after the change to know if the problem is solved or not. Fundamental rebalancing of Interceptors is way down the list. I personally consider the addition of the Interceptor systems the item that puts both the Demos and G'Vrahn from the unbalanced to the ridiculous.
Before we suggest anything else --- let's resolve this stuff first? OK?
We have seen a certain EA fleet that is (largely) unchanged that was hideously powerful for Third Age already in the Armageddon breakdowns (much less current!) by Davesaint -- a mix of large numbers of Hermes, a few Oracle and Olympus, and a big squadron of Hyperions. To my knowledge, that fleet went undefeated ... period! ... over a period of 6 months. We even knew it was comign and couldn't kill it. It lost the ability to carry Flash Missiles on the Hermes, which was a big step towards reasonable, and now must make do with shorter-range standard missiles. I bet this fleet is still extremely dangerous.
A max-out at four is exactly to the fourth power. This is a direct address to the idea that interceptors need to improve more than they currently exist as the statistic improves.
Probability of a hit = (5 in 6)*(5 in 6)*(5 in 6)*(5 in 6)
-----------------------Die#1^----#2^----#3^-----#4^
= (0.8333)^4
Probability of a hit = 0.482253
Probability of interceptors stopping a hit = 1-0.482253
=.517747
Quad Erat Demonstratum.
...nothing to to ashamed of there ... I do this stuff for a living!
The reduction of firepower
0.482253 * 8 Bolters = 3.858 Bolters, round to 4,
and so forth.
I absolutely did miss the Energy Pulsars and the extra Thorun ... thank you! I was trying to remember all the statistics from work without a text, and got the number of hyperion pulse fore and aft wrong by 2 .. not bad, without anything to refer to!
I respond the way I do because I keep hearing off-the-cuff solutions to issues that either don't exist or aren't thought completely through. The worst of the issues out there are Fleet Breakdown Structure, Drazi, Abbai, Raiders, the two-fers, and the overpowered hulls like the Demos, G'Vrahn, Jashakar Tae, and Xaar. The Gaim might be a similar issue --- we haven't heard enough reports on them after the change to know if the problem is solved or not. Fundamental rebalancing of Interceptors is way down the list. I personally consider the addition of the Interceptor systems the item that puts both the Demos and G'Vrahn from the unbalanced to the ridiculous.
Before we suggest anything else --- let's resolve this stuff first? OK?
We have seen a certain EA fleet that is (largely) unchanged that was hideously powerful for Third Age already in the Armageddon breakdowns (much less current!) by Davesaint -- a mix of large numbers of Hermes, a few Oracle and Olympus, and a big squadron of Hyperions. To my knowledge, that fleet went undefeated ... period! ... over a period of 6 months. We even knew it was comign and couldn't kill it. It lost the ability to carry Flash Missiles on the Hermes, which was a big step towards reasonable, and now must make do with shorter-range standard missiles. I bet this fleet is still extremely dangerous.
Omnipotent
Mongoose
Joe_Dracos said:
Bingo! That is more or less what I`m after...on another matter, I can´t get any games this weekend, so no chance to check how using stations interceptors would work for EA
All stop...well then u (maybe) as EA player have a few beam dices to roll...you are still outnumbered in range. and this more or less gives the Centauri/Dilgar player one more turn where u are in his front arc (bad thing anyone?)
Triggy wanna visit southern Finland sometimes? :lol: Would sure wanna game against you :wink:
Joe_Dracos
Mongoose
CZuschlag said:
But this statistic is for a 4 interceptor ship... this would be the defences on a warlock or a Posiedon (for instance), not a Hyperion. So how does this suggest that its unbalanced for a Hyperion? As you reduce the interceptor count, your amount of successful hits goes up.
CZuschlag said:
Uh... no, lets keep everything in the open. There is nothing reasonable about this request.
CZuschlag said:
*cough*Early years*cough* Oopse, different discussion
CZuschlag said:
Not really... but thats still a different topic.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Actually, no -- Third Age. It was 5 Battle, I think -- 3 FAP breaking down into 1 Hyperion, 1 Olympus (Flash or Heavy), and 2 Hermes (Flash) each, 2 FAP breaking down into 1 Hyperion, 1 Oracle (Standard), and 2 Hermes (Flash) each. 2 Starfuries, all others (13, I think) Thunderbolts. All Third Age, all nasty.
Why is the request unreasonable? We know what the topics that Powers and Principalities are encountering are; why speak about changing what we currently don't understand? It's a waste of time.
And please ... do not quote anyone without indicating that you are omitting subsections of the quote by invoking an ellipsis. At best it's bad journalism, at worst, a distortion. Fixed News ... I mean, Fox News ... is a master of this sort of thing, and I don't think it suits either of us, or this venue.
Why is the request unreasonable? We know what the topics that Powers and Principalities are encountering are; why speak about changing what we currently don't understand? It's a waste of time.
And please ... do not quote anyone without indicating that you are omitting subsections of the quote by invoking an ellipsis. At best it's bad journalism, at worst, a distortion. Fixed News ... I mean, Fox News ... is a master of this sort of thing, and I don't think it suits either of us, or this venue.
Chris is right about that fleet, it was SFoS Third Age list, and it was exceptionally deadly, though not undefeated. Centauri beam teams of the age did just fine vs it.
He is also right in that if you try to fix everything at the same time you create new issues rather than solve any. Each wheel turning creates new issues as you change it.
Ripple
He is also right in that if you try to fix everything at the same time you create new issues rather than solve any. Each wheel turning creates new issues as you change it.
Ripple
Similar threads
