Matching the Show - Ideas Wanted!

[Ripple]

To Morpheous...

You whole concept is terribly flawed...

Fighters as part of general movement - Tracking which fighters come from which ship is a pain. Right now it's rarely an issue, campaign games or when field both ship based and purchased flights, even then you just need to mark the ones worth vps. Add in that in a large number of situations this will make the very short ranged fighters useless... particularly the slower ones... and you have a real issue.

You disagreement on Chris's #2 is frankly just wrong. If your a drazi player in a tourney style 5 FAP game, and you haven't taken a full FAP of darkhawks, losing initiative will almost always reduce your firepower by 20%. If your opponent has models hidden in a corner - scouts, empty carriers, cheap ships not useful in the fight -you will lose 40% for at least the first several turns. Playing with a 48 inch wide table, hunting down those ships is a five to six turn adventure, by which time you have likely lost your center.

And so we're clear on the term 'sink'. ANY ship that is able to be moved without being threatened (or threatened more), but still contributes the same to the fight as would by moving later is a sink. The best sink choices are the ones that can be moved without any possible threat, but still contribute significant bonuses - scouts, fleet carriers. That in no way reduces the 'sinkness' of havens in the corner, adrift hulls outside the fight or ships in hyper opening jump points.

There have been long winded discussions of this in other threads... and most of the 'well just go destroy them' answers to sinks have been pretty thoroughly discredited due to the length of most games, and the ability to put 'sinks' far away or place the main fleet between the sinks and the enemy.

Ripple

 

[l33tpenguin]

Delphis are super uber sinks. I'll just be over here in this corner flying in circles while still using my scout trait ANYWHERE I WANT

I have a house rule for a speed based initative (which I really like, as it gets rid of a lot of sinking, though not all) and when combined with a boresight targetting special action (bring to bear for me ) it gets rid of a lot of problems with both initiative, sinking and boresight

Ugh, tracking fighters just for which figthers are worth VP is a pain enough. I have no interest in tracking exactly where they all came from.

Moving ships by FAP isn't going to do anything to stop sinking. It will probably make things worse. Fleets that don't have to worry about sinks, Minbari, for example, are just going to move whatever they want whenever they want. Even if they lose initiative, they can just move a scout off in the background. The Drazi, on the other hand, are completely screwed because they are now moving more ships per movement and losing more boresight oppertunities.

Once something is done to fix boresights, init sinking will almost disappear.

 

[Foxmeister]

Once something is done to fix boresights, init sinking will almost disappear.

Quite true. In the vast majority of cases, init sinking only really hinders boresights - a F arc weapon system can almost always hit their desired target even when they move first, as long as the target isn't too close or can APTE engines out of arc.

Initiative isn't broken, and neither is boresight - it's the interaction between the two that's the problem.

Regards,

Dave

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree. Initiative (ACTA style) is broken. It's just broken in a way that becomes most apparent with boresight weapons.
A non-broken initiative would actually force less manouverable ships to move before ships which are better able to react to the situation. Yes, this would mean that a Ka'bin'tak is less able to line up a boresight on anything more manouverable than it, but to be honest, that's the way it should be. Such ships should rely more on all around weaponry for dealing with smaller ships, and boresight weapons on such ships should be absolute killers for dealing with other horribly large and unmanouverable targets.

 

[Foxmeister]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree. Initiative (ACTA style) is broken. It's just broken in a way that becomes most apparent with boresight weapons.
A non-broken initiative would actually force less manouverable ships to move before ships which are better able to react to the situation. Yes, this would mean that a Ka'bin'tak is less able to line up a boresight on anything more manouverable than it, but to be honest, that's the way it should be. Such ships should rely more on all around weaponry for dealing with smaller ships, and boresight weapons on such ships should be absolute killers for dealing with other horribly large and unmanouverable targets.

My turn to disagree!

If you take the view that the Ka'Bin'Tak is one of the slowest, most unmaneuverable ships in the game, it's *never* going to get to fire its main gun, because it will almost invariably have to move first. No race in it's right mind is going to develop a ship where its primary weapon system is effectively unusable - well, except perhaps the Drazi!

Lumbering and 1/45 already make the big ships "inferior" to smaller, faster ones when it comes to targeting - I see no reason to exacerbate the situation.

Regards,

Dave

 

[nekomata fuyu]

So, if it's in the lowest initiative class of ship (and there will be other ships of the same initiative), it will still get initiative against those opponents half of the time, plus all the times the target is immobile or drifting (such weapons would be perfect for space stations).
Yes, my mistake, 50+% of the time is "never" :roll:

Oh, and by your reasoning the Centauri and Dilgar would "never" have developed Mass Drivers, because if a weapon isn't usuable against all targets all of the time, there's no point in developing it regardless of how destructive it is...

 

[l33tpenguin]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree. Initiative (ACTA style) is broken. It's just broken in a way that becomes most apparent with boresight weapons.
A non-broken initiative would actually force less manouverable ships to move before ships which are better able to react to the situation. Yes, this would mean that a Ka'bin'tak is less able to line up a boresight on anything more manouverable than it, but to be honest, that's the way it should be. Such ships should rely more on all around weaponry for dealing with smaller ships, and boresight weapons on such ships should be absolute killers for dealing with other horribly large and unmanouverable targets.

So, initiative and ships with bore sight weapons are broken At least, slow lumbering ships.

Speed based initiative is a good (partial) fix to sinking. Ships with similar speeds will still be able to work as sinks. Olympus corvettes can sink for Warlocks, for example.

I do agree that bore sight weapons on slow lumbering ships should be devastating, anti-capital ship weapons. Otherwise, why would they be there? Why would you put a weapon that can only fire down the bow of a ship at a point target on a ship that is anything but maneuverable? The main guns of the battleships and dreadnoughts of World War II were turreted for a reason. Ship killing torpedo boats, on the other hand were fast and mobile and made good use of weapons they had to line up to fire.

Rarely are bore sight weapons seen engaging fast maneuverable craft where as they seen regularly tearing sections off of other capital ships.

 

[Foxmeister]

Oh, and by your reasoning the Centauri and Dilgar would "never" have developed Mass Drivers, because if a weapon isn't usuable against all targets all of the time, there's no point in developing it regardless of how destructive it is...

Errhh, the *only* time we see mass drivers used in the show is during a planetary bombardment. So why did they develop them? To bombard planets......

Regards,

Dave

 

[Foxmeister]

So, if it's in the lowest initiative class of ship (and there will be other ships of the same initiative), it will still get initiative against those opponents half of the time, plus all the times the target is immobile or

So, in a 5pt raid, I take 2 G'Quans (Speed 6) and a Var'Nic (Speed 9) and you take 4 BlueStars (Speed 16) and 4 WhiteStars (Speed 15).

Given the differences in speed I'm sure we can say that the whole of the ISA fleet is in higher initiative classes than the entire Narn fleet. What you are suggesting is that I *never* get to boresight you, which renders my G'Quans totally ineffective after they've fired their e-mines (kill say 2 BlueStars) since you won't come within 8" of them and I can't boresight, and all my Var'Nic has is a couple of dice of Ion Torps which you can dodge (and again can never boresight).


Does that sound fair? The WS would probably need to be bumped up to Battle (if not War), and the Blue Stars at least Raid. Sorry, but that's hideously broken.

Regards,

Dave

 

[l33tpenguin]

So, if it's in the lowest initiative class of ship (and there will be other ships of the same initiative), it will still get initiative against those opponents half of the time, plus all the times the target is immobile or

So, in a 5pt raid, I take 2 G'Quans (Speed 6) and a Var'Nic (Speed 9) and you take 4 BlueStars (Speed 16) and 4 WhiteStars (Speed 15).

Given the differences in speed I'm sure we can say that the whole of the ISA fleet is in higher initiative classes than the entire Narn fleet. What you are suggesting is that I *never* get to boresight you, which renders my G'Quans totally ineffective after they've fired their e-mines (kill say 2 BlueStars) since you won't come within 8" of them and I can't boresight, and all my Var'Nic has is a couple of dice of Ion Torps which you can dodge (and again can never boresight).


Does that sound fair? The WS would probably need to be bumped up to Battle (if not War), and the Blue Stars at least Raid. Sorry, but that's hideously broken.

Regards,

Dave

I'm curious why you are taking those ships in a raid fight up against the ISA? Its raid level, you know the ISA player is going to take a handful of white stars so you want to counter that by buying up for the G'quans? A T'loth is a much better choice with its heavy plasma cannon, as is the G'Sten (12 AD of twin linked, anyone, and 12 range should be 'enough' to engage the quickly moving ISA).

 

[Foxmeister]

I'm curious why you are taking those ships in a raid fight up against the ISA? Its raid level, you know the ISA player is going to take a handful of white stars so you want to counter that by buying up for the G'quans? A T'loth is a much better choice with its heavy plasma cannon, as is the G'Sten (12 AD of twin linked, anyone, and 12 range should be 'enough' to engage the quickly moving ISA).

How so? In a speed based movement system, both of those choices are going to be in a lower initiative class than the WhiteStars and BlueStars and therefore always move first. So when it is the ISA ships turn to move turn to move they will simply move out of your range but stay within the WS 18" beam range, or APTE engine out of arc, so your proposed fleet has precisely the same issues.

In addition, if I'm going to a tourney I don't *know* that I'm going to face ISA.....

Regards,

Dave

 

[nekomata fuyu]

First of all, Speed by itself would be bad to use to decide te Initiative stat. a Sp6 2/90 Agile ship should not have the same initiative as a Sp6 1/45 Lumbering ship.

Errhh, the *only* time we see mass drivers used in the show is during a planetary bombardment. So why did they develop them? To bombard planets......

Oh, so now you're saying that it is ok to develop weapons which can't be used most of the time as long as they're good enough when you can use them. So, a Ka'Bin'Tak can be armed with a weapon meant only for taking on other ponderous ships proving that it's good enough at it when it does get to fire.

So, in a 5pt raid, I take 2 G'Quans (Speed 6) and a Var'Nic (Speed 9) and you take 4 BlueStars (Speed 16) and 4 WhiteStars (Speed 15).

Given the differences in speed I'm sure we can say that the whole of the ISA fleet is in higher initiative classes than the entire Narn fleet. What you are suggesting is that I *never* get to boresight you, which renders my G'Quans totally ineffective after they've fired their e-mines (kill say 2 BlueStars) since you won't come within 8" of them and I can't boresight, and all my Var'Nic has is a couple of dice of Ion Torps which you can dodge (and again can never boresight).

Ignoring the speed, both ISA ships would still have better Initiative stats than the Narn ships. Both Narn ships would have poorer Initiative stats than both ISA ships, but the Var'Nic wouldn't be horribly outclassed by the White Star.
This means that the G'Quans would have to rely more on weapons other than their beams most of the time. And being a more ponderous ship, you can be certain that a G'Quan under the new system would be much more powerful both offensively and defensively to make up for the fact that it loses out in initiative more often, Whilst White Stars would either be boosted a PL to counteract the fact that they'll almost always move last.
It would mean that the Var'Nic would be a poor choice against White Stars as it's designed to rely more on its main beam, but it would still have a fair chance of getting initiative some of the time due to the dice. Sometimes a given ship is weak against certain other ships - it's just something that happens.


Lets not forget that ships would be rebalanced after such a change, so don't be shortsighted enough to think that ships would be identical to the current ships with the exception of an Initiative stat. The initiative system is a core part of ACTA, and changing it would be a significant change. All that means though is that it's a core part of ACTA that's broken.

 

[l33tpenguin]

I'm curious why you are taking those ships in a raid fight up against the ISA? Its raid level, you know the ISA player is going to take a handful of white stars so you want to counter that by buying up for the G'quans? A T'loth is a much better choice with its heavy plasma cannon, as is the G'Sten (12 AD of twin linked, anyone, and 12 range should be 'enough' to engage the quickly moving ISA).

How so? In a speed based movement system, both of those choices are going to be in a lower initiative class than the WhiteStars and BlueStars and therefore always move first. So when it is the ISA ships turn to move turn to move they will simply move out of your range but stay within the WS 18" beam range, or APTE engine out of arc, so your proposed fleet has precisely the same issues.

In addition, if I'm going to a tourney I don't *know* that I'm going to face ISA.....

Regards,

Dave

I personally feel the G'Quan (and variants) are under powered and a poor choice regardless of your opponent. Their reliance on their beam for damage, and a weak beam at that, and its short ranged secondaries aren't worth it. The Var'Nic is also limited by its bore sighted beam and poor secondaries. With the current system, you lack the init sinks to effectively sight the G'Quans or the Var'Nics. Take a load of Sho'kovs and go crazy! (btw, just offering my opinion, not trying to flame)

A speed based initiative shouldn't be speed based alone. Roll 2d6, add the racial bonus and factor in speed. Break up movement by blocks of 6 and things aren't so bad. Omegas still have a chance at bore sighting white stars, sure, its not a good chance, but its still there.

btw, I'm all behind making big ships more sturdy.

As for the G'Stens and T'loths, I selected those because 1: you get more of them than paying for G'Quans (also see above) and they aren't limited by bore sighted weapons. Their forward arc batteries are *decent* enough to be effective in getting shots on faster ships. You could also mix these choices with the bore sighted Var'Nics, since they would work well as sinks. Could go really crazy and spend some points (or parts of points) on some of those Narn 2-fors, the most wonderful sinks ever!

 

[Foxmeister]

Lets not forget that ships would be rebalanced after such a change, so don't be shortsighted enough to think that ships would be identical to the current ships with the exception of an Initiative stat. The initiative system is a core part of ACTA, and changing it would be a significant change. All that means though is that it's a core part of ACTA that's broken.

So you wish to "fix" initiative by restating or rebalancing *every* ship in the game? Sounds like what you want is a completely new game.....

Regards,

Dave

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Funny you should say that, seeing as I'm writing a completely new ruleset for space combat... :wink:

Back to ACTA though, all I'm saying is that it's a core mechanic that's broken. It may well be that someone can think up a way of fixing it without a change-to-3rd-Ed level of rules change (assuming ACTA makes it that far). I don't even hold up much hope for a fix even during a change for 3rd Ed - Matt has more or less taken the attitude with other core rules that ACTA has always been that way, so it wont get fixed no matter how broken it turns out to be.
In short, I see ACTA as a good game but with its fair share of flaws. Unfortunately a game which now has no hope of living up to its full potential.

 

[Tolwyn]

In short, I see ACTA as a good game but with its fair share of flaws. Unfortunately a game which now has no hope of living up to its full potential.

Regreatably very true

 

[l33tpenguin]

In short, I see ACTA as a good game but with its fair share of flaws. Unfortunately a game which now has no hope of living up to its full potential.

Regreatably very true

Which is where house rules come into play. My current ruleset is 8 pages (at 10 point font, .75 inch margins). It includes redundacy and scores for all the ships, a bore sight special action, a slide special action, speed based initiative, acceleration and deceleration rules (removes apte and as&p), a change to cbd, and some modified fleet lists (mainly filling out the vorlons and shadows better).

If your play group agrees, use the house rules. thats the joy of table top gaming. You don't HAVE to go by the rule books.

 

[Foxmeister]

If your play group agrees, use the house rules. thats the joy of table top gaming. You don't HAVE to go by the rule books.

I have no problem with house rules, and if you are only playing within your gaming group that's fine - the problem is when you go to a tourney or to some other group and find they play a different game to you.

I've seen it several times at tourneys (different games to ACTA) where arguments have ensued because one of the players honestly believes their house rules are official......

Regards,

Dave

 

[Da Boss]

run a tourney with your house rules :wink:

 

[Foxmeister]

run a tourney with your house rules :wink:

Those are fine - so long as the house rules are published in advance.

Regards,

Dave