Motion to Change the beam trait.

[Tank]

Oh yeah, just remembered, something that space warfare doesnt have to worry about that naval warfare does, its called the horizon.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

In Victory at Sea there might be destroyers with the dodge trait! And they have a higher target number than battleships but less armour and less damage obvously

But far less accurate and slower-firing (as in, slower projectiles) than in ACtA, and with vastly less reliable gunsights.

Wulf

 

[Frohike]

me thinks there are insidious Drahk players here campaigning for an improvement to their Mother Ships :wink:

 

[H]

ah, I thought you were asking about real life destroyers and carriers, not ones from a different game system. either way, in the modern age of computer guided missiles, the chance of hitting a destoyer is pretty much the same as hitting a carrier, assuming similar defensive anti missile defences and so on, indeed, in the Royal Navy, I believe the Carriers are actually 2 knots faster than the latest destroyer design, possibly making them that little bit more difficult to hit.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Oh yeah, just remembered, something that space warfare doesnt have to worry about that naval warfare does, its called the horizon.

Well, except the Event Horizon. You really, really have to worry about that... :shock:

Wulf

 

[Tank]

Good ole pinhead in space eh? :lol:

 

[emperorpenguin]

In Victory at Sea there might be destroyers with the dodge trait! And they have a higher target number than battleships but less armour and less damage obvously

But far less accurate and slower-firing (as in, slower projectiles) than in ACtA, and with vastly less reliable gunsights.

Wulf

But as you should be aware most such naval gunbattles centred around accurately getting the range to the target a twhich point most shots would then hit

You still appear to be ignoring the source material though Wulf, watch B5 battle scenes, a LOT of fire is uselessly expended on empty space, remember a lot of the weapons are sub-light in velocity!

As I said ACTA increasingly feels like mid 19th century ironclad fighting.

Making the smaller ships a bit harder to hit will mean that the large number of well-nigh useless ships currently in the game WILL get used, I don't like half my fleets sitting on the shelf because there's no use for them.

 

[emperorpenguin]

ah, I thought you were asking about real life destroyers and carriers, not ones from a different game system. either way, in the modern age of computer guided missiles, the chance of hitting a destoyer is pretty much the same as hitting a carrier, assuming similar defensive anti missile defences and so on, indeed, in the Royal Navy, I believe the Carriers are actually 2 knots faster than the latest destroyer design, possibly making them that little bit more difficult to hit.

Technically VAS isn't really a different games system, it is ACTA with tweaks!

The escorts are also more agile, smaller turning circles.
A smaller target will always present less of a radar image, hence stealth designs to minimise signature!

Most weapons in B5 are NOT guided, they are fired off on "expected" trajectories, trying to figure out where the enemy will be by the time the shot gets there.

 

[Tank]

EP

A lot of shots miss in the game as well, its because it is a dice game, all dice games have this random element and you put factors in place to balance the randomness but you still just have to admit that random chance plays a large part.

 

[H]

why though do people say hull 4 ships are useless? That makes the entire drakh fleet pointless, more or less. ANY ship no matter what it's hull should have a use in certain battles. Even the Dag-Kar, hopelesly neutred in SFOS is styill a viable ship in the right circumstances, long range, ion mines, and while the enemy wastes time trying to remove that ship, your big ships are taking down theirs. the WHole thing is that Big ships ARE harder than smaller ships. Why on earth would you think of taking a G'Quan, if you had 3* hull 6 G'Kariths, especially with the G'Quans beam allegedly to hard!

 

[emperorpenguin]

EP

A lot of shots miss in the game as well, its because it is a dice game, all dice games have this random element and you put factors in place to balance the randomness but you still just have to admit that random chance plays a large part.

but they miss at present based on ARMOUR values! ACTA was clearly influenced by BFG, no doubt about it but BFG has a mechanism for making smaller ships harder to hit. Victory at Sea, the son of ACTA, has a mechanism too for making smaller ships useful.

The point is that at present hull 4 and to some extent 5 ships are just ignored over hull 6 ships, in any game system with such wastage there IS a problem!

 

[Black Omega]

A smaller target will always present less of a radar image, hence stealth designs to minimise signature!

Stealth designs minimise radar signature irrespective of the actual vehicle size. If you look at the B2 bomber its actually a very large aircraft. Wingspan is the same as the KC-10 tanker!

 

[emperorpenguin]

why though do people say hull 4 ships are useless? That makes the entire drakh fleet pointless, more or less. ANY ship no matter what it's hull should have a use in certain battles. Even the Dag-Kar, hopelesly neutred in SFOS is styill a viable ship in the right circumstances, long range, ion mines, and while the enemy wastes time trying to remove that ship, your big ships are taking down theirs. the WHole thing is that Big ships ARE harder than smaller ships. Why on earth would you think of taking a G'Quan, if you had 3* hull 6 G'Kariths, especially with the G'Quans beam allegedly to hard!

The Drakh have a defence so not a good comparison. If they had no GEG do you think they'd have low hulls? :?:

Good for the Dag'Kar but can you come up with a reason for all the other weak unused ships in the game?

It really is simple, a target value AND an armour value, Matt Sprange wrote both systems it's not heresy I'm proposing!
Super AP etc would only apply vs the armour value so the cry for limiting beams would be obsolete
The damage values would be scaled back (IMO a VERY good thing) so the games would take no longer than the several hour slugfests becoming increasingly common

 

[emperorpenguin]

A smaller target will always present less of a radar image, hence stealth designs to minimise signature!

Stealth designs minimise radar signature irrespective of the actual vehicle size. If you look at the B2 bomber its actually a very large aircraft. Wingspan is the same as the KC-10 tanker!

Yes but the TARGET value of the aircraft is small!
In B5 they fire guns early 20th century style, it isn't like modern guided missile combat.
B5 combat isn't realistic (for how space combat would probably work look at Traveler/2300AD) it is gun battles because that is showy! And since we play a B5 game then the game should reflect that!

 

[H]

why though do people say hull 4 ships are useless? That makes the entire drakh fleet pointless, more or less. ANY ship no matter what it's hull should have a use in certain battles. Even the Dag-Kar, hopelesly neutred in SFOS is styill a viable ship in the right circumstances, long range, ion mines, and while the enemy wastes time trying to remove that ship, your big ships are taking down theirs. the WHole thing is that Big ships ARE harder than smaller ships. Why on earth would you think of taking a G'Quan, if you had 3* hull 6 G'Kariths, especially with the G'Quans beam allegedly to hard!

The Drakh have a defence so not a good comparison. If they had no GEG do you think they'd have low hulls? :?:

Good for the Dag'Kar but can you come up with a reason for all the other weak unused ships in the game?

It really is simple, a target value AND an armour value, Matt Sprange wrote both systems it's not heresy I'm proposing!
Super AP etc would only apply vs the armour value so the cry for limiting beams would be obsolete
The damage values would be scaled back (IMO a VERY good thing) so the games would take no longer than the several hour slugfests becoming increasingly common

well, I think the GEG is a bit pants really, but thats just me in a huge minority it would seem.
I dunno, I like the mechanics as they stand, hull 4 ships will suffer, but on the 5 front, you will see players take a t'loth over a rongoth quite frequently. Hull 4 is an obvious weakness, which is why if you up the hull, you would up the priority too. The idea of roles to hit, then troles to beat armour, just adds in another stage which i really don't want to be involved in, heck, you maty as well just give everything stealth, and look at how that gets complained about!

 

[Wulf Corbett]

but they miss at present based on ARMOUR values!

No, they don't. There IS no armour value. There is a Hull value, which combines the lot, size, armour, signature, scent, the lot. It's the wargames equivalent of one-roll die mechanics in RPGs. No need for seperate 'to hit', 'damage' and 'armour reduction' rolls. That's why fighters have any defense at all from warship-sized weapons, which should simply obliterate them at a touch.

Wulf

 

[emperorpenguin]

well, I think the GEG is a bit pants really, but thats just me in a huge minority it would seem.
I dunno, I like the mechanics as they stand, hull 4 ships will suffer, but on the 5 front, you will see players take a t'loth over a rongoth quite frequently. Hull 4 is an obvious weakness, which is why if you up the hull, you would up the priority too. The idea of roles to hit, then troles to beat armour, just adds in another stage which i really don't want to be involved in, heck, you maty as well just give everything stealth, and look at how that gets complained about!

To be honest I don't understand why the Drakh have a GEG, we never see one AFAIK

There is nothing wrong with weaknesses but a weakness which eliminates most ships from the game, that's poor.

The extra roll is a fallacious argument because with damage values reduced you'd only have been rolling those extra dice anyway to kill the bigger ship over more turns :!:

I'd sooner see targets than roll for crew checks, roll for bulkhead/solid/crit, then roll for crit, then roll for crit damage, then roll for crit repair.........

 

[Reaverman]

Wulf,

your theory sounds logical to me

 

[Tank]

EP we dont know how space combat will work in the future and you cant really say it will work like any particular game system or movie.

If hull 4 & 5 ships are under utilised by players their loss, I frequently under utilise a Hull 6 choice in my fleet coz I hate the ship with a passion.

the other thing is B5 computers are supposed to be so much more sophisticated than current ones so why 2 scores?

 

[Reaverman]

EP we dont know how space combat will work in the future and you cant really say it will work like any particular game system or movie.

If hull 4 & 5 ships are under utilised by players their loss, I frequently under utilise a Hull 6 choice in my fleet coz I hate the ship with a passion.

the other thing is B5 computers are supposed to be so much more sophisticated than current ones so why 2 scores?

I do, I've been there