Motion to Change the beam trait.

[emperorpenguin]

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

IN THEORY, but look at how it pans out, it IS based on armour, you said so yourself with the Warbird! There's nothing hull 6 which is "difficult to hit" they're ALL big battleships

 

[Tank]

@reaverdude

Honestly mate that was only the beer :lol:

 

[Reaverman]

@reaverdude

Honestly mate that was only the beer :lol:

I was....temporal directive forbids me to say anything else....only that you need to drink 88 pints of beer :wink:

 

[emperorpenguin]

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

Because there is a problem in the game at present and though some of you will hapopily see it continue, I do NOT want to see large chunks of fleets continue to be ignored

And the source material shows us that weapons fire is not as uber-accurate as some of you like to think!

To be honest this smacks of reactionarism, if ACTA had started with a target value and I proposed dropping it, I bet a week's wages you'd be arguing against me....

 

[Tank]

Thats the same number on my hockey shirt!!! freaky coincidence there eh??? :lol:

ANyways leave beams as is, its fun to run your hull 4 ship as close to a stealthy ship and wait for it to be blown to smithereens

 

[H]

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

Because there is a problem in the game at present and though some of you will hapopily see it continue, I do NOT want to see large chunks of fleets continue to be ignored

And the source material shows us that weapons fire is not as uber-accurate as some of you like to think!

To be honest this smacks of reactionarism, if ACTA had started with a target value and I proposed dropping it, I bet a week's wages you'd be arguing against me....

Actually, I have already stated, I like this for exactly the reason that it's less dice to roll. Some games have far to many, and besides that, i seem to be capeable of fielding weaker hulled ships, and not going hull 6 mad, which as a Narn is probably against my miliatary doctrine! I mean, I wouldn't argue if someone slapped a load of Armour plates on the G'Karith and Dag'Kar, but I will still take them IF they serve a purpose in the scenario being played, this means weapons loadout and spead etc, not armour.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Actually, I have already stated, I like this for exactly the reason that it's less dice to roll. Some games have far to many,

As I said fallacious argument. With less damage points there'd not actually be any more dice to roll because the ships wouldn't take as long to kill!

 

[Tank]

Well it cant be uber accurate there is always going to be defensive EW going on. Point is Hull 4 arent as much as a liability as is being made out, its a dfice game, random luck, chance, chaos, whatever some days you'll only roll 1's and next you'll pull out an uber kill with a poxy ship!

 

[H]

ok then, explain to me how it will work.

Take a well known ship that I can vaguely relate too, and explain how I will be rolling less dice, if I have to roll to hit, as well as penetrate armour. (I'm having visions of 40k with armour saves at the moment, eugh)

 

[Reaverman]

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

To be honest this smacks of reactionarism, if ACTA had started with a target value and I proposed dropping it, I bet a week's wages you'd be arguing against me....

So, after you finished with ACTA, what next. Change Chess, as you dont like the way the Knights move?

 

[emperorpenguin]

Well it cant be uber accurate there is always going to be defensive EW going on. Point is Hull 4 arent as much as a liability as is being made out, its a dfice game, random luck, chance, chaos, whatever some days you'll only roll 1's and next you'll pull out an uber kill with a poxy ship!

It's funny I see "random luck" used as a defence for keeping poor ships in the game but also used to criticise the stealth mechanic.... odd :roll:

 

[Wulf Corbett]

IN THEORY, but look at how it pans out, it IS based on armour, you said so yourself with the Warbird! There's nothing hull 6 which is "difficult to hit" they're ALL big battleships

But that's MY point. Nothing IS difficult to hit with B5-era weapon systems, there just isn't a SEPERATE armour value, it's all combined. There is no way, simply looking at a Warbird's Hull 6, of telling what is armour, what is size, what is sensor signature. Logically, a Warbird could have only 2 points of armour on a Sunhawk's Hull 4 small size and signature. Size simply doesn't stop you from hitting - I didn't say it didn't have any effect at all, that's what dice are for. Size, signature and maneouverability can, at best, contribute 2-3 points to a Hull score, armour & structural redundancy likewise 2-3 points. You CAN miss a barn door, but it doesn't matter how BIG a barn door it is, if you use an appropriate weapon at an appropriate range.

Wulf

 

[emperorpenguin]

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

To be honest this smacks of reactionarism, if ACTA had started with a target value and I proposed dropping it, I bet a week's wages you'd be arguing against me....

So, after you finished with ACTA, what next. Change Chess, as you dont like the way the Knights move?

Don't be asinine Reaverman, but you don't leave something broken because people are to stuck in their ways to think outside the box....

I remember the hullaballo when 40K changed from 2nd to 3rd ed and the "world is going to end" nonsense. People resist change FAR too much

 

[Tank]

Keeping poor ships in the game eh? would these be by any chance ships that have a hull 4 or lower?

 

[Burger]

So, after you finished with ACTA, what next. Change Chess, as you dont like the way the Knights move?

I always hated those Knights. Being able to jump over other pieces is so overpowered.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Because there is a problem in the game at present and though some of you will hapopily see it continue, I do NOT want to see large chunks of fleets continue to be ignored

So play more campaign games. Then you'll see them used.

To be honest this smacks of reactionarism, if ACTA had started with a target value and I proposed dropping it, I bet a week's wages you'd be arguing against me....

On the other hand, if it had had the extra time and efford of seperate multiple rolls for every shot, maybe it just would never have gained enough popularity to ever be noticed.

Wulf

 

[emperorpenguin]

ok then, explain to me how it will work.

Take a well known ship that I can vaguely relate too, and explain how I will be rolling less dice, if I have to roll to hit, as well as penetrate armour. (I'm having visions of 40k with armour saves at the moment, eugh)

Ok as an example let's take a Hyperion with 24 damage. Give it a target of 4+ and reduce damage to 12. Half as many shots will hit but as it has half as much damage.........

Just an example BTW and not what I would actually do!

 

[Reaverman]

To be honest this smacks of reactionarism, if ACTA had started with a target value and I proposed dropping it, I bet a week's wages you'd be arguing against me....

So, after you finished with ACTA, what next. Change Chess, as you dont like the way the Knights move?

Don't be asinine Reaverman, but you don't leave something broken because people are to stuck in their ways to think outside the box....

I remember the hullaballo when 40K changed from 2nd to 3rd ed and the "world is going to end" nonsense. People resist change FAR too much

I know all about it, I was selling it :twisted:

Broken, in your eyes maybe? As you can see in the above posts, not everyone agrees.

 

[emperorpenguin]

So play more campaign games. Then you'll see them used.

On the other hand, if it had had the extra time and efford of seperate multiple rolls for every shot, maybe it just would never have gained enough popularity to ever be noticed.

Wulf

Point 1 was used possibly by you among others to justify Minbari damage values and the state of the ancients, not good enough I'm afraid, most people do not play campaigns, poor advice

Point 2 is absolute nonsense, ifs buts and maybes

 

[H]

ok then, explain to me how it will work.

Take a well known ship that I can vaguely relate too, and explain how I will be rolling less dice, if I have to roll to hit, as well as penetrate armour. (I'm having visions of 40k with armour saves at the moment, eugh)

Ok as an example let's take a Hyperion with 24 damage. Give it a target of 4+ and reduce damage to 12. Half as many shots will hit but as it has half as much damage.........

Just an example BTW and not what I would actually do!

so do you roll 1 dice "to hit" or do you get as many to hit dice as you do damage dice? can to hit value be lowered by scanners to full and suchlike? I see this is an example, but any solid hit would vapourise the poor bugger with ease? but I see where you are coming from. . . It would just potentially become as amazingly anoying as stealth