Move and fire ship activation

[Lord David the Denied]

It only allows you to do that as many times as you have Pentacons, and with five ships in each you won't have many.

It was written for the init sinking-riddled turn sequence we have now. Changing the turn sequence affects it - the same as it affects other rules. The Pentacon would have to be re-written. Shame - but it's only one rule for one fleet, one little perk the Dilgar get that no one else does.

 

[SylvrDragon]

I realize it's one one, for one fleet that would need rewriting. That would be why I brought it it. Regardless of how big, or how small, any "little perk" would be for any fleet, if it's something to do with init sinking then it should be brought up. I'm sure if it effected your fleet, which I would be sold bold as to guess is Centauri, then I'm sure you'd bring it up too.

Oh...and I'll take that answer as you not having much, if any, experience with Dilgar.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I've not yet used my Dilgar fleet, need to get the models finished. Regardless of that fact, the rule would need to be re-written. It's not a reason to forget this idea.

 

[SylvrDragon]

I've not yet used my Dilgar fleet, need to get the models finished. Regardless of that fact, the rule would need to be re-written. It's not a reason to forget this idea.

Never said it was reason to forget it. I still back the movement because it's good for the game. Unlike many people I don't only back rules that enhance my fleet. I've been pushing for helping boresights and I don't have a single one in my fleet. I also made a push for beams dealing hits based on hull, and considering my fleet is mostly hull 5 and 4 combined with me having no beams, that would flat our hurt me, especially with all the beam users I face off against. Doesn't mean I like what it may or may nor do to my fleet tough. lol

So, any suggestions on what to do with Pentacon? Should the init sinking portion of it just be removed then? Not thrilled about that, as it removes part of my control over the battle field, but if it's the only solution then oh well. maybe something along the lines of an init boost, or an init re-roll, or something else effecting initiative. Maybe a simple +1 to init as long as I have at least one Pentacon, or one init re-roll per game for each starting Pentacon. Seems somewhat powerful, but then so is forcing my opponent to move first when he wins init. lol

 

[Lord David the Denied]

A Pentacon is already a larger than normal squadron, it already gets a CQ bonus if a command destroyer is part of it, just how much of a perk do you need? No one else has anything approaching the Pentacon, and the Centauri hunting pack idea was slammed for giving more oomph to Centauri squadrons.

I'd be satisfied with the Pentacon without the init boost and still call it a nice advantage the Dilgar don't need to have.

 

[sidewinder]

You could try reversing the pentacon ability. You get to move and fire a squadron even if they win init. I pitched the idea of move and fire a long time ago. Nice to see people are finally trying it. And I would suggest the battlefleet gothic way of doing SA's. Someone else mentioned it already.

 

[SylvrDragon]

A larger than normal squad is nice, and with this rule change it is better. And one of the options I listed was removing that portion all together, so don't get so defensive. Besides, as I said, battlefield control is the only defense in the Dilgar arsenal. We have no defensive systems. How hull values. And low damage/crew scores. I use the Pentacon init sink as a defense mechanism until I can close the gap and hopefully slip into weak arcs. My ships are very easily destroyed after all. Now, as to it's necessity with the rule changes I don't know. I know that as is the Pentacon is a staple in my strategy. I'll just have to try and get a few games in with this rule change and see how things go. I'd also suggest, remember just a friendly suggestion, that you play a few games as Dilgar against multiple different races to get a grasp of what I'm saying. I've fought against Dilgar as EA multiple times, and I've played as Dilgar multiple times. So I've seen both ends of their barrels.

 

[SylvrDragon]

You could try reversing the pentacon ability. You get to move and fire a squadron even if they win init. I pitched the idea of move and fire a long time ago. Nice to see people are finally trying it. And I would suggest the battlefleet gothic way of doing SA's. Someone else mentioned it already.

I think that would definitely go too far. I can just see me taking 2 or 3 Pentacons, only to obliterate half my opponents fleet before he even gets to play. No, that's the biggest problem with GW's games right there and I don't want to see that in B5. Though I do agree that their method for SA's is a good idea.

 

[SylvrDragon]

I'll say this. They make that "Alpha Strike" SA 100% official and they can remove the init sinking from the Pentacon in the current game and I won't care. That's one vicious SA. X3

 

[Chernobyl]

idea:

need a set of counters to represent special actions, all the same size and shape. front has action, back is plain, and thus look the same turned over.
place all special actions, hidden (face down) before movement. Don't reveal SA until you 1) activate the ship, or it is 2) attacked and the SA is defensive in nature, and will help with the defense (ie, CBD or other.)

 

[SylvrDragon]

idea:

need a set of counters to represent special actions, all the same size and shape. front has action, back is plain, and thus look the same turned over.
place all special actions, hidden (face down) before movement. Don't reveal SA until you 1) activate the ship, or it is 2) attacked and the SA is defensive in nature, and will help with the defense (ie, CBD or other.)

That's not a bad idea. But it kinda ruins the constantly evolving battlefield feel of B5. B5 has a lot of reactionary actions and even though most of the SA's are not "reactions", they are frequently used as part of a reaction to something else that an opponent has done with his latest activation.

 

[Juzza]

normaly i can minimise incoming shots by picking on weaker arcs, and using blue stars to ini sink so my bigger ships don't take to much incoming fire.

Isn't this commonly referred to as the "playing the game"?

Regards,

Dave

fixed

 

[Foxmeister]

normaly i can minimise incoming shots by picking on weaker arcs, and using blue stars to ini sink so my bigger ships don't take to much incoming fire.

Isn't this commonly referred to as the "playing the game in a way that bears no resemblance to the show Babylon 5 upon which it is based!"?

Regards,

Dave

fixed

Two can play at that game! Fixed your fix for you!

So - exactly how many times in the show did we see the WS fleet using the tactics you choose to employ? ...... Hint: the answer is a round number, a very round number!

Not that I'm berating you for choosing said tactics - I do exactly the same with my WS fleet because against most opponents it's a pretty surefire way of getting a win. However, I'd prefer it if is wasn't an option so that ISA players (including myself!) need to use skill and tactics instead to win.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Juzza]

Two can play at that game! Fixed your fix for you!

So - exactly how many times in the show did we see the WS fleet using the tactics you choose to employ? ...... Hint: the answer is a round number, a very round number!

Not that I'm berating you for choosing said tactics - I do exactly the same with my WS fleet because against most opponents it's a pretty surefire way of getting a win. However, I'd prefer it if is wasn't an option so that ISA players (including myself!) need to use skill and tactics instead to win.

Regards,

Dave

well I can't say I know how white stars fight in the show as i only watched maybe 2 or 3 shows. And I was not impressed so have yet to watch another show.

having said that one show I did watch had a nuke put on a asteroid that blew up a sharlin. Yet there are no nukes on EA ships in the game.

I can picture a white star diving into combat with the bad guys with a in your face style of fight and that make good TV.

as for choice of tactics that should be every fleets goal in the game to get into weak arcs and doing the most amount of damage you can thats how the game is played. Just some ships / fleets are better at it then others

to bring it back on topic
with this shoot and move rule it makes it allot harder to get into the flanks unscratched as some big bore sight ship will likey move first and blast you before you get a chance to move yourself. The rule alters the tactics of the game to favour some of the bigger ships as they become more of a threat then they were before

 

[sidewinder]

Yeah, we wouldnt want the big ships to be a threat now, would we? Heaven forbid, if a battleship was actually scary.

 

[SylvrDragon]

Yeah, we wouldnt want the big ships to be a threat now, would we? Heaven forbid, if a battleship was actually scary.

Oh god no, that would just be horrible. Who ever heard of a Battleship blowing a frigate to bits with ease?

Yea, my number one complaint about this game has always been that big ships have little teeth. No one takes caution when they see a battle level ship on the table. No one truly takes none when a war level ship is place on the table. People hold back laughs when Armageddons are brought the board. No, it's the Raid and Skirmish level vessels that are the kings of the skies. There's something very wrong with this picture.

 

[Juzza]

personally I rather the big ships had a bigger impact on the game.

 

[SylvrDragon]

personally I rather the big ships had a bigger impact on the game.

No offense, but your prior comment could lead one to believe otherwise. Which is where my comment came from. If it was off base, and thus I misunderstood, then I apologize. ^^

 

[Banichi]

We found that we were moving the big guns first in Sundays games. It did feel like it gave them their teeth back a bit. It changes the way you move your fleet to degree. I could see smaller ships being used more to react to the situations and opportunities created by the big ship's fire. Which kind of strikes me as the way it should be.

As for SAs, I'm going to try to sneak a game in on thursday, (Narn Vs Centauri) and we are planning to try the first way I said in the opening post. Whereby most SA happen as normal, when ships are activated. Except for CBD, run silent, and intensify defensive fire. These will be called with scout, just after initiative is sorted out. I think this keeps the reactionary sense of most of the SAs, but stops people getting jumped before they can defend themselves. Although I did like the idea someone posted before of calling all the SAs as normal, but letting the defensive SAs carry over until the next time the ship is activated.

 

[mollari_uk]

I'm really glad you are putting the effort in to play test this version of the game even though I don't think it will work. It's good to see more than armchair quarterbacking (what is the British phrase for this?) - and I put myself in that group too as unfortunately I don't get to play much.

However here's what I think is the problem with move and fire.

I could hide my ship behind an asteroid field at long range and leave it until the last ship to move. Then it comes out and fires at a ship that's already moved and fired. The next turn I win initiative. I fire that same ship again. I've now effectively had two consecutive turns with one ship against a ship that has had no chance to react.

I can't see how this isn't unbalanced (sat comfortably in my armchair). :wink: