Move and fire ship activation
- Thread starter Banichi
- Start date
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Fix the initiative problem, and the so called "boresight problem" will disappear. If we were to get rid of boresights, we'd be left with the "front arc problem" to try and figure out, which is basically the same problem but less extreme.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
nekomata fuyu said:
Quoted for great truth. This man speaks wisely.
sidewinder
Mongoose
Ok. What is Overwatch?
its where your ship would fire as soon as a target presents itself before the other ship shoots (i think)
as for a shadow ship going last then going first It would depend on how out numbered the shadow ship is weather this would work. If you out number the shadow fleet by several ship then the ship will not be going last
as for a shadow ship going last then going first It would depend on how out numbered the shadow ship is weather this would work. If you out number the shadow fleet by several ship then the ship will not be going last
SylvrDragon
Mongoose
Juzza said:
Good point. And you are correct on Overwatch. I'm not sure what all games have supported such, but it was present in older versions of Warhammer 40k to say the least; 2nd edition to specifically point where most people came to know the concept. Not sure if Rogue Trader had it or not, I'd have to dig out my Rogue Trader rule book, an old incarnation of Warhammer 40k to those that don't know, and look.
And I am well aware that no game is perfect. But some games are closer than others, and likewise some games are farther from it than others. ACTA is, unfortunately, in the latter category. It's a good game, with excellent premise, but it's riddled with big and little imbalances alike. To be quite honest, I'd say the best thing to do for the game, would be to scrap the current system when they write 3rd edition and start fresh. Sure they should keep some things from this version, but a large portion of it should be scrapped. Things such as boresight and the ridiculous priority based point system are the first problems that come to mind. Mind you, they don't have to remove boresight, they just need to rethink it. The priority based point system on the other hand, should be thrown out like the garbage that it is.
mollari_uk
Mongoose
Juzza said:
So now your using other flaws in the system (initiative sinks) to get round a flaw in the proposed system!!
The situations, tactics used, ships/races used or anything else are all irrelevant. The problem is that in certain situation (that will be quite common) a ship gets to fire twice. That's broken, pure and simple.
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
I wouldn't mind seeing the system overhauled. It really only needs a couple *big* fixes, I think, to bring it a long way.
Initiative needs fixed. Its probably the biggest headache in the game. There are some simple solutions, like forcing each player to move a whole point at a time. Its not perfect, but it is better.
Bore sight. I don't think it is broken. Its interaction with initiative is broken, however. Taking boresight into account when fixing initiative will fix boresight, I believe.
Priority levels. Can be argued both ways. I don't want to see it go away, but I would like to see it a little more granular. Adding about 2-3 levels would work well. Fixing initiative would also help fix this as well, because it would remove (part of) the advantage swarms have.
Crits. Large ships need a way to weather crits and make them worth their points. An armageddon ship getting critted out of the game before half of its damage track is gone is just stupid and makes the big ships unwanted.
Initiative needs fixed. Its probably the biggest headache in the game. There are some simple solutions, like forcing each player to move a whole point at a time. Its not perfect, but it is better.
Bore sight. I don't think it is broken. Its interaction with initiative is broken, however. Taking boresight into account when fixing initiative will fix boresight, I believe.
Priority levels. Can be argued both ways. I don't want to see it go away, but I would like to see it a little more granular. Adding about 2-3 levels would work well. Fixing initiative would also help fix this as well, because it would remove (part of) the advantage swarms have.
Crits. Large ships need a way to weather crits and make them worth their points. An armageddon ship getting critted out of the game before half of its damage track is gone is just stupid and makes the big ships unwanted.
I like the system proposed by someone in another game - I don't remember who it was or which game, if this looks familiar then feel free to claim the credit.l33tpenguin said:
How many ships you move depends on how many you still have to move versus how many the other player has. If I remember correctly, it was something like if you have three times as many ships still to move as the other side, you move two. If you have four times as many, you move three. And so on. So fleet A of 5 ships takes on fleet B of 2:
Turn 1: fleet A moves one ship, fleet B moves one ship
Turn 2: fleet A moves three ships, fleet B moves one ship.
Turn 3: fleet A moves one ship.
Except for Drazi, who generally get in the way of any attempt to fix initiative.
Make their weapons forward arc and leave boresight to the larger, clumsier ships like the Omega and G'Quan. (And maybe apply it to other lumbering ships like the Primus and Sharlin).I actually like the existing system because it makes picking fleets quick and easy. You don't spend ages trying to figure out how to balance the fleet to use that last point. Time is an issue in the club where we play, so picking fleets quickly is a good thing.
Agreed. Even if it's Shadows or Vorlons, who can repair the crits one turn later, a couple of well-placed engine or weapons crits can render them useless for the rest of this turn and all of the next.
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
AdrianH said:I like the system proposed by someone in another game - I don't remember who it was or which game, if this looks familiar then feel free to claim the credit.l33tpenguin said:
How many ships you move depends on how many you still have to move versus how many the other player has. If I remember correctly, it was something like if you have three times as many ships still to move as the other side, you move two. If you have four times as many, you move three. And so on. So fleet A of 5 ships takes on fleet B of 2:
Turn 1: fleet A moves one ship, fleet B moves one ship
Turn 2: fleet A moves three ships, fleet B moves one ship.
Turn 3: fleet A moves one ship.
I actually prefer just keeping it broken up by straight points and here is why: The game starts out even. In a 5 point game, each player gets 5 moves. Losing ships causes you to lose movement, thus representing the advantage the other side is gaining as the battle progresses.
Except for Drazi, who generally get in the way of any attempt to fix initiative.
I agree. I think it is better to fix drazi than fix the rules so they work with the drazi. Although, keeping the drazi as a bore heavy swarm fleet with a point movement initiative system isn't such a bad thing. They will get more oppertunities to get good bore shots.
Adding a useful SA (see my Bring weapons to bear SA) would do a lot towards this. Bring to Bear still works with a point based movement.
I actually like the existing system because it makes picking fleets quick and easy. You don't spend ages trying to figure out how to balance the fleet to use that last point. Time is an issue in the club where we play, so picking fleets quickly is a good thing.
I agree, and I don't want to see a really granular system. I would just like to see something with a little more granularity. The current 6 levels (to include ancient) just doesn't give enough levels of power. Even having 10 PLs would be tiny compared to a points bases system.
Yup! It is just painful to see one of my warlocks become a pile of scrap after suffering a single hit from a 1 or 2 AD weapon!
nekomata fuyu said:
I thought the major problem is having a ship sitting in front of you that you can't fire at because a ship behind a dust cloud moved first - if your guns are F arc then its not an issue? If thats is helped then a good part of the problem disapears? Or am I wrong?
I would like to see the Track that Target option explored more - I am going to try and get some games in next week to look at this and a few other P+P things
just need to get some people from the club now
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
Da Boss said:nekomata fuyu said:
I thought the major problem is having a ship sitting in front of you that you can't fire at because a ship behind a dust cloud moved first - if your guns are F arc then its not an issue? If thats is helped then a good part of the problem disapears? Or am I wrong?
I would like to see the Track that Target option explored more - I am going to try and get some games in next week to look at this and a few other P+P things
just need to get some people from the club now
You should test my Bring to bear as well! No one has reported back to me on it, and I've not had extensive testing with it
As for Bore sight VS. Front arc, the issue is that bore sight are exact where as the other arcs aren't. You can make an estimate on where a target ship will end up and plan accordingly to keep them in arc. Its not 'too' difficult, especially when they are further out, since the further out you go the wider the arc gets. Bore sights CAN'T do that as it is impossible to guess exactly where a ship will end up and the bore sight arc is exact.
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
Da Boss said:I'll try and try things out
Thank you! the feed back would be excellent to hear!
Dr Stubbsberg
Mongoose
i quite like the sound of this 'move one PL point's worth of stuff at a time' system, any chance of some trial and feedback on that?
The main concern I have with moving 1 point's worth of ships is what happens when you can't?
Example 1: 5 point Raid, fleet A has 5 Raid level ships, fleet B has a Raid level and a War level, fleet B's Raid level ship gets destroyed.
Example 2: 5 point Skirmish, fleet A has 5 Skirmish level ships, fleet B has two Raid level ships and some fighters because they're Shadows who have no Skirmish ships.
One possibility would be to skip moves until you have built up enough points to force a move. But if you lose initiative, you must move first regardless. So in example 1, if fleet A wins initiative then fleet B must move its War ship first. If fleet B wins initiative, fleet A must move four Raid ships before fleet B moves its War ship. In example 2, fleet A moves two Skirmish ships, then the Shadows move a Scout.
I'm also not happy with allowing a fleet to get back into the habit of init sinking just because it managed to destroy something. The advantage of destroying an enemy ship is that it can't fire at you any more, not that you can suddenly protect your big ship by moving your small ship behind an asteroid at the far edge of the board - either we fix that problem or we don't.
Example 1: 5 point Raid, fleet A has 5 Raid level ships, fleet B has a Raid level and a War level, fleet B's Raid level ship gets destroyed.
Example 2: 5 point Skirmish, fleet A has 5 Skirmish level ships, fleet B has two Raid level ships and some fighters because they're Shadows who have no Skirmish ships.
One possibility would be to skip moves until you have built up enough points to force a move. But if you lose initiative, you must move first regardless. So in example 1, if fleet A wins initiative then fleet B must move its War ship first. If fleet B wins initiative, fleet A must move four Raid ships before fleet B moves its War ship. In example 2, fleet A moves two Skirmish ships, then the Shadows move a Scout.
I'm also not happy with allowing a fleet to get back into the habit of init sinking just because it managed to destroy something. The advantage of destroying an enemy ship is that it can't fire at you any more, not that you can suddenly protect your big ship by moving your small ship behind an asteroid at the far edge of the board - either we fix that problem or we don't.
Foxmeister
Mongoose
l33tpenguin said:I actually prefer just keeping it broken up by straight points and here is why: The game starts out even. In a 5 point game, each player gets 5 moves. Losing ships causes you to lose movement, thus representing the advantage the other side is gaining as the battle progresses. [//quote]
IMHO, this doesn't work, because
a) It invalidates certain "types" of game e.g. how do you handle 1 Armageddon? Answer: you can't, so you end up having to play say 4 Battle which then changes the FAP splits.
b) It actually exacerbates the swarm problem.
I would continue, but I've just seen that V1.2 is up!
Regards,
Dave
Well officially 1 pt armageddon is not supported... you cannot roll Armageddon on the random PL table, and cannot roll 1 FAP on the random FAP table!Foxmeister said:
We did popularize it however, as a workaround to the Bat Squad problem.
Well you could count the big ship as 2 (or more) movement turns. So in a 5pt Raid if I move my Sharlin, you have to move 4 FAPs worth before I move my next ship.Foxmeister said:
It does however, screw over Drazi... (someone had to say it
)nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Personally I'd prefer a system whereby the numbers of ships present has no real effect on the which ships get to move which. An example of this would be a system that did initiative by ship rather than by fleet.
If a White Star is much more manouverable and (barring unlucky rolls) able to take the initiative from a Bin'Tak, the same should be true regardless of if there are other ships in the area (barring command ships). If there are 10 White Stars, the only reason why a Bin'Tak should have more chance of outmanouvering one is because there is more chance of a White Star getting unlucky.
Here's the main problem though - such a change would require a lot of rebalancing of ships. The current initiative system is a core part of the game though, and I think it's naive to expect to be able to fix it without needing to rebalance ships.
Personally, I think that the sort of rebalancing that would come of a change like the above would be good. Boresight weapons would become weapons more focused on being weapons to take out ships of the same size or larger, with a lot more hitting power. Larger ships would gain a lot more all round firepower as such "secondaries" become the primary weapon against more manouverable foes. The White Star would indeed be a scary ship, even if its weapons were made boresight, but I could well see it being Battle PL because of how scary it should be.
If a White Star is much more manouverable and (barring unlucky rolls) able to take the initiative from a Bin'Tak, the same should be true regardless of if there are other ships in the area (barring command ships). If there are 10 White Stars, the only reason why a Bin'Tak should have more chance of outmanouvering one is because there is more chance of a White Star getting unlucky.
Here's the main problem though - such a change would require a lot of rebalancing of ships. The current initiative system is a core part of the game though, and I think it's naive to expect to be able to fix it without needing to rebalance ships.
Personally, I think that the sort of rebalancing that would come of a change like the above would be good. Boresight weapons would become weapons more focused on being weapons to take out ships of the same size or larger, with a lot more hitting power. Larger ships would gain a lot more all round firepower as such "secondaries" become the primary weapon against more manouverable foes. The White Star would indeed be a scary ship, even if its weapons were made boresight, but I could well see it being Battle PL because of how scary it should be.
Per-ship initiative, now that would be really good...
White Star would presumably get a higher bonus than a Bin'Tak, so as you said 1 WS would usually beat the Bin'Tak, but with 10 WS it is likely that at least one will not beat it. It would fix boresight too, just give the Drazi ships a high initiative.
As for who fires first, well that could remain as the existing system, otherwise the entire WS fleet would fire before the Bin'Tak gets to respond!
If it weren't for the bookkeeping overhead then I'd really like that idea!
White Star would presumably get a higher bonus than a Bin'Tak, so as you said 1 WS would usually beat the Bin'Tak, but with 10 WS it is likely that at least one will not beat it. It would fix boresight too, just give the Drazi ships a high initiative.
As for who fires first, well that could remain as the existing system, otherwise the entire WS fleet would fire before the Bin'Tak gets to respond!
If it weren't for the bookkeeping overhead then I'd really like that idea!
