Musings on plasma

[storeylf]

We however would have an instant problem with plasma fleets right now if they get any better versus the Feds or Klinks or Kzinti. This may not apply to the Gorn but making plasma more effective now creates a balance problem with the Feds, Klingons and Kzinti who are balanced with the Romulans and correcting that problem (make photons/drones/disruptors better to counteract the improved plasma?) potentially creates additional problems. Again, I'd have to go with if it works, don't fix it. When the Lyrans come out, tweak the heck out of them until they balance and get ready to do it all again for the Hydrans, rinse - repeat.

That's what I don't like the sound of, tweak the heck out of others, rather than adjust gorn/rom to operate a bit more like plasma should. Fusions/ESG are very short range weapons, that is their fluff and how they play in the other games, I'd like to see them keep that feel. Plasma is is supposed to very good at keeping people out side very short range. At the moment there is no difference between range 8 and base contact. Range 8 is not really very short range. ISC rely on small amounts of plasma, that doesn't work very well in ACTA.



And yet again, I'm not trying to make plasma more effective. Overall what I'm suggesting is probably fairly neutral in overall effetiveness, or at least that is the goal.

There is no distinction between roms and gorns really, they both use very similar plasma loadouts.

 

[tneva82]

ISC rely on small amounts of plasma, that doesn't work very well in ACTA.

We haven't yet even seen even test rules for ISC nevermind official ones and yet people are saying they are going to be in trouble?-)

So because the rules we haven't seen yet MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be problematic let's change rules that work NOW rather than wait for the ISC rules to be developed and sort THEM out...Hm. Doesn't sound that logical to me.

 

[storeylf]

You are of course right, whilst there is no difference inthe SFU between ISC plasma and other plasma they might make it work by ignoring that and making their plasma F 4AD or something.

they may even totally ignore the ISC fluff and just ensure that they are 'balanced', rather than a good representation of what they are in the SFU. The same with hydran/lyran etc.

However, note, I am effectively saying I don't think plasma works, yes it may be balanced, but after playing almost nothing but the plasma empires I find it fails to convey any feeling of being plasma either from the SFU, or indeed from the star trek TOS.

Photons fine, they are pretty scary as they deliver devastating leaky crits.
Disrupters fine, they deliver a constant stream damage that wears you down.
Drones fine, (now) they tie up phasers, or do little unless you wear out the ADDs of those ships with them.

Plasma, mm.

 

[Wagged]

While musing on plasma - and getting to think about how torpedoes are thumped down in this game whilst getting caught in the mental trap "but thats not how it works in SFB..."

SFB plasma torpedoes did damage of the range

F,G - 20points with the G being longer range
S - 30 points
R - the big daddy at 50 points.

They also take 3 turns to reload although larger launchers can create a downloaded 2 turn F torp.
G,S & R can also be enveloped which doubles their damage but spreads evenly over all 6 shields - a 100point plasma R torpedo is not nice to see on the table.

Phasers did 1/2 point of damage off the plasma for every one point of phaser damage, but Ph-1's up close would do up to 8points of damage (iirc?) and ph-3's either 3 or 4.

A Fed Cruiser with the ph-3 refit would be able to dish out about 45points of damage centrelined with just phasers at point blank range - this would knock a full strength Plasma R to about half strength if launched up close and personal - leaving enough damage from that torpedo to take a facing shield to about 1/3rd or 1/4 of full strength - enough for the remaining 4 phasers on a War Eagle to just ping but probably not penetrate outside of Gut-Me!(tm) overloaded photon range which leads to the Eagle reloading under cloak. The classic sub hunt.

Ship on ship, the 7 AD of an R could potentially be reduced to zero in ACTA:S F by the same ship (6x Ph-1, 2 x Ph-3) if it centrelined on the Rom - but on average at least 1 or 2 would get through - with an average of 3.5 damage per hit - making 7 points of shield damage (maybe). This would be about 1/4 the shield strength off a cruiser without re-inforcement. This difference means the Plasma user has to work a little harder and longer to get the kill, setting up his plasma shots from positions where the Fed cruiser cannot unload fulll defensive fire. The winning initiative dice roll being most crucial...

In a Fleet engagement (which is what ACTA is about) it is a lot less likely that a single ship will get caught without phaser protection - but there is also likely to be a lot more plasma flying around. The difference here - and probably where the problem lies is the range that defensive fire covers. Ships in SFB at extreme range might want to take a pop at a single plasma torpedo knowing full well that at best they may take 1pt of damage off a torpedo per phaser (2% off an R!) whereas in ACTA the same ship could reduce it by 1AD. this gives a ship using IDF exaggerated phaser effectiveness at range.

Took me a while to get there, but it does appear to come down to the "IDF is too effective at range" argument...

...and that's probably a rules change that won't happen any time soon when you consider the lack of a wild weasel option for the defending ships...

 

[Wagged]

There was something I forgot. Plasma is usually launched with one of two intentions - to close behind the plasma but keeping enough distance away so that the target has to eat a full strength torpedo before getting into overload range, or to keep the target at distance, that is launching and turning away so that you can keep the distance open to the traget and hopefully whittle him down some before closing for the coup de gras.

That flavour is lost with both drones and plasma in ACTA: S F and it seems to stem from the move & fire system using plasma and drones as direct fire - i.e simultaneous launch and impact.

One way to simulate launch before impact would be to place a marker where the launch point was and not have the impact take place until after movement the following turn. I launch and you have the choice of turning away to evade/wear out the torpedo before re-engaging, outdistance drones etc.

as an example - I declare launch and target after this turns movement, place a marker down this turn to represent the seeking weapon during fire phase, next turn we move and before direct fire, the distance from marker to target is measured and damage worked out as per normal rules. This creates a seeking weapons feel and could be used in conjunction with limited range IDF.

This creates a whole range of opportunities for manouevre in the game - both providing potential benefits for seeking weapons users and their targets. As well as providing the opportunity to develop pseudo plasma torpedo and wild weasel rules.

PPT - a fake torpedo that duplicates the effect of a real torpedo but does no damage and is not revealed until impact. One PPT per launcher
Wild Weasel - a shuttle set up to emit a signature the same as the target ship that attracts all seeking weapons targetted on it's launching ship. Speed restriction 2" for the launching ship, no firing or launching of weapons this turn. Since the target is known at time of launching seeking weapons, the WW action can be played during movement of the turn following launch but before impact.

Thoughts folks?

 

[Greg Smith]

T
One way to simulate launch before impact would be to place a marker where the launch point was and not have the impact take place until after movement the following turn. I launch and you have the choice of turning away to evade/wear out the torpedo before re-engaging, outdistance drones etc.

A variety of methods were tried in the playtesting & development of the ACTA rules - including counters placed for delayed impact.

The problem was that in a small game there could be a dozen or more counters. In medium to large games that becomes stupidly high. I think there was a playtest report with 70 drones on the table.

ACTA is a quick and simple fleet game. While the nitty gritty detail of SFB and FC might be missing, it does allow playing fleet engagements in a few hours.

 

[McKinstry]

The launch/impact issue may be part of the perception issue but having seen what counters do to games, treating everything including drones and plasma as an 'instant' result is what makes things move so well and makes for a faster, better looking game but it surely does contribute to the lack of SFB/FC flavor but this is not supposed to be SFB/FC-lite but a stand alone game in the same universe.

I also wonder if range is an issue. 1" doesn't really equal 1 hex and I found it interesting when discussing Lyrans/Hydrans given the size of the 2500 series models, I considered under 6" to be point blank range and assumed that for the most part, their very nasty close range weapons would be at their maximum in the 4-6" band and they wouldn't need to be closer.

 

[billclo]

Took me a while to get there, but it does appear to come down to the "IDF is too effective at range" argument...

I don't know if you saw it or not, but there was a proposal to reduce the effectiveness of IDF beyond Kill Zone range in another discussion:

quote:
Take the defensive fire against each plasma, one volley at a time. So, add up all the phasers on a single plasma from a single ship. For each two points of phaser damage done, reduce the plasma by one die rolled. Phaser outside the kill zone are going to have a harder time damaging plasmas. Odd points of damage don't affect plasma and don't accumulate between volleys.

Example... Ship A takes a hit from a Plasma S doing 4 dice of damage. Ship A fires 2 phaser 3s at the plasma one of which hits. Since that phaser by definition in the kill zone, the plasma is reduced to 3 dice of damage. Ship B at range of 6 fires two more phaser 3s at the plasma, one of which hits. However, since it is outside of the kill zone, it only does 1 point of damage, which is then dropped. Ship C at a range of 8 fires and hits with three phaser 2s at the plasma. again, it's outside of the kill zone, so 3 points of damage are done to the plasma reducing it by 1 die of damage. However the odd point of damage from Ship B and Ship C are not combined but are instead lost. Ship A takes two dice of plasma damage.

What this will do, is that a ship defending itself with it's own phasers will do so quite well, however, a ship using IDF to defend another ship may have a much harder time having any effect.

Example: A D5W defends itself against 6AD of plasma with 6 Phaser-1 under the current system. A nearby ship on IDF adds 2 phaser-1s to the defense.

5/6ths of the D5W's phaser-1s hit, reducing the AD to 1. 2 phasers fire from a nearby ship, with one hitting and reducing the AD to zero.

Under the new system, the D5W scores 5 of 6 hits, all of which are in kill zone (2 pts each) and reduce the plasma to 1AD. However, the nearby ship is out of kill zone, and scores only one hit, which is not enough to reduce the last AD of plasma...which hits the D5W.

I suspect the main result of such a change will be to encourage any ships using IDF to remain within kill zone range of each other so they can be most effective. I'm not sure it'll make a major difference, but we'll see.
unquote

 

[archon96]

Either that or a simple rule stating phasers fired in IDF loose their accuracy trait. That would mean they need a 4 or better to hit. Which would be so you could leave the damage rates as is, i think this would probably be the easiest fix.

 

[Da Boss]

This does imply that there is a consencus that Plasma needs improving - I am not convinced that this is the case?

If the major problem is that the rear defences of the ISC is too weak - you just give them better rear weapons - simple?

 

[storeylf]

Maybe its just me, but I think plasma at the moment is brutal, possibly leaning to over powered at the moment, rather than underpowered. Simply changing IDF to be less potent with no compensaton with the way plasma works (or drones, if the IDF change would affect them) would be bad.

The ony thing that keeps plasma in check at the moment is that at range 8 it is lethal, but beyond that it drops off a cliff in the face of IDF, with a brief 4" bracket where it can be nasty if you are not careful. But if the plasma does launch in that small zone you get to pile in the following move whilst they reload.

A 1000pt plasma force can pack 60AD of plasma.
A cruiser can take ~14-16AD before dying.

So a 1000pt force can more or less expect to nuke 4 cruisers at range 8 or less. The enemy need IDF to protect against that.
At range 12 the plasma drops to 40AD, still 2.5 dead cruisers, but then after range 12 it drops to maybe only 10AD, depending on the mix of Plas S and R.

The defending force may have about 30-40 useable phasers all told. If half of them are in use because they are the target or IDF'd then range 8 plasma drops to about 40-45AD, still enough to kill 2 or 3 cruisers. At range 12 you drop to about 15-20AD or 1 cruiser, and at range 12+ nothing.

Effectively you have a wall of death at 8", a very small zone of some hurt then nothing. That is a bit too binary. Even forgetting that is really doesn't reflect plasma very well (which tends to have a slightly smoother curve, and be movement affecting), that doesn't really make for good balanced games, as it is very binary.

The problem is then made worse in that IDF is highly variable, you are looking at maybe just 5-7 rolls at 50/50 which will have a large influence on how the plasma goes. To much randomness doesn't make for a great game. Photons maybe needing 6s, but they will be rolling several dozen dice in a larger game so the law of large numbers kicks in and you end up with a fairly predictable range of 6's. NOt so with IDF.

Changing the way plasma works and IDF could make plasma not only feel better, but remove some of that randomness factor and make plasma less binary. If IDF is less useful, and plasma does less raw damage then IDF, whilst useful, becomes less of a 'must use' action, which may benefit both sides. A smoother, and maybe even longer range energy bleed curve would remove that clear cut boundary from safety to mass destruction, there would be more interesting choices as to whether to move another few inches closer on both sides) - with an incremental, rather than massive, boost in the damage you take.

 

[archon96]

Ok but when youre 2inchs from target and youre plasma is getting shot down by a ship at 17 inches away that's a bit annoying. I dont think this needs a big change, just a simple tweak would bring it into parody. I know the crew check role should have had a balance for this issue, but every game ive played my son has a better then 75% success rate on his IDF rolls.

 

[Finlos]

IDF vs. Plasma will need careful tweaking to be sure. Limiting IDF to killzone ranges is a possible solution but if you nerf IDF too hard all of a sudden you find out just how deadly those plasma torpedoes really are.

 

[McKinstry]

IDF vs. Plasma will need careful tweaking to be sure. Limiting IDF to killzone ranges is a possible solution but if you nerf IDF too hard all of a sudden you find out just how deadly those plasma torpedoes really are.

I do not believe you can change IDF versus plasma without applying the same solution to drones. Keeping it simple does not include variant cases for special actions depending on the weapon involved.

If you semi-nerf defensive fire (add killzone, take away accuracy) should you also bump IDF with a CQ of 7 passing?

 

[storeylf]

I do not believe you can change IDF versus plasma without applying the same solution to drones. Keeping it simple does not include variant cases for special actions depending on the weapon involved.

IDF just says you can use phasers and drones in defensive fire, the suggestion in my OP does not affect IDF, it affects how phasers interact with plasma. The section on defensive fire is already different per seeker it is defending against.

Though I wouldn'ty do that without altering plasma to compensate.

 

[Finlos]

I never claimed to have an answer, I merely commented that any changes will need to be carefully considered before being implemented. And yes, I should have specified IDF vs seeking weapons. IDF is more critical against plasmas, however, as several options you may have to defend against drones (ADDs, counter-drones, tractors) are ineffective against plasmas.

 

[archon96]

Ok how about this have a select a range were if i fire a plasma its too close too target to be fired on by anything but the target. If im two inches away a ship beyond 8 inches from target couldnt react fast enough. Or only ships within 8 inches of target vessel can provide IDF coverage for it. That would force someone using IDF to actually plan a fleet movement strategy.

 

[Nerroth]

Just a thought; what if a change was made to the Energy Bleed trait?

Rather than having it drop 1 AD over half range, then 3 AD at 3/4 range, it was adjusted to drop the strength more evenly; to have it drop one die at 1/4 range, 2 dice at 1/2, then 3 at 3/4?

(Or, since all current forms of plasma have Range 16 anyway, simply say that you drop 1 AD every four inches.)

That would make the range brackets for a plasma ship's damage capability a little different; taking somewhat from the range in which full damage can be scored, but also stretching out the distance in which at least some meaningful damage can land upon a target.


Alternatively, if a drop of 1 AD every four inches is too low, perhaps make it 1 die every 5 or 6.

 

[archon96]

The problem is not that plasmas are too strong, its that it takes 10 ships to just land 4 ad worth of damage on one. If you opponent is using a super heavy frigate force "most of which have a minimum of 2 Photons each" even with a 50% IDF roll rate he can pretty negate every AD of plasma you fire. So the one turn you get to fire them they effectively are useless. For the major weapon system of a race that's too much ineffective firepower. I saw a picture from a recent tournament of a fleet with about 80% of its make up as calahans. The IDF from that must have been painful.

 

[storeylf]

Just a thought; what if a change was made to the Energy Bleed trait?

Rather than having it drop 1 AD over half range, then 3 AD at 3/4 range, it was adjusted to drop the strength more evenly; to have it drop one die at 1/4 range, 2 dice at 1/2, then 3 at 3/4?

(Or, since all current forms of plasma have Range 16 anyway, simply say that you drop 1 AD every four inches.)

That would make the range brackets for a plasma ship's damage capability a little different; taking somewhat from the range in which full damage can be scored, but also stretching out the distance in which at least some meaningful damage can land upon a target.


Alternatively, if a drop of 1 AD every four inches is too low, perhaps make it 1 die every 5 or 6.

I like that 1 AD every 4", in fact it was exactly what I suggested in the OP.

But that does weaken plasma beyond range 4", hence the change to phaser effectiveness. Plasma then feels more like it does in the main SFU games, and the ACTA game play is less dependent on IDF rolling and the range 8 death zone.