Musings on plasma

[archon96]

Someone smarter then can probably work the number better but here is my final thoughts.

Roll damage numbers first.
Range restrictions for each type of torpedo.(D-4in, F-8in, G-10in, S-12in, R-16in)
Phasers get to do KZ damage when doing defensive fire on Plasma only.
Energy Bleed is 1point of damage for every 4in of range after 4in from target.
Plasma weapons take 2 turns to reload. Bad Idea

This will still allow plasma users to stay at a distance and fire limited weapons or come into close range for an alpha strike. With the reload rate they will probable not want to fire a system unless there going to maximize its potential. The reload rate will also make me want to run away and reload hopefully forcing some tactical thinking and maneuvering during game play. This is just my opinion Ive tried to not have plasma over whelming but still give ya the feel that youre weapons weren't wasted. This would also give the FC feel were a plasma was an oh shit thing but it took forever to reload.

 

[storeylf]

For myself I'm not bothered whether the damage of plasma or phasers equals what the do in FedCom, I consider that a pointless distraction.

What puts me off is that the 'feel' is wrong. By which I mean:

1) Even a small ship with smaller amounts of plasma should be somewhat scary to a cruiser in some way, e.g. A lone plasma R should be scary to a Fed CA. But it isn't. A Fed CA has enough phasers, and other stuff like boost shields or range that it can basically negate the plasma R whilst hitting the ship with photons and never really break a sweat. This is one of those Iconic scenes from the TOS which falls flat in the game. It is also something that happens in FedCom - when the small ship dumps its plasma (be it an R or a couple of Fs and a G) the cruiser wil take notice.

The plasma R doesn't have to crush the Fed CA, but it ought to be able to make it thiink twice before letting one hit, at least from a close enough range. Buffing close range damage, whilst compensating with a nerf to mid range damage to balance out seems OK to me. That is what the OP was about.

2) Plasma often forces the enemy to manouver in a certain way - often directly away from the plasma. Again in the TOS you see the Enterprise in full reverse. In FedCom ships turn around and run. This isn't about just having enemy ships try and keep their range open, that happens with all weapons - you try and keep just outside the enemies optimal range etc before they fire. Plasma, and to a lesser extent drones are different, in the soure games they force you to move in a way that the enemy is wanting you after they launch and give the launcher time to do other stuff - In FedCom if you have a cruiser coming at you then you can launch some plasma at it and it will probably turn away, that leaves you now behind it and in an advantageous position even though you have done no actual damage. If there are 2 cruisers you can force 1 to run and then deal with the 2nd alone if it doesn't also follow its buddy. To put it another way Seekers, and plasma in particular, are less about doing raw damage but about gaining an advantageous position. ACTA however, is unable to provide any feel like that, treating all weapons as nothing more than damage dumps.

This is a more difficult one, I am not sure the ACTA can really achieve that. The nearest I could think would be a major change, and may end up being to useful to the target. Once a turn allow a ship (not under power drain?) that has been targeted with seekers to take an extra move - but it must be directly away from the launcher, with that attack then beinig resolved at the new range (and any subsequent attacks of course). This might protect a ship from being clobbered, but would leave it facing the 'wrong way', and further away from the action. That sort of defense would again allow plasma to be more potent to compensate (e.g. give an extra 1AD per torp, or reduce phaser effect), which would actually make ships want to 'run' as well.

Note such a rule could also take the sting out of mass drones that some are concerned about, and also make them feel a bit more like they do in FC.

 

[Da Boss]

There are a number of issues here:

I don't think there is even an agreement that the plasma needs a major (or even minor) overhaul?

We def don't want to do anything that makes Drones any better - I think that is
agreed.

There is a proposal to make them more powerful but only firing 1 every 3 turns (max) 3 turns is a long time in ACTA and this was a powerful reason not to have it 2 turn reload in the first place.

The problem with taking from the show is that the Enterprise goes maximum speed in reverse - thats not possible in the SFU for whatever historical reason..........and so the whole thing starts to unravel

This whole thing about making ships move etc "as in SFB/FC" - sorry but this has to be forgotten - ACTA just does and can not work that way due to its movement system - its just the way the game works.

Extra Move - thats a absolutely huge thing that should not be in the game - you change your arcs, your weapons range both from your ship and your opponents and if played well it allows an out of turn move into a superior position - its really a no no I am afraid.

 

[bcantwell]

The only way (as far as I can see) that you will get the FC/SFB effect of making maneuver an important aspect of plasma (and drone) warfare is to have seekers "launched" before movement so that players can react accordingly. A simple marker at the firing point and an identical one with the target ship. When it is time for damage, resolve normally but measure the range for all purposes from the firing point marker. In compensation, make phasers less effective against plasma. Captains now have their choice - run in and risk it or run away and cede the positional advantage.

The cost is more markers on your table. A simple decision for each game group to make - as is with less markers and a different (not "wrong", just different) flavor or a closer flavor to the source and more table clutter.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Just to chip in, we tried many of these ideas during playtesting, even down to having counters representing plasma torps and drones (we even had minis for them in the release schedule at one point).

They are _so_ not worth it. They increase the time to play a HUGE amount.

You have to remember, ACTA is an abstract game that focusses on fleets, not individual ships. The ADB guys are always pushing to replicate everything we can from SFB/FC, but we always try to resist, because ACTA needs to be fast to play. We we look to do is represent 'final effects' in the game, as in what is the result when two Heavy Cruisers meet, but not to get into 'how the effects happen.'

Plasma works very well in CTA at the moment. It can be as scary as hell, but it also has counters - what happens really depends on the tactics of the two players, and that is a very nice balance to have.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

As i said in an earlier post - i actually think the plasma rules as is work. But, i'm with storyelf in that they just don't have the psychological effect in this game that they do in others. We've come across this before (in reverse - with drones). The current system just makes plasma easy to stop (but quicker to reload), so if i have an issue, that's actually mainly it.

I think some form of Plasma specific rule related to defensive phaser-fire might be able to deal with any/most issues - and it doesn't have to be mod to 'seeking weapons'. Whilst the bolt option is there, it's quite limiting - half range, energy bleed, no accuracy bonus (so an 'S' type suddenly has an active range of 6", hitting on 5-6 above 3" and only 1AD if fired at long range due to energy bleed)

An your comment, Mathew, whilst i agree it it mostly, PH-G's change the playing field completely as it can kill a medium plasma dead (rare i know, but still horribly effective as there's on limit on fielding escorts - which was what restarted this thread)

 

[McKinstry]

Plasma works very well in CTA at the moment. It can be as scary as hell, but it also has counters - what happens really depends on the tactics of the two players, and that is a very nice balance to have.

I agree. I didn't like the original drone/plasma interaction because it seemed unbalanced in favor of heavy drone users but the changes have produced what seems to be a pretty balanced game with plasma heavy fleets doing quite well. Escorts might change that and only time and repeated games will tell but from the games our bunch has played pre-update#1, IDF does not.

I'm looking at it from a point of view of not playing SFB since the ziplock bag and passing on FC as still way too detail oriented for my tastes, so to me, replicating an FC feel is unimportant as long as the game is fast, fun and balanced standing on its' own, independent of how things work in the other systems.

 

[Rambler]

Everyone say it with me this is not Star Fleet Battles. This not Federation Commander. In SFB or FC if you close to within 4 Hexes or even 2 hexes of a enemy unload a Alpha Strike he does not take you with him. In ACTASF if you get with in 4" of an enemy an unload the mother of all Plasma Blast he will take you with him. Please, stop making suggestions that make Plasma Users the Kamikaze Empires.

Regardless what we do we will never make Direct Fire Seeking Weapons feel like they do in other SFU games. Right now what we have is simple and works. Lets work on how to tweak the current rules and not look for ways to rewrite them chasing a feeling we are never going to get.

 

[Rambler]

Lets face it. The reason Plasma is not scary is there is no chance of rolling a Burn Through. What if we added this to plasma damage.

A Plasma Torpedo will in addition to the normal Attack Dice Damage rolled will inflict a number of burn through Hits equal to its starting Attack Dice even if the Plasma Torpedo is nullified by Defensive Fire. These hits are rolled on the Attack Table as normal to determine the chance of a Critical Hit.

 

[Da Boss]

I must admit - I find plasma pretty scary when I play against it

 

[Captain Jonah]

Lets face it. The reason Plasma is not scary is there is no chance of rolling a Burn Through. What if we added this to plasma damage.

A Plasma Torpedo will in addition to the normal Attack Dice Damage rolled will inflict a number of burn through Hits equal to its starting Attack Dice even if the Plasma Torpedo is nullified by Defensive Fire. These hits are rolled on the Attack Table as normal to determine the chance of a Critical Hit.

Erm thats scary and I'm A Gorn. Erm a Gorn player that is.

A standard Cruiser salvo is 12AD. More using Storyyelf's idea of IDF on 2+ (see the furballs have been sprayed thread). Even if the defending ship blocks every dice your sugestion is that they still take 12 bleed through :shock:

That is waaaaaay too over the top and I'm speaking as a Gorn. That is 12 burn through hits, which are devestating so doing an average of two double crits. Do you realy want so Rom uncloaking and doing that to you :shock:

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

I actually like storyelf's idea, and the increase in plasma strength does increase the 'fear' factor - currently a Gorn CA has 12AD of plasma (reducing to 9AD between 9-12, 2AD over 12), it would have 18AD (reducing to 14AD between 4-8, 6AD between 8-12 and nothing over 12). Average rolls will give a damage of 49 at 4-8 (currently 31.5) without defensive fire.

Too balance this, he suggests that IDF and Evade have the roll target dropped to 2+ (base 6), so most ships will pass it. The upside of this is that a single cruiser firing plasma will generally get something through against one ship, but fleet defence is easier to plan. Escorts remain effective as they don't need to use an SA to IDF when under 8", so can use that for something else (maybe a specific action to allow use of ADD in defensive support ?), such as APE to cover a ship, or Evade for personal defensive.

I like this, and it might (just might, though it would need carefully looking at) allow for the '3 ship max' for drone fire to be removed.

 

[storeylf]

The upside of this is that a single cruiser firing plasma will generally get something through against one ship

I was suggesting the all SAs become base target 6 (including HET, though less relevant to this discussion). So that means in the single ship scenario the target ship will probably use Evade. Before he had a 50% chance of no evade and a 50% of a 41% chance of evading (assuming standard crews). i.e. not good. With a target of 6 he would now have an 83% chance on that first roll, but still a 41% chance on the opposed check.

I'm not really sure how evade is meant to work, is it 1 roll beats all 4 plasma from the same launcer, or 4 rolls, one per plasma. I'm not a fan of all or nothing so would hope it is per plasma (or weapon line at least, which is the same thing with plasma, but not with drones always).

In that case the Gorn will often see his 14AD (range 4-8) reduced by 1 or 2 plasma (probably 2-6AD), so will lose a bit, then get phasered still, so he will probably not get hammered as bad as he does now. On the other hand he will sometimes fail the first evade roll, or sometimes flunk the opposed rolls, at which point he may be in trouble. In terms of raw damage though, the plasma would be a bit better at 4-8"



To put drones in perpsective, a 6 cruiser kzniti fleet at the moment will have 24 drones (At some point the 7AD drone cruiser will arrive though, but escorts are out as well so sort of help counter). A 6 cruiser defending fleet could have about 30 phasers on IDF (assuming about ~6 bearing phasers per cruiser), maybe 24, maybe all. You can expect about 5-10 to miss depending on the mix of ph1's to 2s/3s etc. Plus some tractors. So the drone to defense mix would seem about right, in that kzinti drones would usually struggle to totally overwhelm an enemy fleet, but will soak up almost all their phasers each turn and still get the odd leaker through, and the defender will need to keep formation to defend properly. Certain fleets (Gorn/Roms) will still feel the heat as they tend to have fewer phasers in the right arcs, other fleets with ADDs (and presumably ESG when it arrives) should be fine, so their historical enemies should not feel to overwhelmed. Scouts and escorts will also help defend against that sort of heavy drone force. I'd therefore be tempted to remove the 3 ship limit, at least based on how it seems on paper.

Fed/Klink drones become much less of an issue, they are still a nuisance and require planning for, but barring a specific drone built fleet they are much more manageable. They force the enemy to plan for them, and spend SAs on having at least some drone defense, but the better chance doesn't mean you will expect to have to try IDF with every ship just to get a couple to succeed. They will still soak up some phasers, but so long as the target fleet has done that planning it is much less likely that their drones will get through, at least in the initial stages, late on when ships are crippled, split up etc them their drones may be the finisher, but again that is about right.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

As far as HET's go, might be better to follow the 'core' systems and give a bonus to the first HET (say +2, so it's a target 6), with further HET's being target 8. Otherwise, ships will be HETing away whenever they feel like.

As far as evade goes, i do think it's an 'all or nothing' option rather than a 'per weapon' option. Makes it quicker (if not cleaner), as you'd be rolling against every drone fired at you - each drone line can be split (not plasma), which i take to mean there individual weapons.

Still like you're idea though.

 

[Talonz]

The only way (as far as I can see) that you will get the FC/SFB effect of making maneuver an important aspect of plasma (and drone) warfare is to have seekers "launched" before movement so that players can react accordingly.

Although I would love to see that, there is another solution.

Allow players to assign orders to ships in response to plasma firing. Make the plasma longer legged and higher damage, and allow ships to APE away before resolution (extending the range and thus reducing damage) or convert to IDF at will, in response.

 

[Da Boss]

Out of sequence movement is a hugely bad thing in ACTA - it changes everything - weapon arcs, range - even if you can actually target a ship due to terrain - need to absolutely avoid anything like this.

If you think you are going to be shot by plasma there are already SA's to increase your defences- its a tactical choice - offense or defence - live or die by your choice

 

[Talonz]

The point being though, if you want to force more reactions by the opponent and portray the effect that seeking plasma has on an opponent, out of sequence movement is exactly the result (Short of putting the seeker on the table).

The movement only changes the range, and possilby puts terrain between the target and firing unit. No change in arcs because essentially the abstraction is the delay between launch and impact, so at point of launch the launchers facing arcs apply. At point of impact the targets facing applies.

The reacting player also loses an activation in a sense, as he must still move a unit after resolving the plasma ships fire. Another advantage to plasma.

Basically, if the game isnt working, dont be afraid to change the game.

 

[Da Boss]

Your missing the point of the fleet game - if you have set up shots by half your fleet on a specific enemy ship and it suddenly moves to the other side of the gas cloud - you have just broken the game. It would also be stupid and extremely annoying.

The reacting player gains hugely and you loose tactical elements of the game - the movement phase of the turn become irrelvant as ships will all be moving again in the firing phase.

If you are playing ACTA you simply can't have out of sequence movement in the firing phase - full stop.

The game works fine for the most part - it deos not and can not replicate every specific element of a entirely different game - otherwise it would in fact be that game and then what would be the point?

Lastly why would the arcs not change - you APTE means you can still turn and in fact bring new phasers to play.

 

[McKinstry]

I think the game is working pretty well as is. It is unimportant that ACTA feel like FC or that any one element (plasma, drones, whatever) feel the same as any other SFU game system. If the game produces a fast, simple and enjoyable game with a relatively even balance between the factions (although escorts might need tweaking) then it works per se. As I've said before, if it works, don't fix it.

 

[Talonz]

Ah sorry daboss, im getting my games mixed up...nevertheless, if you want plasma to influence movement, and thus preserve the plasma users chances of surviving the reload turn, something has to change. Some kind of self preserving movement or putting seekers on the board to move later are really the only ways to do it.

You could have the defensive movment take the place of next turns movement for instance, delaying 'impact' until then. At which point we may as well put seekers on the board.

And yes, the danger of a target moving behind something is a factor that a plasma user has to take into account...it adds to tactics, not removes them.

Mckinstry, suffice to say I utterly disagree. The fact that plasma does not work anything like in the SFU is the reason why I haven't personally invested my money in acta yet.