New activation rule

[mollari_uk]

On one post someone suggested using a movement rule of 1 FAP at once. This got some support but for me it's a bit too clunky.

I have another idea. What about activation points? This is similar to some wargames where you get command points. Basically representing the overall commanders ability to command the battle.

So lets say you play a 5pt raid game. You could have say 5 activation points (or any number you decide). This is similar to limiting the number of ships per battle but instead you can have more ships but with the following rules:

• 
  You can squadron extra ships and they move as normal for 1 activation point.
  
  If a ship isn't moved (because you've ran out of activation points) then it moves at the end of movement it's minimum movement with no turns (probably half).
  
  You can still use SA's on unactivated ships - not sure about this yet but you'd have to allow all stop to prevent running into an asteroid field.
  
  All ships still get to fire.

Only issue I can see is for Drazi due to boresight and reliance on init sinks (what a surprise).

Please discuss/amend/suggest!

 

[inq101]

I really don't know if this would work. I'll have to see if I can convise someone to playtest it.

Only issue I can see is for Drazi due to boresight and reliance on init sinks (what a surprise).

It's not just going to be Drazi with a problem, but Drazi will suffer the most. Perhaps a racial special rule that gives certain fleets bonus activation points.

 

[mollari_uk]

I'll have to see if I can convise someone to playtest it.

That's what I'm asking for :wink:

The reason I came up with this is that most tourneys use ship limits, and everytime I've played a game like that it plays much better.

There's still a benefit to buying more ships (to maintain your 5 activations when ships die) but there's no sinking advantage.

 

[Delthos]

I don't like that method, it doesn't make sense. Each ship has a commander and they aren't just going to fly in a straight line because they have no orders from their commander. They are going to maneuver and avoid fire to save their bacon. Sorry this doesn't work for me. Something else is needed, like the previously tested, moving and firing during activation, instead of a separate move phase and fire phase.

 

[mollari_uk]

I don't like that method, it doesn't make sense. Each ship has a commander and they aren't just going to fly in a straight line because they have no orders from their commander. They are going to maneuver and avoid fire to save their bacon. Sorry this doesn't work for me.

That's not very constructive. Neither do ships fly in 2d space, real ships can stay still while doing other things, and they can shoot at something directly in front of them even though there's another ship hanging around in the distance. This is a game and as such the rules are an abstraction. There are plenty of other wargames that use this kind of rule. A ship can still dodge etc while moving forward it doesn't mean it's stuck on auto, it just means that without overall command it fails to manouver into the right place and doesn't coordinate with the rest of the fleet and ends up not being effective.

Anyway to put an idea into the pot: One solution is that you can only have said number of groups using squadrons where nessassery. E.g. if the number of activations is five you must group your ships into five or less groups.

...Something else is needed, like the previously tested, moving and firing during activation, instead of a separate move phase and fire phase.

You mean the tested and seriously flawed move and fire? Not to mention a huge overall to the game. I'm trying to come up with something that takes the game as is but puts some restrictions so that initiative is more fair.

 

[Delthos]

How is it not constructive? I said I don't like it because it forces you to have no control over ships. It just doesn't make sense that the ships are just going to move forward at half movement. I was aware that you could squadron your ships, but I don't like that either. Just because I didn't offer a solution doesn't mean it isn't constructive. If I had said, "Hey that sucks!", without a reason, yeah that wouldn't be constructive. I offered no alternative or change because I have none, I only said why it's not a good idea.

As for Move and Fire being seriously broken, in the recent thread I read it sounded like the move and fire on activation didn't change it all that much except to allow big ships and boresite ships to actually fire on ships, instead of being initiative sinked out of effectiveness.

Good luck in your endeavors.

 

[Burger]

I think it is quite a good meta-game idea for balance. But Delthos is right, it is just too much suspension of disbelief to think that a ship not chosen for activation will just sit there drifting.

As for move and fire, are you reading the same thread we are?! It is seriously broken because it gives ships the opportunity to fire twice in a row without any opportunity for defence or reaction.

 

[Delthos]

I must have read a different thread then, although I don't see that potential as broken as being init synced out of effectiveness.

 

[Juzza]

what about moving more then 1 ship per FAP then every ship can move as long as it was restricted ie: only allowing smaller ships that are not squadroned to move with 1 FAP. Just an idea

As for the whole move and fire rule. shot twice with one ship is a easy fix by altering the rule to prevent this. After all its just a made up rule that can be changed any which way to suit how that person feels would be better. Then post it and other people can comment on that change to the rule and we get somewhere in the end to a house rule that works. (you notice how I did that very thing to the rule being disscused in this thread in this post)

 

[Lord David the Denied]

A simple rule stating the same ship can't be activated last in one turn then first in the next if the owning player has init both turns. Someone good at communicating can fix the wording.

 

[Banichi]

A simple rule stating the same ship can't be activated last in one turn then first in the next if the owning player has init both turns. Someone good at communicating can fix the wording.

I actually did sugest this on the move & fire thread. Just have not had the opportunity to give it a playtest yet.

Drat, I didn't get to have the game yesterday. Work got all busy, and I couldn't get away.

mollari_uk wrote:
The tactics employed aren't the issue, the issue is two rounds of firing with no comeback!


We are going to try again for the game this weekend. I might try the rule that the last ship you move in your turn can't be the first ship you move in the following turn. Does that sound too simplistic? (its been a long two days, the brains a bit frazzled) Not sure how it would work if one players fleet has been reduced to one ship though.
_________________
Something something something, darkside! Something something something, complete.

 

[Banichi]

You mean the tested and seriously flawed move and fire? Not to mention a huge overall to the game. I'm trying to come up with something that takes the game as is but puts some restrictions so that initiative is more fair.

So, have you playtested it then? It's funny, I'd be more inclined to say a system that prevents you from shooting at the big slow ship thats right in front of you is "seriously flawed" The whole potential double movement problem with Move and fire can hopefully be resolved by (as myself and lord david said) with one simple rule.

 

[l33tpenguin]

You mean the tested and seriously flawed move and fire? Not to mention a huge overall to the game. I'm trying to come up with something that takes the game as is but puts some restrictions so that initiative is more fair.

So, have you playtested it then? It's funny, I'd be more inclined to say a system that prevents you from shooting at the big slow ship thats right in front of you is "seriously flawed" The whole potential double movement problem with Move and fire can hopefully be resolved by (as myself and lord david said) with one simple rule.

Its still a meh fix, at best. Even if you add a rule that says 'you can't activate the same ship back to back' you can still activate it at the end of one pahse, activate another ship first, then the same one twice. Not much difference in that only one ship gets to respond before it lets loose again. How many ships are you going to force to activate before you can reactivate the ship again? What if I only have one ship!

And, it still doesn't totally solve init sinking, infact, it makes it worse. I can just keep all my big guns behind terrain/out of range until you've move ALL of your ships, then pounce on you with full impunity from return fire.

If I can match your fleet with sinks, say 5 Battle ships vs. 5 Patrol ships + 4 Battle ships (new breakdown rules), I sink your 5 Battle ships with my patrol ships, leaving all your ships moved, then bring all 4 of my battle ships out from cover and begin the pounding. Chances are, you aren't going to be in too good of shape after that.

 

[Juzza]

Its still a meh fix, at best. Even if you add a rule that says 'you can't activate the same ship back to back' you can still activate it at the end of one pahse, activate another ship first, then the same one twice. Not much difference in that only one ship gets to respond before it lets loose again. How many ships are you going to force to activate before you can reactivate the ship again? What if I only have one ship!

And, it still doesn't totally solve init sinking, infact, it makes it worse. I can just keep all my big guns behind terrain/out of range until you've move ALL of your ships, then pounce on you with full impunity from return fire.

If I can match your fleet with sinks, say 5 Battle ships vs. 5 Patrol ships + 4 Battle ships (new breakdown rules), I sink your 5 Battle ships with my patrol ships, leaving all your ships moved, then bring all 4 of my battle ships out from cover and begin the pounding. Chances are, you aren't going to be in too good of shape after that.

So i take it you have play tested this then? I guess it probably work if you played yourself. But maybe not if you played someone you can use a bit of tactics and think about what there doing.

As for whole going last then first thing with the fix it gives your opponant the chance to move and shoot before you use that ship again. What he does is up to him maybe hes got a plan that involves shooting your big ship with his. (just a thought) whatever he does thats comes down to tactics. Then you get to move your ship if its still alive.

good way to derail a thread maybe we can get it back on topic there is another thread for this

 

[l33tpenguin]

So i take it you have play tested this then? I guess it probably work if you played yourself. But maybe not if you played someone you can use a bit of tactics and think about what there doing.

As for whole going last then first thing with the fix it gives your opponant the chance to move and shoot before you use that ship again. What he does is up to him maybe hes got a plan that involves shooting your big ship with his. (just a thought) whatever he does thats comes down to tactics. Then you get to move your ship if its still alive.

good way to derail a thread maybe we can get it back on topic there is another thread for this

1: If you are going to accuse someone of derailing a thread, accuse the right person, the second poster in this thread.

2: If you are going to accuse someone of derailing a thread, don't start your post by indulging in the derailment, it makes you a hypocrite.

3: I don't need to play test it to know the order of combat. If I can out sink you, I can totally void your fleet by moving my sinks first and then moving my big guns into range once you are out of ships. Ta-da, all my big guns get to fire without any reprisal until the next turn!

4: Snide, sarcastic comment here.

On topic, I don't like the ships that aren't activated not doing anything, as pointed out, its broken and makes no sense.

Since there is no limiters on what squadroned ships are activated how, I would more than likely make 4 activations worth of sinks (1 patrol ship per activation) and then squadron the rest of my ships to move at the end. For more flexibility, I would do 3 sinks and 2 sets of main fleet ships.


Regardless, at least in this form, I feel that it is a really clumsy design.

 

[Juzza]

thats your opinion and thats fine. It could allways be nice to help the op out with his rule and come up with some solutions to possible abuse thru squadrons.

 

[inq101]

Had a quick game with this activation rule last night (EA vs Narn, 3 pt raid). Rules wise it worked, more or less. It just wasn't fun and it didn't feel like B5.

The rule meant that most ships could act normally most of the time as both players decided their fleets around the rule (Narn had 3 squadrons, EA had an Omega and a pair of Olympus). When a ship dropped out of squadron due to a crit the ship was pretty much out of the game as it couldn't maneuver to get it's guns in arc.

 

[mollari_uk]

Lets ignore the idea of ships doing nothing for now (even though it was only movement). Let's concentrate on the alternative of having to squadron...

Since there is no limiters on what squadroned ships are activated how, I would more than likely make 4 activations worth of sinks (1 patrol ship per activation) and then squadron the rest of my ships to move at the end. For more flexibility, I would do 3 sinks and 2 sets of main fleet ships.

Can't this happen now? At least with my rule you can't have 5 more patrol ships and activate those in advance and have your entire fleet move independently. With squadrons you do have built in limits.

How about combining this with my move first, fire first idea (not to be confused with move + fire). That way if you did what you suggest your squadron would fire last.

I have the feeling this is going beyond a simple fix but hey it's worth bashing this out anyway.

 

[mollari_uk]

Had a quick game with this activation rule last night (EA vs Narn, 3 pt raid). Rules wise it worked, more or less. It just wasn't fun and it didn't feel like B5.

The rule meant that most ships could act normally most of the time as both players decided their fleets around the rule (Narn had 3 squadrons, EA had an Omega and a pair of Olympus). When a ship dropped out of squadron due to a crit the ship was pretty much out of the game as it couldn't maneuver to get it's guns in arc.

Mmm I see some flaws now, thanks for playtesting this. Although I could still come up with real world reasons why your problem does make sense, it is a game and needs to be fun to play.

One problem is that it doesn't prevent people from choosing lots of ships anyway. Therefore you get a game of squadrons fighting each other and as you say that isn't B5.

Oh well, unless anyone has any bright ideas that's another one bites the dust!

...I still like my move first, fire first

 

[l33tpenguin]

I do like having ships fire in the order they are moved. That goes a long way to fighting against init sinking. You are forced to make a decision between having the advantage in placement vs. having the advantage in firing.

The set number of activations, beyond doing by FAP, seems difficult to work out and like a lot of effort for not much gain.

Trying to wrap my head around how to make a specific number of activations work well and keep running into problems.

- I don't like the idea of having my ships stuck in a set number of squadrons. This really forces you to have 5 squadrons.
- It does limit the abuse of init sinking, though I can see a lot of players just using the first couple activations as sinks and then moving all their big ships at the end. This would feel really... odd... and give a MASSIVE boost to races that have the advantage in initiative.
- Its less structured and requires more detailing than moving single FAPs. It seems easier to exploit than full FAP movement.