new FAP breakdown
- Thread starter stepan.razin
- Start date
mrambassador1
Mongoose
I'll answer Hindsights points as the others are basically just in agreement with him and he gave the most detailed answer.
True, but most of those are fairly niggling complaints (such as wether a ship should have 4 or 6 AD on one weapon system) or a situation where one group says the system is "broken" one way and the other half of players say its "broken" the other way. Look at the Points vs PL thread, half the comments said the new P&P FAP breakdown "punished" them for taking small ships and the other half thought it was a good "fix" for swarm fleets. Incidently as an historical note, the "new" FAP is remarkably similar to the old FAP from Armageddon. Lots of people had the same complaint then, that they couldn't take small ships to big battles. So Matt Sprange "fixed" it to please them (I suspect knowing full well that the other half would then cry foul). Now the other half complains that they get swarmed so Mr Sprange is putting it back to the old system. I personally am happy with both systems, but have a marginal preference for the new/old rather than current system. But still, I didn't have a huge swarm problem, it happened a bit but not overwhelmingly so, just a matter of degrees.
A couple of things not many seem to mention on this topic. Firstly the game system encourages escorts (small supporting ships, not the fighter killing kind). I like this facet, I find it realistic and interesting/fun (this applies to initiative sink problem/interesting mechanic as well as swrming up etc). Most games have a tendency to move toward "My 5 heavy cruisers vs your 5 heavy cruisers" But ACTA encourages fleet compositions of "My Battleship, 1 cruiser, 2 Destroyers and 4 Frigates vs yours". Real fleets don't just send squadrons of battleships against each other, they send forces of multiple ship types, most big ships are escorted by many smaller ships, not just another big ship. I actually like that its usually a better idea to put some variety in ship selection. If you don't thats fine but you might like it a bit better if you thought about it in terms of how real fleets operate and that this is one of the few systems that encourage it.
Now gameplay issues with this point. The big thing most people seem to miss with big ship crits (at least I haven't seen anyone post the idea) is that while they are more likely to get multiple crits (rather than it dishing out the same number of crits but split between multiple targets) big ships I find are somewhat less impeded by them than small ships. most crits are of the following categories
Speed -- the most common crit of all is to lose speed. Many believe big ships are even more affected by speed crits than small ships as they tend to be slower (after all whats -2 to speed for a sunhawk spd 12), so a speed -2 to a ship with only 4 movement is huge. But in practice I find speed crits to have little effect on big ships at all. The cause of this I believe is that big ships fundamentally become the center of gravity in a battle. With their generally long range weapons they can just pick a spot in the center of the battlefield and hit just about anywhere on the field. As a result smaller ships with shorter range weapons generally have to close range with the big ship (when was the last time you saw an Omega or Warlock having to chase down a squadron of havens). The result of this is that the big ships rarely have to move toward an enemy to attack it as the enemy moves toward them. For all intents and purposes big ships "just sit in the center and wait to be attacked". Ironically, and don't tell anyone I said this I actually find big ships do a bit better with a few speed knocked off, they can turn on a dime and don't need to move much anyway.
Losing Traits -- The next most common crit is to lose traits. Once again big ships generally have more traits to lose than small ships and so can be a bit more resilient in losing these and still have other useful traits to fall back on (many of which small ships don't even have anyway). Besides which, big ships generally have a lot of other things going for them to fall back on without really needing traits. Sure they're nice and some of them downright useful but most ships are still pretty formidable with their high hull, damage and weapon stats even without their interceptors or stealth or something. I'm not saying traits aren't great, or that its a blow to lose them, just that they're not the only line of defence for big ships, and you still got to use them for a couple of turns before they were lost, which is more than can be said for smaller ships who usually don't have anywhere near the traits big ships have.
No Special Actions -- Once again the loss of special actions while annoying for big ships is certainly not fatal. Big ships are nowhere near as dependant on special actions than small ships. They generally don't need to move as much as small ships as stated before, they usually have good weapons in all arcs not needing to turn quite so critically, have a ton of firepower already (against swarms they will tend to want to split their fire anyway so forget about CAF), certainly more than enough to destroy more than one patrol ship per turn, and are already pretty resilient (not being so dependant on CBD). Big ships can generally get by without being able to use special actions when they take a few crits.
Losing Weapons/Arcs -- The last common crit to lose is weapons. Either needing a 4+ to fire a weapon system or losing 1 weapon system out of a particular arc. Once again big ships usually have a plethora of weapon systems with secondaries and even tertiaries in most arcs. Big ships can afford to lose a weapon out of 1 arc (or even the unlikely single crit,can only fire each weapon 50% of the time) and still have other weapons to fall back on. Small ships generally have only 1 or 2 weapons, so this can really limit their options, big ships usually have pretty good plan B's or even C's.
As a final note on the big vs small ships balance is that while big ships are susceptible to crits, say for example 5 small ships can inflict 5 crits on a big ship, while it can only dish out 5 in return split between each (1 crit each). Most crits do not stack, having 5 "no special actions" crits doesn't hamper you anymore than 1 (in effect 4 of those crits are wasted crits), sure it means it takes longer to repair them but still, there is a limit to how debilitating crits can be, this goes for speed as well, together thats more than half of the available crits and for the other half the big ships have more to lose anyway. The biggest thing I think people miss (save the best for last) is that big ships are just so much harder to hit in the first place. They usually have longer ranged weapons than small ships, and that can dish out much more damage. Big ships can usually take out 1 or 2 of the small ships before the small ones even get a shot. Also the defences of the big ships are often much more formidable as well, usually with hull 6, and for quite a few races great stealth or interceptors or shields or something on top. Big ships are harder to hit in the first place.
This is true to a degree. But just that, to a degree, its not in my opinion a scenario killer in most cases. Most fleets do fine at most PL, its just some that are somewhat limited. But even for those races its not set in stone that they suck and will lose at certain PL, they just do a little better at higher or lower ones (maybe 10-20% better, but not 100% like some seem to think). These races for the most part can work around their weakness, they're just not quite as comfortable there. Take your ISA fleet (I presume this was foremost in your mind when making the statement although I agree there are other races with similar problems) for example. One of the "Poster Child" fleets that has "holes". Firstly its one of the smallest fleets, nowhere near as fleshed out as some bigger ones (you should have seen it before 2e
) And what little it has to work with is best at Raid and up. But just because its more comfortable there it doesn't mean its screwed at low PL, just not quite as effective but still doable. You've got some of the best fighters in the game, plus the bluestar (I don't know what most players think of this, personally I like it for a patrol choice, did I just say something controversial, please don't hate me), and at skirmish games the whitestar is still very viable, and don't forget the allies you can choose. Sure its not where you want to be fighting a battle but you can make do quite nicely and hopefully the next battle will be a high PL one where you have the advantage (not guaranteed victory just an advantage)
I agree that some fleets have "holes in there PL" but its not all, and for the ones that have them it doesn't spell instant defeat or a boring game at those PL. I think our main difference of opinion is just a matter of degrees and what we're comfortable with. I think its a small to marginal (10% -20%) advantage/disadvantage for the fleets that have them at all and balances out at the opposite end of the spectrum (fleets strong on the low end are usually weaker on the high end) usually works out the opposite. The advantage/disadvantage at a particular PL I don't think makes them unplayable or unwinnable (a bit like in Warhammer hills/cover give a bit of an advantage, doesn't make them invincible. Though I haven't played Warhammer in a while), its an edge not a free pass.
Hopefully the Narn player will field multiple ships to cover his arcs, to make it harder for you to get those "free shots" or better yet deploy fighters within striking distance of his blind spots (Whitestars hate fighters ), but with a few initiative sinks he should be able to get a bead on at least one of your ships. You can hide from some of his ships some of the time but you can't hide from all of his ships all of the time . Its a good tactic you've chosen against the Narn and will certainly cause him a lot of grief. But he does have options to counter you and should still enjoy the battle against you.
What fleets don't people want to play against Gaim excepted, and bear in mind that they are a new fleet and are getting fixed in P&P, bit of an oversight in their "first draft" but getting fixed next time around. The Vree are very maneuverable but are vulnerable to snipers and have little in the way of interceptors, stealth etc. Most fleets can just close range and exchange blows. I didn't think the Vorlons were that feared. Good firepower but very exposed arcs and not the greatest variety of ships. As you said the Centauri have a "few" cheese ships.
Out of 18 races 1 is broken (note I never include Gaim in my defence of balance, they are universally decried as broken and are being fixed. Hope the second draft is better but still 1 out of 18 isn't bad, plus the raiders but they're just there for flavour) and a couple of fleets have what I think are only moderate problems against each other but are otherwise sound against other fleets. Most fleets against most fleets are fine. A few ships (say a dozen out of 200) are cheese or nerfed, but I don't think its that many. Most people are happy with most of the ships, its just everyone has their pet ship or peev that they want "made rock ard" or weakened because their favourite should be able to beat it. Most of the changes suggested to ships or fleets have just as many saying its too powerful as too weak. I think for the most part people are happy with the fleets.
The game just needs a few tweaks not wholesale re balancing.
When people, at least myself say the game has a rock, paper, scissors element, we don't mean they win all the time. They just have an advantage. We use the rock, paper, scissors analogy to show that certain ships/fleets/strategies are usually strong at something and weaker at something else. Its not meant as a blanket "my ship wins" against this or that. Its meant more as "my ship dishes out a bit more than its fare share until you do something to counter it". Its only looking for an edge not automatic victory. Just like the Warhammer example you gave about taking key units to increase your chances against assaulty forces. Thats all you can do in ACTA, increase your chances. You can try and counter snipers with your own snipers, or fast maneuverable ships or bricks or whatever. One doesn't always beat the other, you're just maximising your strengths and minimising his.
A good post hindsight, detailed and well thought out. Like to see your response. Perhaps you could pick a specific fleet combo and we can talk about strategies to counter each other. Say your ISA and a fleet you think is particularly stron or weak against it. (no Gaim though, they do not exist lol)[/quote]
True, but most of those are fairly niggling complaints (such as wether a ship should have 4 or 6 AD on one weapon system) or a situation where one group says the system is "broken" one way and the other half of players say its "broken" the other way. Look at the Points vs PL thread, half the comments said the new P&P FAP breakdown "punished" them for taking small ships and the other half thought it was a good "fix" for swarm fleets. Incidently as an historical note, the "new" FAP is remarkably similar to the old FAP from Armageddon. Lots of people had the same complaint then, that they couldn't take small ships to big battles. So Matt Sprange "fixed" it to please them (I suspect knowing full well that the other half would then cry foul). Now the other half complains that they get swarmed so Mr Sprange is putting it back to the old system. I personally am happy with both systems, but have a marginal preference for the new/old rather than current system. But still, I didn't have a huge swarm problem, it happened a bit but not overwhelmingly so, just a matter of degrees.
A couple of things not many seem to mention on this topic. Firstly the game system encourages escorts (small supporting ships, not the fighter killing kind). I like this facet, I find it realistic and interesting/fun (this applies to initiative sink problem/interesting mechanic as well as swrming up etc). Most games have a tendency to move toward "My 5 heavy cruisers vs your 5 heavy cruisers" But ACTA encourages fleet compositions of "My Battleship, 1 cruiser, 2 Destroyers and 4 Frigates vs yours". Real fleets don't just send squadrons of battleships against each other, they send forces of multiple ship types, most big ships are escorted by many smaller ships, not just another big ship. I actually like that its usually a better idea to put some variety in ship selection. If you don't thats fine but you might like it a bit better if you thought about it in terms of how real fleets operate and that this is one of the few systems that encourage it.
Now gameplay issues with this point. The big thing most people seem to miss with big ship crits (at least I haven't seen anyone post the idea) is that while they are more likely to get multiple crits (rather than it dishing out the same number of crits but split between multiple targets) big ships I find are somewhat less impeded by them than small ships. most crits are of the following categories
Speed -- the most common crit of all is to lose speed. Many believe big ships are even more affected by speed crits than small ships as they tend to be slower (after all whats -2 to speed for a sunhawk spd 12), so a speed -2 to a ship with only 4 movement is huge. But in practice I find speed crits to have little effect on big ships at all. The cause of this I believe is that big ships fundamentally become the center of gravity in a battle. With their generally long range weapons they can just pick a spot in the center of the battlefield and hit just about anywhere on the field. As a result smaller ships with shorter range weapons generally have to close range with the big ship (when was the last time you saw an Omega or Warlock having to chase down a squadron of havens). The result of this is that the big ships rarely have to move toward an enemy to attack it as the enemy moves toward them. For all intents and purposes big ships "just sit in the center and wait to be attacked". Ironically, and don't tell anyone I said this I actually find big ships do a bit better with a few speed knocked off, they can turn on a dime and don't need to move much anyway.
Losing Traits -- The next most common crit is to lose traits. Once again big ships generally have more traits to lose than small ships and so can be a bit more resilient in losing these and still have other useful traits to fall back on (many of which small ships don't even have anyway). Besides which, big ships generally have a lot of other things going for them to fall back on without really needing traits. Sure they're nice and some of them downright useful but most ships are still pretty formidable with their high hull, damage and weapon stats even without their interceptors or stealth or something. I'm not saying traits aren't great, or that its a blow to lose them, just that they're not the only line of defence for big ships, and you still got to use them for a couple of turns before they were lost, which is more than can be said for smaller ships who usually don't have anywhere near the traits big ships have.
No Special Actions -- Once again the loss of special actions while annoying for big ships is certainly not fatal. Big ships are nowhere near as dependant on special actions than small ships. They generally don't need to move as much as small ships as stated before, they usually have good weapons in all arcs not needing to turn quite so critically, have a ton of firepower already (against swarms they will tend to want to split their fire anyway so forget about CAF), certainly more than enough to destroy more than one patrol ship per turn, and are already pretty resilient (not being so dependant on CBD). Big ships can generally get by without being able to use special actions when they take a few crits.
Losing Weapons/Arcs -- The last common crit to lose is weapons. Either needing a 4+ to fire a weapon system or losing 1 weapon system out of a particular arc. Once again big ships usually have a plethora of weapon systems with secondaries and even tertiaries in most arcs. Big ships can afford to lose a weapon out of 1 arc (or even the unlikely single crit,can only fire each weapon 50% of the time) and still have other weapons to fall back on. Small ships generally have only 1 or 2 weapons, so this can really limit their options, big ships usually have pretty good plan B's or even C's.
As a final note on the big vs small ships balance is that while big ships are susceptible to crits, say for example 5 small ships can inflict 5 crits on a big ship, while it can only dish out 5 in return split between each (1 crit each). Most crits do not stack, having 5 "no special actions" crits doesn't hamper you anymore than 1 (in effect 4 of those crits are wasted crits), sure it means it takes longer to repair them but still, there is a limit to how debilitating crits can be, this goes for speed as well, together thats more than half of the available crits and for the other half the big ships have more to lose anyway. The biggest thing I think people miss (save the best for last) is that big ships are just so much harder to hit in the first place. They usually have longer ranged weapons than small ships, and that can dish out much more damage. Big ships can usually take out 1 or 2 of the small ships before the small ones even get a shot. Also the defences of the big ships are often much more formidable as well, usually with hull 6, and for quite a few races great stealth or interceptors or shields or something on top. Big ships are harder to hit in the first place.
This is true to a degree. But just that, to a degree, its not in my opinion a scenario killer in most cases. Most fleets do fine at most PL, its just some that are somewhat limited. But even for those races its not set in stone that they suck and will lose at certain PL, they just do a little better at higher or lower ones (maybe 10-20% better, but not 100% like some seem to think). These races for the most part can work around their weakness, they're just not quite as comfortable there. Take your ISA fleet (I presume this was foremost in your mind when making the statement although I agree there are other races with similar problems) for example. One of the "Poster Child" fleets that has "holes". Firstly its one of the smallest fleets, nowhere near as fleshed out as some bigger ones (you should have seen it before 2e
) And what little it has to work with is best at Raid and up. But just because its more comfortable there it doesn't mean its screwed at low PL, just not quite as effective but still doable. You've got some of the best fighters in the game, plus the bluestar (I don't know what most players think of this, personally I like it for a patrol choice, did I just say something controversial, please don't hate me), and at skirmish games the whitestar is still very viable, and don't forget the allies you can choose. Sure its not where you want to be fighting a battle but you can make do quite nicely and hopefully the next battle will be a high PL one where you have the advantage (not guaranteed victory just an advantage)I agree that some fleets have "holes in there PL" but its not all, and for the ones that have them it doesn't spell instant defeat or a boring game at those PL. I think our main difference of opinion is just a matter of degrees and what we're comfortable with. I think its a small to marginal (10% -20%) advantage/disadvantage for the fleets that have them at all and balances out at the opposite end of the spectrum (fleets strong on the low end are usually weaker on the high end) usually works out the opposite. The advantage/disadvantage at a particular PL I don't think makes them unplayable or unwinnable (a bit like in Warhammer hills/cover give a bit of an advantage, doesn't make them invincible. Though I haven't played Warhammer in a while), its an edge not a free pass.
Hopefully the Narn player will field multiple ships to cover his arcs, to make it harder for you to get those "free shots" or better yet deploy fighters within striking distance of his blind spots (Whitestars hate fighters
), but with a few initiative sinks he should be able to get a bead on at least one of your ships. You can hide from some of his ships some of the time but you can't hide from all of his ships all of the time . Its a good tactic you've chosen against the Narn and will certainly cause him a lot of grief. But he does have options to counter you and should still enjoy the battle against you.What fleets don't people want to play against Gaim excepted, and bear in mind that they are a new fleet and are getting fixed in P&P, bit of an oversight in their "first draft" but getting fixed next time around. The Vree are very maneuverable but are vulnerable to snipers and have little in the way of interceptors, stealth etc. Most fleets can just close range and exchange blows. I didn't think the Vorlons were that feared. Good firepower but very exposed arcs and not the greatest variety of ships. As you said the Centauri have a "few" cheese ships.
Out of 18 races 1 is broken (note I never include Gaim in my defence of balance, they are universally decried as broken and are being fixed. Hope the second draft is better but still 1 out of 18 isn't bad, plus the raiders but they're just there for flavour) and a couple of fleets have what I think are only moderate problems against each other but are otherwise sound against other fleets. Most fleets against most fleets are fine. A few ships (say a dozen out of 200) are cheese or nerfed, but I don't think its that many. Most people are happy with most of the ships, its just everyone has their pet ship or peev that they want "made rock ard" or weakened because their favourite should be able to beat it. Most of the changes suggested to ships or fleets have just as many saying its too powerful as too weak. I think for the most part people are happy with the fleets.
The game just needs a few tweaks not wholesale re balancing.
When people, at least myself say the game has a rock, paper, scissors element, we don't mean they win all the time. They just have an advantage. We use the rock, paper, scissors analogy to show that certain ships/fleets/strategies are usually strong at something and weaker at something else. Its not meant as a blanket "my ship wins" against this or that. Its meant more as "my ship dishes out a bit more than its fare share until you do something to counter it". Its only looking for an edge not automatic victory. Just like the Warhammer example you gave about taking key units to increase your chances against assaulty forces. Thats all you can do in ACTA, increase your chances. You can try and counter snipers with your own snipers, or fast maneuverable ships or bricks or whatever. One doesn't always beat the other, you're just maximising your strengths and minimising his.
A good post hindsight, detailed and well thought out. Like to see your response. Perhaps you could pick a specific fleet combo and we can talk about strategies to counter each other. Say your ISA and a fleet you think is particularly stron or weak against it. (no Gaim though, they do not exist lol)[/quote]
mrambassador1
Mongoose
In the good old days you couldn't split FAP you had to take 3 raid or 5 skirmish instead of 1 war. None of this 1 battle, 1 raid, 2 skirmish witchcraft I tells ya.
ps. sorry about the length of my previous post. didn't realise it was that long. Hindsight and I should have a competition for longest post :shock:
ps. sorry about the length of my previous post. didn't realise it was that long. Hindsight and I should have a competition for longest post :shock:
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
Unfortunately, the FAP + crits + init sinking means that people don't take big ships with smaller escorts, they just take small ships. Its not worth it to take one big ship when you can take a dozen smaller ones that are going to be more effective.
And Crits ARE an issue. The deadly crits aren't all that uncommon and are disproportionately more devastating to a large ship. When that happens, bam, your big ship is out of the game. If that happens to a small ship in a swarm, you weather it and move on, no biggy
I think very few races, though, are balanced enough where you can build a solid fleet and stand a decent chance of taking it to a tourny and winning. Most can't cover all their holes well enough so that they stand a good chance of coming out on top. They will, inevitably, lose. If you cover against X, you lack cover against Y and Z.
And Crits ARE an issue. The deadly crits aren't all that uncommon and are disproportionately more devastating to a large ship. When that happens, bam, your big ship is out of the game. If that happens to a small ship in a swarm, you weather it and move on, no biggy
I think very few races, though, are balanced enough where you can build a solid fleet and stand a decent chance of taking it to a tourny and winning. Most can't cover all their holes well enough so that they stand a good chance of coming out on top. They will, inevitably, lose. If you cover against X, you lack cover against Y and Z.
mrambassador1
Mongoose
I agree that crits are an issue and that the current system favours swarms. I am just saying that they are not as dire as many seem to say. The current system gives swarms a bit of an advantage, enough to take swarms, its just that they are not invincible as some seem to say. I myself have tended to smaller ships going from say
2 battle, 4 raid, 4 skirmish to
6 raid, 4 skirmish, 8 patrol
but I don't use 32 patrol ships. The current system favours swarms but theres not much in it. The new system should I think fix it nicely. Hindsight, what do you think of the new FAP. I think you once said you didn't like the idea of being punished for taking small ships, but now seem to dislike swarms. I might be remembering someone else's post though.
Personally I like the idea of big ships being worth roughly 1.5 smaller ships which seems to be the way the new system is going and the way the replacement cost in campaign RR already is roughly speaking
3 patrol
6 skirmish
12 raid
20 battle
30 war
50 armageddon
I think the new system will be an improvement although I'm sure Drazi players will complain
2 battle, 4 raid, 4 skirmish to
6 raid, 4 skirmish, 8 patrol
but I don't use 32 patrol ships. The current system favours swarms but theres not much in it. The new system should I think fix it nicely. Hindsight, what do you think of the new FAP. I think you once said you didn't like the idea of being punished for taking small ships, but now seem to dislike swarms. I might be remembering someone else's post though.
Personally I like the idea of big ships being worth roughly 1.5 smaller ships which seems to be the way the new system is going and the way the replacement cost in campaign RR already is roughly speaking
3 patrol
6 skirmish
12 raid
20 battle
30 war
50 armageddon
I think the new system will be an improvement although I'm sure Drazi players will complain
Foxmeister
Mongoose
mrambassador1 said:
I've got to take issue with this as it is so far from my experience it is untrue. Small ships do tend to die long before they've accumulated the serious deleterious effects from crits, but the point is that if I've spend 1 FAP on a large ship, and you've purchased 4 smaller ships, you have 4 times the redundancy that I have.
For any speed 4 ship, there are effectively 2 "Adrift" results on the crit table. A White Star can take a -4 speed crit and is *still* faster that entire fleets. A Ka'Bin'Tak or an Adira on the other hand will go adrift on a -4 crit. The is patently wrong, since the larger ships are far more likely to include redundant systems. Think aeroplanes - the bigger the plane, the more engines it has and they are usually designed so that they can fly on just a single engine.
Yes, but not necessarily. However, the impact of trait loss can be far worse. A Victory losing Adaptive Armour is in a far worse place than a White Star losing AA.
Here's where I really disagree. Big ships are *far* more dependant on SAs than smaller ships. Smaller ships tend to die long before they feel the worse deleterious effects of critical effects. Larger ships need All Hands to Deck to fix them. Slow lumbering ships *need* Come About, and the two All Stops far more frequently than smaller ships do. They are also much more likely to benefit from CBD. A large ship with no SAs is often in a serious amount of trouble in my experience.
What if those secondaries are unusable due to range. A G'Quan without it's beam is in deep trouble. Vree losing turret arcs are completely weaponless. I would say it is far from "usual" for larger ships to have a viable plan B, let alone a plan C!
Yes it does, since as you say later it will take you at least 5 turns to repair them, because you can't "All Hands to Deck". That is very significant.
If you are having to field multiple ships, just to ensure you can get to one you are likely to be in serious trouble. Yes, you can (and have to) use tactics to partially mitigate it, but when you're boresight and your opponent isn't and has more ships than you there really is very little you can do.Hopefully the Narn player will field multiple ships to cover his arcs, to make it harder for you to get those "free shots" or better yet deploy fighters within striking distance of his blind spots (Whitestars hate fighters
Here at least we do agree. The issues within the game are not so major than a few tweaks can't fix them or at least bring it closer to balanced.. This can be ship changes, or minor rule changes.
I think a 3rd edition does need to address some of these issues in more detail - specifically decoupling boresight and initiative in some way, but for now, between two reasonable opponents, the game isn't too far off balanced. It's the unreasonable ones you have to worry about...
Regards,
Dave
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Hindsight said:
It breaks too many fleet lists too. Not every list has Raid level scout you know, or a Battle level one if the WS Enforcer stays as it is!
Regards,
Dave
Ok so first you tried a system where it were better just taking the bigger ships and half the players cried.mrambassador1 said:
Then you tried a system were it were better just taking a lot of ships (swarms) and still the other half of the players cried.
Would it not be obvious that there could be a third option?
Trying to make it balanced so its a viable option to take a big ship if you like that or many small ships if you like that or a combination if you like that.
mrambassador1
Mongoose
Thanks for the good comments Foxmeister
I'm not suggesting that big ships don't get lots of crits, just that lots of crits don't affect the tactics of big ships as much as small ones.
The Adira is Speed 5 and so can still maneuver (turn, not that it can move fast). The Ka'Bin'Tak will indeed be left unable to maneuver, but is one of the only spd 4 ships I can think of offhand. Most Battle and up ships can still turn, just not move as fast.
Yes but with so many traits the Victory could just as easily lose something less useful, like carrier or Advanced Jump Engines or Afterburner. Sure you don't want to lose them but there are still a lot of good traits left if a few are lost, and you've had the benefit of them until they're lost, and a good trait that's lost I'm sure will be at the top of the Chief Engineers to do list "Forget the Flight Computer, fix the Adaptive Armour system". There are only 2 crits that cause you to lose traits that can't be repaired.
Its funny, I usually don't need SAs for big ships that often, They often don't absolutely positively need Come About, most of them have weapons in every arc they usually have something to shoot at whatever direction they are facing (sure it'd be nice to fire that Lightning Cannon at the Minbari War cruiser, but I can settle for the pair of Torotha's threatening one of my whitestars). I usually shy away from All stop and pivot and Especially CBD as I seldom want to lose most of my weapons for a turn. I guess its just different playing styles but I find big ships can do just fine without special actions when facing mostly small ships. Its mainly other big ships I find they need special actions for, for when there is one ship you really want to destroy as opposed to "Shoot down a couple of the Sho Kos's....I don't care, whichever ones are closest, Gods do I have to do everything myself"
Watch me shed a single tear for the Vree losing their TURRETED 25 inch triple damage Antimatter torpedoes. They're lucky to get something that cool in the first place. The vree "weakness" of having all their weapons turreted is about the only thing keeping their advantage of having all their weapons turreted in check.
The G'Quan is indeed a huge rat race for the nearest escape pod without its beams, but its one of the few at battle or up. Omegas , apollos, tinashi's etc all have good secondaries a decent plan B at 18 inches or 15 or 20 inch range as the case may be in my book. Most patrol or skirmish ships are lucky to crack range 12 or maybe 15 inch weapons. Even the G'Quan (which I think is getting some love in P&P) has 5 arcs and so would be somewhat unlucky to lose the boresight wpn, and thats even with I'll admit one of the few big ships vulnerable to losing weapons.
Part of my point is that you don't need to repair them, I mean sure no one wants their ship to take criticals, but they're only really "critical" (get it, get it, critical, my first pun) for small ships that need to be able to move fast or turn fast or can't afford their only decent weapon to be off line. Big ships have more redundant weapon systems to fall back on, less need for speed or maneuverability because their secondary weapons are longer range than small ships primaries. Big ships only really need to be in tip top form to take on other big ships, they're secondaries are capable of fending off smaller ships, their big guns are a bonus that small ships don't even have. Their big guns are mainly meant for big targets.
Generally in ACTA I thought most people took more than 1 ship, even before the swarm issue. Its usually only the first ship to move that can't find a target, after that the second ship can target the first, the third can target the second and so on. Most boresight weapons on large ships are usually long range so there is usually something it can find. Most of the smaller "escort" ships you use will also get to shoot at something, its not like you're moving a whole fleet just to get off one shot.
I also agree with you agreeing with me :wink: , agreed, good, then we're in agreement. Seriously, I'm not saying that you want your big ships getting critted to hell or that swarms aren't a pain in the arse. I'm just saying as you generally agree that its not the huge game wrecking problem some see it as. Swarms are a pain, but only a small one, and one that I think can be easily fixed (or at least improved on). I think the new FAP in P&P will go a long way to fixing the problem. Well it will probably piss off the half of us that actually like swarms, but the other half of us will be pleased. Maybe we could take it in turns, last year big un fleets, this year swarmy fleets, next year big un fleets. He who draws big un fleet leader sash is big un fleet leader. All who draw big un fleet sash are big un and follow big un leader.
I'm not suggesting that big ships don't get lots of crits, just that lots of crits don't affect the tactics of big ships as much as small ones.
The Adira is Speed 5 and so can still maneuver (turn, not that it can move fast). The Ka'Bin'Tak will indeed be left unable to maneuver, but is one of the only spd 4 ships I can think of offhand. Most Battle and up ships can still turn, just not move as fast.
Yes but with so many traits the Victory could just as easily lose something less useful, like carrier or Advanced Jump Engines or Afterburner. Sure you don't want to lose them but there are still a lot of good traits left if a few are lost, and you've had the benefit of them until they're lost, and a good trait that's lost I'm sure will be at the top of the Chief Engineers to do list "Forget the Flight Computer, fix the Adaptive Armour system". There are only 2 crits that cause you to lose traits that can't be repaired.
Its funny, I usually don't need SAs for big ships that often, They often don't absolutely positively need Come About, most of them have weapons in every arc they usually have something to shoot at whatever direction they are facing (sure it'd be nice to fire that Lightning Cannon at the Minbari War cruiser, but I can settle for the pair of Torotha's threatening one of my whitestars). I usually shy away from All stop and pivot and Especially CBD as I seldom want to lose most of my weapons for a turn. I guess its just different playing styles but I find big ships can do just fine without special actions when facing mostly small ships. Its mainly other big ships I find they need special actions for, for when there is one ship you really want to destroy as opposed to "Shoot down a couple of the Sho Kos's....I don't care, whichever ones are closest, Gods do I have to do everything myself"
Watch me shed a single tear for the Vree losing their TURRETED 25 inch triple damage Antimatter torpedoes. They're lucky to get something that cool in the first place. The vree "weakness" of having all their weapons turreted is about the only thing keeping their advantage of having all their weapons turreted in check.
The G'Quan is indeed a huge rat race for the nearest escape pod without its beams, but its one of the few at battle or up. Omegas , apollos, tinashi's etc all have good secondaries a decent plan B at 18 inches or 15 or 20 inch range as the case may be in my book. Most patrol or skirmish ships are lucky to crack range 12 or maybe 15 inch weapons. Even the G'Quan (which I think is getting some love in P&P) has 5 arcs and so would be somewhat unlucky to lose the boresight wpn, and thats even with I'll admit one of the few big ships vulnerable to losing weapons.
Part of my point is that you don't need to repair them, I mean sure no one wants their ship to take criticals, but they're only really "critical" (get it, get it, critical, my first pun) for small ships that need to be able to move fast or turn fast or can't afford their only decent weapon to be off line. Big ships have more redundant weapon systems to fall back on, less need for speed or maneuverability because their secondary weapons are longer range than small ships primaries. Big ships only really need to be in tip top form to take on other big ships, they're secondaries are capable of fending off smaller ships, their big guns are a bonus that small ships don't even have. Their big guns are mainly meant for big targets.
Generally in ACTA I thought most people took more than 1 ship, even before the swarm issue. Its usually only the first ship to move that can't find a target, after that the second ship can target the first, the third can target the second and so on. Most boresight weapons on large ships are usually long range so there is usually something it can find. Most of the smaller "escort" ships you use will also get to shoot at something, its not like you're moving a whole fleet just to get off one shot.
I also agree with you agreeing with me :wink: , agreed, good, then we're in agreement. Seriously, I'm not saying that you want your big ships getting critted to hell or that swarms aren't a pain in the arse. I'm just saying as you generally agree that its not the huge game wrecking problem some see it as. Swarms are a pain, but only a small one, and one that I think can be easily fixed (or at least improved on). I think the new FAP in P&P will go a long way to fixing the problem. Well it will probably piss off the half of us that actually like swarms, but the other half of us will be pleased. Maybe we could take it in turns, last year big un fleets, this year swarmy fleets, next year big un fleets. He who draws big un fleet leader sash is big un fleet leader. All who draw big un fleet sash are big un and follow big un leader.
mrambassador1
Mongoose
Scipio said:
I think the new/old system is that option. It looks (and I believe was) balanced well so big and small ships worked well against each other. You could still take small ships to big battles or vice versa and the fleet of small ships was fairly even against the fleet of big ships. The current system gives small ships an edge (a small one in my opinion but still an edge no less). I think part of the problem for the swarmy faction is they don't like the idea that in a skirmish game they can take 4 patrol per raid ship, but in a raid game they can only take 3 patrol. I think they feel they are somewhat being "punished" for taking small ships to big battles. Whether they are being punished or not I think the new system will be more balanced (only a bit more balanced, but more balanced none the less. I don't think its that unbalanced now) than the current one. Perhaps if Matt Sprange phrased the rules for FAP more like "you are rewarded for taking small ships at patrol and skirmish priorities by being allowed to take an extra ship, 4 instead of 3" maybe they would like the idea more. 8)
Foxmeister
Mongoose
mrambassador1 said:
There are several:
The Amu
Nova Dreadnought
Wahant
Explorer
Ka'Bin'Tak
All disproportionately affected by the -4 speed crit. All the speed crits need to be replaced IMHO, with 25%, 50% and 75% speed reductions.
Regards,
Dave
mrambassador1
Mongoose
The Nova Dreadnought and Explorer are Raid, not battle. Not quite so susceptible to swarms as you can only get 4 patrols against them. Its more the battle and up ships that are vulnerable to swarms as you can send 4 skirmish or eek 8 patrol ships against them. As for the rest, 3 ships out of 18 races isn't that bad. Sure there's probably more but not many. Also, I'd hardly worry about the Amu being critted as long as it happens after it uses its huge hangers 12. I think thats a swarm ship in and of itself, not the target of a swarm. ouch.
Foxmeister
Mongoose
mrambassador1 said:
The Nova Dreadnought I'm referring to is most definitely battle - the one from the "list that's not a list" Raiders!
The more conventional Nova Dreadnought isn't speed 4 anyway.However, the point is that my experience clearly differs from yours since you crits are absolutely the one area where fleets containing larger ships suffer over swarms. In most cases, if I take a Battle level or higher ship, it is generally critted out of usefulness long before it loses enough HPs to worry about - smaller ships are just dead by then anyway, so it matters far less to them. Your mileage clearly varies!
Regards,
Dave
mrambassador1
Mongoose
Sneaky bugger 8)
I don't think the system encourages escorts or varied fleets it encourages players to take as many small ships as possible.mrambassador1 said:
After adding the PL fix it will be better, however it still will be a bad idea to buy a War level ship in a battle scenario and a much better idea to buy a lot of raid level ships instead.
The last two games played were Battle level games were both players got one War level ship each. In both games in the first volley in the game we got the result "no repair ever crit" and immidiatly after the "adrift" result effectivly removing half of one players fleets in the first volley. Not very interesting game left after that. If instead the player just had bougt 10 raid level ships or lower the damage would have been insignicant to the affected player. And this is not the only crit that can take a big ship out of the game which make it very unfun to buy up when it should be the opposite.
Well if you add all the smaller ships traits together they should effectivly be more traits than on the big one.
Also for example having four ships with interceptor 2 for example is much much better than having one big ship with interceptor 4, right?
Could be a bit truth here considering that with small enough ships you can use CBD for example without loosing much firepower but if you use it on a War level ship you probably loose about 80% of the damage potential...
If you loose an arc on the big ship you loose 20%-25% of your firepower on average while even if you loose all weapons on one of the smaller ships you also on avarage loose at the _most_ 25% of your four ships firepower.
With all the beam fleets and missile fleets possible with low PL ships I just don't see hull or range being a problem. Ok, a little bit but not much.
Nice said, but regretably ACTA is far from balanced, no new FAP will change it. As long as 3 Patrol or 2 Skirmish ships will have more AD, Damage and Crew as a Raid level choice fpr example there will be no real balance.
The FAP implies that 2 skirmish level ships should be worth 1 Raid level ship, indeed that's untrue as they have together more AD, Damage and Crew.
Take 1 Omega vs 2 Hyperions for example. 2 Hyperions have 56 damage, 64 Crew and more firepower and manouverability then an Omega. It's not that different with other races.
The FAP implies that 2 skirmish level ships should be worth 1 Raid level ship, indeed that's untrue as they have together more AD, Damage and Crew.
Take 1 Omega vs 2 Hyperions for example. 2 Hyperions have 56 damage, 64 Crew and more firepower and manouverability then an Omega. It's not that different with other races.
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Tolwyn said:
This is why I like crit protection based on the PL of the hulls concerned, so that an Omega is more likely to crit a Hyperion than the other way around so that some of that imbalance is reduced.
Regards,
Dav
