Locutus9956
Mongoose
I'm guessing its gonna be along the lines of the original AoG fluff, namely that the Gaim earlier on has basically scavanged and second hand old centauri and league hulls refitted with their own guns?
New Gaim
- Thread starter Target
- Start date
Greg Smith
Mongoose
It'd be a good way to do a new-ish fleet without needing new models.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Am I the only one thats noticed you've been refering to him as Bugger for about 4 posts now and no ones said anything 
The fighter rule needs to be more widely advertised, as it is a game (not gaim) rule.
And who did the photos? Did you use the bottom of a marmalade jar as a filter? Congratulations on some truly appalling photography. The old photos were so much better. Seriosuly, I can manage better with the camera on my phone.
And who did the photos? Did you use the bottom of a marmalade jar as a filter? Congratulations on some truly appalling photography. The old photos were so much better. Seriosuly, I can manage better with the camera on my phone.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Is it too much to ask for both? (sorry been watching the iron man trailer again 
)
)nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Part of me is questioning whether the content is right though, namely with the Shrutaa being the only queen without flight computer...Burger said:
silashand said:
You can please some of the people all the time. . .
Burger said:
I agree the layout is confusing. When I first read through them, I thought they either left out ships or I was supposed to reference the old list for certain ones. Obviously they were later in the list, but I would have thought they would have been organized by priority level just for consistency's sake.
About the list though:
- Double damage emines in exchange for gaining the slow-loading trait? No offense to anyone, but I hate SL as a rule mechanic, but whatever.
- I like the new War level queen, and from a background standpoint the limitation on the largest queen in the fleet seems cool. Only problem I foresee with it is that it's very limiting with regard to fleet composition.
- the calculation formula for how many fighters can attack is I think accurate, though cumbersome. On the plus side it links number of attacks to basically how big is the ship. However, having to calculate it for each target seems like it might get tedious. I will have to play it a bit to see.
- still not sure why the assault ship needed toning down. It was hardly overpowered in any context. From a background standpoint, I think dropping the hull value was wrong since it just doesn't fit. Besides, the problem was the assault drones and breaching pods. Since they have been effectively fixed, why continue to downgrade the actual ship? With short ranged beans it's not like it's all that deadly.
- getting rid of the double dice for assault drones was needed. They were too good overall. Still think they should have gotten a boost somehow since according to the background that's what the Gaim excel at, but with the current mechanics I'm not sure it would be possible without unbalancing them. With the numbers they have, that might be enough of an advantage anyway.
- I like splitting the emines into two arcs. Mitigates that stupid 6-4 crit a bit. Still think most ships should have simply gotten beams as point defense like the gunship, but oh well.
- still don't see that the scout serves much purpose in the fleet given the weapons fit for all the Gaim ships.
Overall, as I said I dunno. It still seems like at least part of the emine hate prevailed which I think is sad, but oh well. I guess time will tell if they are fun to play or not.
msprange said:
If you've read any of my previous posts on the topic, you'll note that I favored keeping them according to the background first and foremost. That's just a personal preference since I play mainly for the RPG aspect. I'm sure the new list works fine and some changes were definitely good. Others, well, all I can say is they aren't how I would have gone about fixing them. To each their own I guess, though it does appear the emine haters should be relatively happy with the changes.
Cheers, Gary
Tzarevitch
Mongoose
Vast improvement over all. Parts of it aren't how I would have done it but they seem sound overall. Although I would've removed the interceptors and had the Gaim use surplus fighters as interceptors as it seems more Gaim-like (Gaim-ish, Gaim-y?). Other than that the fleet seems better balanced. It isn't one I'd ever play, but it is better balanced.
Tzarevitch
Tzarevitch
Locutus9956
Mongoose
silashand said:
I always take exception to that sentiment personally. ACTA is a wargame. If you want to play it as or as part of a role playing game fine but the thing is, game balance and adherence to the fluff are NOT mutually exlusive. Now the assault ship being tough is fine, and good by the fluff side of things but if you want to keep it balanced you have basically got two options, either weaken it or make it higher PL. Mongoose chose the first of these two options to stop the the fleet going too top heavy I would assume. It's for similar reasons we get the Nova at raid level rather than a battle level behemoth and the sharlin at War rather than Armageddon and the first ones, well, AT ALL. rather than off the scale somewhere.
You can play it as much as a role play as you want to but its NOT a roleplaying game and as a wargame it should strive to be fun and balnaced.
It's like saying 'my car handles appalingly and has terrible fuel efficiency and is ugly but personally I use it as a bed so none of that concerns me since the chairs are comfortable and recline nicely'. True to the fluff is a nice bonus but if the core essence of the game doesnt work then you might as well not bother playing the game and just push models space ships around making pew pew and woosh noises and say 'hah that one kills that cos its a better ship and thats what would happen'.
Sorry to rant it's just that too often folks hide behind fluff to defend broken rules.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
No it was just a metaphorical example (got cars on the brain at the moment having spend a sizeable chunk of my morning dealing with F&%£ing B%!*ard insurance companies.....) (appologies if I'm a bit snappy incidentally, the aformentioned escapades have left in what could be charitably described as a 'foul' mood. Murderous rage might be more accurate.... :twisted:
Edit: I'm also tired, hence missing the obvious witty reply of 'Well, not for sleeping, GIGGETY!')
Edit: I'm also tired, hence missing the obvious witty reply of 'Well, not for sleeping, GIGGETY!'
)
