New take to fixing the crit-system

Scipio

Mongoose
After some thinking I think that we are off in finding the solution for this problem.
A general save could work but I don't like implementing a 40K-like save into ACTA, CBD is enough as it is.


I think that almost everyone agrees that one of the big reasons for why big ships are at a big disadvantage against smaller ships is that usually the big ships far to soon suffers the disabling by crits.

One of the problems is that if one of the swarming ships suffer one of the radical crits it doesent affect that side so much because just one ship of 20 for example is out of commission so it's just looses 1/20 of its fighting power but if the big ship suffers a disabeling crit for example only fire weapons on 4+ for exampel it looses 1/2 of its fighting power from the same result.

IF we make an exampel to destroy a big ship that have for example 200 damage (just to make it a little more obvious) if we make the example with single damage weapons would let it take two hundred rolls for potential crits.
Even if ignoring the doubling chance of crits through Precise that would mean that it would take more than 30 crits on average before being destroyed. However the crits themselves add some damage so lets say around 15 at least.
In this example a big ship has a great chance of suffering 10-12 crits before getting below half of its damage. Try rolling 12 crits on the crit-chart and think of in which condition the ship would be to continue the fight.

I.e. as it is the big ships drops in fighting capabilty far faster generally than the swarm against it does because of the crits.

One solution that is on its way is that buying down on PL will be more expensive but again I think most agree that this will not be near enough.

One other solution that will help somewhat is also the rumour that bore-sighting will be changed so it will not be necissary for some fleets to buy swarms just to be able to fire the weapons. But this will not be a complete fix either.


Instead of adding redundancy saving throws for all crits I would like to think that a route worth exploring would instead be to go to the heart of the problem and fix the crit-table.

If you think about it, today it is far more likley that an armageddon ship will suffer multiple catastrophic explosions and crits before going down, while the less roubust patrol-ships is more likley to just fizzle away through secondary weapons fire.
It should at least be equally likely for a smaller ship to suffer tough crits than it is for the big one proportionally to the total damage of the ship that is.


Taking the route of tweaking the crit-table might help us get closer to that goal instead.
Make smaller ships more likely to suffer harsh result on it per crit than the bigger ones.

To make an example of it I have modified the current crit-table to a 2d6 for the result roll instead. This also give the more reliable bell curve then the 1d6 used today.
The severity of the roll is modified by the PL of the ship suffering the damage but a better solution could be to base it on the total damage of the ship instead or to add a new value for it directly to each ship in the fleet book instead.

Also I think that a redo of the results on the crit-table adapted for this instead of using the existing straight of that I have done for the example would be better.



crittable.gif
 
I really like this. Would swap over the Bridge Hit and Secondary Explosions results on the vital areas crit table, though... No SA is far worse for a big ship than d6 damage/crew.
 
OK, I'm sorry, but I don't. It does not meet one major criterion for such a fix: It does not maintain current balance built into ships that heavily leverage the critical table.

In this case, I am specifically referring to those races with Precise and Masters of Destruction. The average critical caused needs to inflict 1.6 damage and 2.1 crew. This balance is built into the system at a few points, and that 1.6 value, it turns out, is most certainly not random. Any crit chart you create has to incorporate at least these two properties to maintain general weapons balance.

The balance issue for scaling the ship targetted is problematic for me in ways that I have mentioned on another thread. If you want to modify the critical chart, fine, but leave the damage and crew amounts alone, and tinker with the effects only --- it's the effects that scale nonlinearly, NOT the damage.
 
CZuschlag said:
In this case, I am specifically referring to those races with Precise and Masters of Destruction. The average critical caused needs to inflict 1.6 damage and 2.1 crew. This balance is built into the system at a few points, and that 1.6 value, it turns out, is most certainly not random. Any crit chart you create has to incorporate at least these two properties to maintain general weapons balance.

The balance issue for scaling the ship targetted is problematic for me in ways that I have mentioned on another thread. If you want to modify the critical chart, fine, but leave the damage and crew amounts alone, and tinker with the effects only --- it's the effects that scale nonlinearly, NOT the damage.
Agreed about the damage and crews. But as I tried to make clear in the post, it's the effects that I'm after with this solution and that causes the big problems for the big ships.

I also said that the modified table is only an example to illustrate what I were talking about, to create a start to talk around. The best solution would be as I already mentioned in the post to create a new critical table, but for this format instead but possibly based on the old one.
I think that it would be possible to integrate the key values you mentioned into it?
 
CZuschlag said:
OK, I'm sorry, but I don't. It does not meet one major criterion for such a fix: It does not maintain current balance built into ships that heavily leverage the critical table.
Can you give an example or elaborate on what you are thinking about more specifically so that we can disuss it?
 
Scipio said:
CZuschlag said:
OK, I'm sorry, but I don't. It does not meet one major criterion for such a fix: It does not maintain current balance built into ships that heavily leverage the critical table.
Can you give an example or elaborate on what you are thinking about more specifically so that we can disuss it?
He already gave 2: Precise and Masters Of Destruction.
 
I would recommend leaving the chart as is, but changing the effects column to something like:

-1 speed
-20% speed
-50% speed
-75% speed

-2 speed, -1 AD
Ship cannot perform special action if crew loss is 50% of start score
-1 Trait*
Adrift*

-1 AD
-2 AD
-3 AD^
-1 Weapon System*

-
-1 on Damage Control this turn if ship has lost half of more of its troops, -1 Troops
Ship cannot perform special action if crew loss is 50% of start score
-2 on Damage Control 1 on Damage Control this turn if ship has lost half of more of its troops, -2 Troops

No Special Actions*
-
-2 on Damage Control Rolls*
-1 Arc*
-1 Trait*
-1 Trait*
I do keep a few absolute ("All") crits in here, the ones with the "*". I have mitigated an additional one (the "Engineering" hit). Also note that I added one crit that is specifically designed to hose Skirmish and Patrol ships (the "^"). I find that I want to keep a few of these to give Precise some of the same effects value. I also kept one of the -1 Arc criticals as it has been advertised that some ships are intentionally balanced with this crit in mind (Vree, ISA Whitestars, Vorchans). Complete removal is a balance change I'm not yet happy with.

Yes, Virginia, that -75% move crit just got nasty. Also notice --- Adrift only happens 1/3 of the time it did before! That should please the boresight boys.

Also, we need one more balance mechanic:

"For the purpose of the Mass Driver trait and Launch Shuttles and Breaching Pods, any ship with a modified move score of less than 1 inch is considered adrift for all other rules purposes." Voila!

This is only a prototype! You can go further or not .... you just want to get more of the criticals to scale absolutely. The exception is the movement criticals; you want to do those proportionally, as big ships actually have less move than small ones.
 
Burger said:
Scipio said:
CZuschlag said:
OK, I'm sorry, but I don't. It does not meet one major criterion for such a fix: It does not maintain current balance built into ships that heavily leverage the critical table.
Can you give an example or elaborate on what you are thinking about more specifically so that we can disuss it?
He already gave 2: Precise and Masters Of Destruction.
What would the problem with Precise be? It would crit twice as much as non-Precise weapons just as it does today, right?
What would be changed is the effect-severity on larger ships in contrast to smaller.
 
CZuschlag: I really like the idea of the proportional speed loss that you suggest it would be a good move (pun intended) from the problems that the current chart imposes disproportionally on big ships.

Also the limiting effect on the crew part will be a very good help as well.

A move in this direction would very much help making the war and armageddon ships the terrifying monsters that they should be and probably give a rise in somewhat more interesting fleet compositions.
 
The precise thing is a big deal for the Abbai as you depend on the movement crits to give you a chance to get in range and stay there. Without that (or with only half that) you take an already ailing fleet and reduce it further. You also count on the loss of arcs to give you a chance to close without being blasted to scrap.

Abbai tend to be resilient to -1 AD crits while handing them out easily to others... reducing their overall occurrence, even if done evenly to both fleets actually erodes the abbai's need to lower attacks below certain thresholds so that shields/interceptors can do there job.

Just saying that effects generation can be a big part of why a fleet manages or doesn't... it's not just damage/crew.

Ripple
 
Ripple, no disagreement. I would argue that Abbai as a whole are so off as to require a total rethink/rebalance in the first place, but if they somehow were balanced, I can't disagree much.

A better example is probably the Early EA or pak'ma'ra fleets, both of which are relatively resistant to arc-loss criticals, while needing them from opponents (especially Early EA Sagg. usage).

Would it be enough to move the whole fleet balance? Early EA is a power fleet already, so I don't think it's too bad. pak'ma'ra, it might. Same goes for some of the Minbari fleets (the Tigara/Troligan stack).
 
CZuschlag

The Abbai might be off at Raid and Battle, but the rest of the fleet is kicking everyone's butt in our campaign. They have not lost a fight. The player uses the Patrol level ships and spaces them out enough so that if you get in with them, you are facing multipe Twin Linked dice, and lots of them. WIth 5 Shields you have to over kill them just to start doning any damage. THe Skirmish Diplomatic Transport with Hull 6 and Shiled 10 is from the Abbai side awesome. There is a 6 point War game this week agaisnt the EA Crusade, so we will see how the beams will do.

We all thoguht they wer ethe weakest fleet also, but not now.
 
I'd love to know what kind of fights your having... the diplomatic transport is one of the worst hulls the Abbai have. The only reason I could come up with for why he might be doing well is if he is buying down and the other players aren't. This, under the current rules, will almost always win you fights, regardless of the strength of the individual units.

But our group has always had a different experience of short range twin linked guns. They've never amounted to anything, as we almost never allow them a shot, and when forced too we've had plenty of return fire.

Ripple

(main reason I used the abbai for the example was that there was two entirely different types of crit effects that were important too them - three if you include the no repairs type - as both weapons and speed effects really matter... an no SA to remove the APtE options as well... Early EA and Pak have better flexibility)
 
One possible explanation could be that he swarms the enemy with small ships. Masses of Tiraca and the like can do good levels of damage
 
Lots of twin linked dice which equals lots of chances of critical hits. I have had the Abbai hit me with more 1-6 critcs, 4 in one game one against the G'Vrahn, then with the Commd Disruptor on the scouts, it makes it almost impossible to repair. Then with the swarm of smaller ships, 1 die beam from 4 ships will add up. They are precise which then increases the chance of a critical hit. Both the Tiraca and Bisaria have 6 TL out the fornt and 3 to the side. Then through in a Beam or Comm Disuptor and they are awesome Patrol ships that could almost be Skirmish level.

The Abbai player is very aggresive and will all power to engines to get within range of his twin linked guns. Playing from the side of the table that only takes 1 turn as he sets up to the front edge of the deployment zone. He also sets up with multipe lines so that if you do get in the fleet, you are now facing multipe twin linked dice that with the current critical hit system can turn a game in no time. He only uses the Bimith in Battle level or larger games and does not even field the Lakara. he will use the Juyaca in larger games, which is an awesome ship also. Beams in 3 arcs, AP, DD, TL in all 4 arcs, and then comms Disurptors. I really don;t want to face that one! Oh, 20 Shields on top of that!

The transport has almost as many die as some Raid level ships when you factor in the twin link. Also Hull 6 with 10 shields means you need to over kill it.

The Tiraca and Bisaria both have Anti Fighter 2, which means you would have to swarm them with fighters just to get some shots in to knock down some of the 5 shields.

The Shadows don't have shields as good as the Abbai and they are an ancient race! The Scout only has 5 and the Young only has 10 that is what is ont he Patrol and Skirmish for the Abbai!

If the Critical hit table were modified or at least larger ships had a chance to roll off the effects of the Critical, then it might be different. I like the idea on the other thread wher you at least have a chance to roll a save for the effects. I really don't have a problem with the current table. But when a fighter can cause a Raid/Battle or high level ship to have the effects that some of the results ont he table cna have, then I have a problem with it. We are currently working on a couple of house rules.

Someone posted a different critial hit table when the forum what out, have you taked a look at it?

Tschuma
 
Thanks for the explanation...

comments (thrown up list style as I'm typing as I think) -

a) he swarms... less to do with how good his ship is than the fact that he swarms.

b) patrol abbai are great ships (scout aside)... not skirmish, but great ships

c) if he starts front of his deploy and your back of yours at least two turns to get you (lunge for him is 27, you start 30+ apart)

d) he ignores the Lakara and only uses the bimith in a buy down approach, both smart moves

e) Juyaca - good ship hamstrung by its speed... I've used it about six times now and never seen it get more than two turns of fire. Too slow to push into enemy formations, even if it doesn't get a speed crit.

f) twin link - lots of dice should mean very few hits, even twin linked against most ships. Tiraca should hit only two or three times against hull 6 or 5... if you have a interceptor/fighter cover you should negate at least one tiraca worth. So looking for at least three tiracas to expect a crit from the twin links. Not great odds of getting a crit really. Beam on the other hand is a good source but still 3 tiraca to one crit expected.

g) shadows have much better shields... regen rate is key. The scout has some issues, but has stealth so think you have to count that.

h) AF 2 hardly requires swarms. Against a hull 5 fighter you aren't even stopping one on average.

I) Comm Disruptor as a way of slowing Damage Control is very good, but not hard to kill the couple ships that have them. Juyaca is of course a different matter... but its a priority target to start with.

J) Diplo Transport - its beam bait and only contributes about 2-3 hits forward... slightly more to the side. Tough to kill though without a beam.

K) all this fire is single damage... so while annoying, most of the crits shouldn't be ship killers.

Not saying you aren't playing well or he isn't... just saying our experience has been the opposite of what your seeing. And I have been using them with a number of strategies, both aggressive and otherwise. They can certainly win... but rarely quickly (hence bad tourney standings) and often only if the other guy doesn't have a good beam moment.

Ripple
 
Ripple, thanks for the repsonse.

He has a 6 point War Carrier Clash game sometime by next Friday against EA Crusade, he will be facing at least 1 Warlock, 3-4 Marathons, plus other. I expect that the Abbai player will lose quite a feew ships in this one since they are start with the most distance between them.

I will post results when I find out he results.

tschuma
 
As Ripple implied, swarming with almost any fleet is likely to pay dividends against someone who doesn't.

When I played the Abbai (a "balanced", non-swarm, fleet) with my ISA (first time I used them too), they were absolutely no threat whatsoever. The little damage I did take was poor positioning on my part, and I'm unlikely to make that mistake again.

IMHO, they really do need some love in S&P or P&P, but major kudos to your Abbai player for doing so well - I'd hate to face him/her with a "decent" fleet!

Regards,

Dave
 
In the next campaign I think he might take the Dilgar!

Actually I would like to steal his dice, they have benn hot recently.
 
Back
Top