P&P Playtest Pack v 1.1

[l33tpenguin]

I would agree with Dag'Kar that this SA is not necessary, or rather , it is necessary for just a few fleets--the Drazi spring to mind.

Realistically, the only fleet I think this rule is appropriate for is Drazi. All the rest have other ways to compensate for the ships in their list that have boresight weapons. Otherwise I dislike any rule that gives boresight a wider arc than a straight line. The other variant suggested where the ship can make a turn at the end of the movement phase assuming it has one left out of its allotment seems a *lot* more appropriate IYAM and limits it somewhat because it forces players to consider a bit more during their movement what they will do. The current one I dislike a lot.

Cheers, Gary

Yea! I assume you are refering to my suggestion I like the design of it because:
1- The player has to make a tactical commitment to it
2- The opposed CQ represents the crews of both vessels trying to out perform the other
3- If the target vessel IS manuverable and/or fast enough, it can still get out of the firing arc
4- It can be used by *any* ship, not just bore sight ones, to represent a ships attempt to bring their weapons to bear on a target.

 

[wkehrman]

I would agree with Dag'Kar that this SA is not necessary, or rather , it is necessary for just a few fleets--the Drazi spring to mind.

Realistically, the only fleet I think this rule is appropriate for is Drazi. All the rest have other ways to compensate for the ships in their list that have boresight weapons. Otherwise I dislike any rule that gives boresight a wider arc than a straight line. The other variant suggested where the ship can make a turn at the end of the movement phase assuming it has one left out of its allotment seems a *lot* more appropriate IYAM and limits it somewhat because it forces players to consider a bit more during their movement what they will do. The current one I dislike a lot.

Cheers, Gary

You just don't want to feel the full brunt of my Marathons and both the fore and aft beams, that's what you're really afraid of.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

In all seriousness, though, I think the EA are an easy example of this SA getting out of hand. Can you imagine getting runaway dice in both the fore and aft arcs? With my Crit rolls?

 

[wkehrman]

The new FAP breakdown helps, but swarms still have an advantage over larger ships.

The core, I think, of the problem. I would like to see some manner of point system instead. You could mitigate the imbalance without getting rid of the "strength in numbers" entirely. Any discrepancy could be dealt with through victory conditions with the larger fleet being penalized and the smaller fleet being rewarded.

Unfortunately, this would necessitate a reworking of the PL system which I don't think is on the agenda.

 

[CZuschlag]

And I agree 100%

But we are playing a game

Exactly right! And, seriously....it's makes very little sense to talk about a simulation of something that never happened and assumes Science Fiction technology that almost certainly does not exist. An emulation of the impossible is a logical impossibility.

But, a game needs no excuse to be fun.

 

[wkehrman]

And I agree 100%

But we are playing a game

Exactly right! And, seriously....it's makes very little sense to talk about a simulation of something that never happened and assumes Science Fiction technology that almost certainly does not exist. An emulation of the impossible is a logical impossibility.

But, a game needs no excuse to be fun.

To a point. There are two aspects that are missing from your argument. First is that this is a game about ships from a TV show. Thus there is a certain amount of carryover that must exist to keep up the interest of a significant element of the consumer base. The second is that there is an historical aspect to this: men and ships have operated in concert for millennia. Success or failure in naval war is just as much an issue of imbalanced technology as it is tactical genius--bear in mind that the technology may be industrial rather than military. And we are currently farther in time away from the battles of Salamis (won with better tactics) and Actium (won with better technology) than we are from the setting of B5. What indicators do you have that would change these trends in the next 250 years?

If this is not a naval combat game set in space, what is it?

 

[silashand]

If this is not a naval combat game set in space, what is it?

An excuse to get together and drink beer? ;-)

Cheers, Gary

 

[wkehrman]

15. Also added New Ships and Admirals chapters./quote]

For those more familiar with the canon, are there Admirals out there for other races besides the current ones (G'Sten, Jha'Dur, Delenn and the EA)? A Drazi and a Brakiri show up in Season 5 (can't remember their names, but the Drazi bombed Centauri Prime along with the Narn). It would seem that only the Pak'ma'ra would not need an "admiral" as such though certainly they had commanders who gained greater success than others on certain runs.

Would Bester work as a Psi corps "Admiral"?

 

[Hindsight]

He should yes.

It should not be hard to invent some people that represent the political goals of a specific fleet. As long as the abilities represent the fluff for a race that was less developed on the show, I don't think even a fluff nut like me would complain about their addition. It is up to the developers to fill those holes.

Fill the holes... you know... like a decent Skirmish choice for the ISA!

 

[silashand]

Would Bester work as a Psi corps "Admiral"?

I think he would be the obvious choice, and since he was a somewhat prominent non-main character in the series should be represented. JMO though...

Cheers, Gary

 

[Da Boss]

Fill the holes... you know... like a decent Skirmish choice for the ISA!

Oh you have a skirmish choice - how nice - unlike the Shadows :wink:

Admirals for all fleets - or something similar -cool

Psi Corps - Bester,
Shadows: Anna and/or Morden,
Vorlons: Kosh
ISA : Lyta

The other prob need making up - but thats not difficult

however it would be nice to make them so people would actually field them.........

 

[Clanger]

If you had Unique "Admirals" / Personalities for each Race then I can see Admirals being used more often.

Also it would balance out the Fleets as well giving everyone a slice of the pie.

 

[Da Boss]

If you had Unique "Admirals" / Personalities for each Race then I can see Admirals being used more often.

Also it would balance out the Fleets as well giving everyone a slice of the pie.

The has to be on Higherst PL ship and doubles it PL puts most people of almost all the time

 

[Clanger]

I think a re think on the Admiral cost would be needed so playing Admirals would be part of the game. Give them a set Priority cost.

Say an Admiral is worth a Raid Point?

 

[Hindsight]

Or a Skirmish point. =D

 

[Stonehorse]

Shadows: Mr Morden.

Very fitting!

He could have this special rule:

Friends in High places.
Whenever an enemy ship performs a Special action roll a D6, on a roll of a 6 the special action has been cancelled due to some subtle Shadow agent infiltrration. On a roll of a 1, the agents have been found and the ship in question is free from future rolls.

This can not be used against Volons or Ancients.

Regarding the price of the Admiral cost, I think it would be better if the ship in question just goes up a PL. Nice and simple.

 

[Hindsight]

Fill the holes... you know... like a decent Skirmish choice for the ISA!

Oh you have a skirmish choice - how nice - unlike the Shadows :wink:

You can have ours, we aren't using it =)

 

[Ripple]

Admirals - I like admirals, just not sure I like all the specials they get right now. I don't like the set cost idea because they really can help bigger ships more.

Bore sight and orders - So we're back to ignoring all the situations where it becomes physically impossible to target either the sinks or attacking ship near you again. And calling the folks who bring them up poor fleet builders, incompetent admirals or proponents of dumbing down the game. Nice. How about we turn that around and say that you folks don't play with anyone who knows how to hide a sink... we all still playing nice?

The order was most often supported to handle situations that would never come up in an real world battle, real or simulated. The idea that one large slow cruiser can't be targeted by another large slow cruiser because there is a PT boat hiding in port (behind the asteriods in the corner in this case) is hardly very realistic, even for a sci-fi game.

It was supported to prevent winning initiative from removing significant amounts of firepower from firing at all. Especially in late game fights. It might be appropriate for an Omega to have trouble targeting one of a pair of whitestars, but not one of a pair of Primus. Play some battle simulators... just because you know your gonna lose to the other tank doesn't mean you don't take out one more when your about to die. Numbers win because you can't kill enough, not because numbers are harder to target.

Anyway...

Ripple

 

[stepan.razin]

Personally,

Boresighting was a reason i played the fleets i did. I liked that it made me think and made it all the more sweeter when i defeated that guy with turreted or forward arced weapons. yeah it sucked whn i couldnt use my big heavy gun but eventually i got the job done. Im kinda insulted actually that there needs to be a special action. It makes me feel like the game makers feel that we as players are not intelligent enough to learn how to use these weapons and use them effectively. Then everyone complained about boresight because they want an easy button. Personally i say get rid of that SA and lets go back to the old way.

Now that you finished padding yourself on the back, and reaffirming your own greatness, please recall that most people here have an understanding that this game has to maintain a balance between fleets.

While i applaud your english skills comrade razin, the expression is patting yourself on the back not padding. As for the understanding of the game and balance, for those of us that have been playing this since first edition, boresighting has been in the game since the beginning. It was offset by more dice on the main weapon. Yes it was a bit more difficult to target but when you did it made it count. A quick search will reveal several threads, the gist of which is that Boresight is too ineffective particularly for boresight dependent fleets and. that its too difficult to use. this is why this proposed SA has been devised. simply ecause people find it hard to play the fleet not because it unbalanced. Have a great day

The rules for Beams and boresights could have been painted on the cave walls for all I care, I will take a well balanced game over a game that fits some lame rationalization.

I will just choose to disagree with your assesment that boresight fleets like the Drazi are merely hard to play and that a great tactician( read - rolls lots of 6s) can easily overcome.

Razin was from Ukraine... Google it. By the way, do you really think I live in Russia/Ukraine? And all the neat trivia about history and Russian navy aside, you do realize that his game is played with dice.

Do tell me if you spot any more spelling errors.. please

 

[noobdelux]

sorry for interupting but i would like an clarification of the 2 for 1 ships in say campains, victory pts and xp dice, its realy unclear atm and what happends when you kill one of em and what you can do with the other.

one are as good as an drakh scout.

thats one of my gripes(sp?) atm and i realise its never going to be a perfect game but i feel with all these new rules its starting to moove away from the "fast and furious" game feel i had earlier.

sincerely

 

[The_Mhor]

sorry for interupting but i would like an clarification of the 2 for 1 ships in say campains, victory pts and xp dice, its realy unclear atm and what happends when you kill one of em and what you can do with the other.

You still gain VPs and XP dice as if you had killed a Patrol Level ship for each twofer you threshold or kill.