Phaser-G Kill Zone discussion

[SneakyPete]

Mark I imagine the Feds will now have a good chance against the Orions Salvager drone attack. Although the Light Raider armed with Phaser-G now becomes an even bigger problem tacticaly unless the Feds counter with multiple CLE's in a phaser swarm duel.

As for the Gorn, yes we should test some more, perhaps using Plasma Bolt exclusively. As big a problem the 2 Fed escorts gave 2 Medium Gorn cruisers I can just imagine what 3-4 escorts together could do.

As for my previous posts don't get me wrong, I love the Feds, they are my biggest fleet. I am not playing them now since other players in my area started using them, I just would like to keep things balanced.

 

[Talonz]

Different games, same source material; material that in their fiction, history and scenarios reinforces historical opponents. If you choose to fight ahistorically, there maybe unintended consequences as a result and balance is not guaranteed.

This is a bit of a strawman - nowhere in any of the ACTA rules is there anything about which fleets you should or should not fight - Does SFGB/FC have standard rules limitations on who you can fight for causual games and tournaments?

No, that is nothing like a strawman. I never said there were rules against playing any race versus any other race. Please reread my original statement.

If its a multirole weapon than its probably right as is -however that does not mean that the escorts can not have a large points boost if it is dsicovered that the Phaser-G is an abusable system.

Exactly. In limited amounts and deployments, gatlings are a good and dangeorus system, but manageable. Start putting multiples on escort hulls and allowing free use of those hulls outside their intended deployment patterns, and you have a problem.

Phasers all do the same damage,

keepernilborg

Also, look at the interaction between phasers - especially PH-G - and plasma - a PH-G can kill (flat out) a torp of upto strength S with the current rules (and i addmit that this is more a problem with the plasma rules than Ph-G),

Huge, HUGE issues here. Phasers were not translated to ACTA properly, apparently. A single ph3 does not do damage equal to a phaser 1 in greater than 50% of volleys. Their damage was therefore increased in relation to the combat type I phaser for no apparent good reason. Also a gatling should not kill an S torp, not even when reduced in size to account for the single turn reload over original 2 turn reload. Even accounting for that proportionate decrease, the gat should kill half the smaller S torp. How is this explained? Is the plasma resistance to phaser damage (they halve all phaser damage) addressed at all?

No one has really answered how gatlings are the problem when multiple ph3 arrays capable of doing the same damage existed before the gatlings....this thread coincided with the release not just of gatlings, but the escorts that are armed with them.

So admit what the problem is, that the phaser rules are out of whack with each other and their source material, and the escorts that use them when released from their deployment pattern.

 

[Da Boss]

re races - what you said: "you choose to fight ahistorically" - most of the time there is neither any indication of the "proper" enemies or any rules to cover this - most ACTA gamers are just people wanting to put some spaceships on the table and blow up stuff using a easy set of rules which also allow tactical decisions based on movement, terrain, fleet composition and protecting / sacrificing ships. If the game only “works” in certain match ups then this is a problem, some degree of advantage /disadvantage is to be expected but not that it simply does not work. Tournaments and causual play seldomd if ever take historical match ups into account to avoid penalising players and limiting attendance.

Agreed re the Phaser-G – need to see some playtests to if there is an issue – although the maths suggests there is but good to have some proof?

Phasers are what they are – full consultation with ADB was carried out on how they work and they – the powers that be of the SFU - signed them off, it’s a bit late to say they are wrong now?

Escorts seem to have to be limited to balance them in the original source material and may well be the case here………..time will tell.

 

[McKinstry]

Mark I imagine the Feds will now have a good chance against the Orions Salvager drone attack. Although the Light Raider armed with Phaser-G now becomes an even bigger problem tacticaly unless the Feds counter with multiple CLE's in a phaser swarm duel.

Aren't the Orions limited to only 1 Phaser-G in any given ship?

 

[McKinstry]

Over on the ADB Boards it was recommended that fleets up to 9 ships contain no more than one escort and 10 and over, no more than two.

 

[MarkDawg]

Mark I imagine the Feds will now have a good chance against the Orions Salvager drone attack. Although the Light Raider armed with Phaser-G now becomes an even bigger problem tacticaly unless the Feds counter with multiple CLE's in a phaser swarm duel.

As for the Gorn, yes we should test some more, perhaps using Plasma Bolt exclusively. As big a problem the 2 Fed escorts gave 2 Medium Gorn cruisers I can just imagine what 3-4 escorts together could do.

As for my previous posts don't get me wrong, I love the Feds, they are my biggest fleet. I am not playing them now since other players in my area started using them, I just would like to keep things balanced.

I 100% agree with you Pete the Phaser G felt OP when we played because I could use it for Offense and defense. I could shoot down all your plasma and in the next turn rush you because you were close. I never used the APE attack in our game. I think stripping the Phaser G of everything is going to far but I like the Measured approach of no kill zone and no APE.

McKinstry Aren't the Orions limited to only 1 Phaser-G in any given ship?

@McKinstry I see the Orions being the worst abuser of this and it would be far worse than any fed fleet because of the cost of Orion ships. it's not how many you can put on your ship it's how many you put on the table top at any one time Orion phaser boats are a pain in the ass now think how bad they would be with Phaser G's.

 

[bcantwell]

Over on the ADB Boards it was recommended that fleets up to 9 ships contain no more than one escort and 10 and over, no more than two.

Instead of limiting the numbers (which Matt says is a no go), why not encourage players to use them in their intended role using the victory point system. Declare that specialty ships (escorts, scouts, etc) are worth 2x or even 3x their listed point value if crippled or destroyed when computing victory points.

The point values reflect combat capability, not "value" to the fleet. A squadron commander who gets one of the fleet's relatively few escorts blown up because he was using it to do a job that should have been done by a cheaper to build ship will soon find himself commanding one of those destroyers.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Too be fair, i want to see how the Ph-G works in the game before screaming foul - but i can see a big issue with plasma (due to the way it and phaser interaqctions are handled in the game). 4 phaser shots at 3> will hit with at least 2-3 times (on average), which will stop a F-type dead (and any S or G-type on a long runner will go too).

I don't think they should be neutered (yet), but do agree that whatever happens to PH-G's should happen to PH-3's too.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Over on the ADB Boards it was recommended that fleets up to 9 ships contain no more than one escort and 10 and over, no more than two.

With all due respect to those guys the problem is NOT escorts. It is Phaser Gs. Notice that the only comments about EVERY escort other than the Feds is that that are either weak or need ADDs/Plasma Ds in ADD mode to have a range. Replace the Phaser Gs with Phaser 1s on the Fed escorts and no one would be talking about it. The problem is NOT escorts.

Limiting escorts impacts every race except the Feds and Hydrans while missing that the problem is Phaser Gs looking overpowered.

As someone on the receiving end of Drones with limited defence and someone who has been arguing for escorts I would rather not have limits put in place to restrict the escorts I take because of a weapon system only two races use.

Mark I imagine the Feds will now have a good chance against the Orions Salvager drone attack. Although the Light Raider armed with Phaser-G now becomes an even bigger problem tactically unless the Feds counter with multiple CLE's in a Phaser swarm duel.

Aren't the Orions limited to only 1 Phaser-G in any given ship?

Ah so the Orion Light raider at 95 points is limited to 1 Phaser G and 5 Drones. So that is only 10 Phaser Gs and 50 Drones in that cheesy 1000 point fleet instead of just 60 Drones. :roll:

 

[McKinstry]

Ah so the Orion Light raider at 95 points is limited to 1 Phaser G and 5 Drones. So that is only 10 Phaser Gs and 50 Drones in that cheesy 1000 point fleet instead of just 60 Drones. :roll:

Nope. Only 3 optional mounts on a LR so 2 drones, 3 turreted Ph-1's and a Phaser-G is the max a drone LR can do. A much nastier ship is a 5 Phaser-1, 1 Phaser-G ship that could not care less about power drain actions.

I'm for getting rid of the killzone on the Fed (and thus Orion as well) Phaser-G and worrying about how to treat Hydrans if and when we ever see them at that time.

 

[dix]

FWIW, the sister game Starmada Star Fleet Armada has a Range-based Rate of Fire trait for PH-1 & Ph-2 (which works similarly to Killzone in ACTA); PH-3 and PH-Gs do not have this trait. AFAIK, there are absolutely no complaints about Ph-G in that system.

 

[storeylf]

No one has really answered how gatlings are the problem when multiple ph3 arrays capable of doing the same damage existed before the gatlings....this thread coincided with the release not just of gatlings, but the escorts that are armed with them.

Where did they exist though, the cheapest kzinti ship with 8 phasers (equal to the 2 gatlings that a Fed CLE has) is 195 points for a CF or 200 for the BC, and they are not even capable of firing more than half forward. 8 phaser shots out the back is no where near the threat of 2 gatlings out the front (and back). The Kzinti are paying 90 points more (the BC) and getting 4 disrupters, 10 shield and 10 damage, but far worse arcs on the 8 phasers 3s and no aegis.

You can get almost 2 CLE for the cost of the Kzinti BC. At 1000 points 9 CLE vs 5 BCs sees the kzinti lose a drone war (lots more drones plus aegis on the CLEs wins that by a country mile) and whilst they have some half decent long range fire power they have more issues with power drains and are significantly outshot once phaser 3 range is reached, and by a huge margin in gatling killzone. Even if the kzinti can overload all their disrupters they are still outshot in gatling killzone and only break even beyond that (actually that isn't really true as half their damage is not precise). It might not be an auto lose, but the maths seems to show the kzinti in a steep uphill battle even though they have "2 gatlings" worth of phaser 3s.

Thinking about it though, escorts maybe something of a problem points wise. In a game where mutual support against seekers is extremely difficult due to the way IDF is done then aegis itself is an awesomely useful ability. In FedCom escorts are not really that great (defensivley) as the game allows any ship to freely provide mutual support right up to the moment of impact, all you have to do is phaser/ADD/PL-D/tractor the seeker before it reaches its target, the usefulness of the aegis rules are fairly situational. In this game Aegis (even without ADD/Pl-D support) is a godsend, and maybe needs pointing higher because of that.

As noted earlier, if no change is made to the gatling mechanics then at least the gatling ships should be bumped up a good bit in cost. Otherwise ships are gaining significant seeker defense (in a game where seekers are ubiquitous and nasty) and significant offense, in a way that no other weapon really provides.

 

[katadder]

just wait until you get hydran stingers (fighters), they come with phaser Gs

over on ADB boards people did actually do the maths on phaser Gs vs phaser 1s and the damage ratio is correct for CTA too. phaser Gs lack range but do loads of damage.

the main difference is between how the games work, in SFB/FC the rush cant happen and you have time to drop any ship carrying phaser Gs, in ACTA this isnt possible as every ship moves full speed in a turn.

as for the person mentioning plasmas being stopped dead by gatling phasers, thats about right, if people want to use them defensively thats what they do.

 

[storeylf]

over on ADB boards people did actually do the maths on phaser Gs vs phaser 1s and the damage ratio is correct for CTA too. phaser Gs lack range but do loads of damage.

the main difference is between how the games work, in SFB/FC the rush cant happen and you have time to drop any ship carrying phaser Gs, in ACTA this isnt possible as every ship moves full speed in a turn.

Which is just one reason why porting based on simple weapon vs weapon ratio is a largely terrible way of going. This is a hugely different game system. You don't get 6 shields to spread damage around because you only have 1 shield, (and a leaky one at that, against phasers in killzone cruisers may well have suffered 2 criticals before the shield even fails). You don't have power issues preventing you firing because there is no actual power, you don't lose weapons like you do in SFB/Fc because there is a totally different damage system. You don't move 1 hex a time etc etc

I would, however, add that the rush most certainly does happen in FedCom - there is not a lot that can stop hydran cruisers running you down unless you play on an unlimited map and run away. That is at least partially down to cost - they are very cheap, so you get 4 cruisers to others getting 3 (and some only get 2 and a smaller ship). The hydrans can afford to lose a ship on the way in and still kill you up close. Same with LDR, they are obscenely cheap with 4 gatlings, ESGs, Ph1s and disrupters. You can kill an LDR ship and still be wiped out by the massive firepower on the remaining ships (their frigate can kill almost any heavy cruiser in 1 pass with 100 damage, the majority from the gatlings).

as for the person mentioning plasmas being stopped dead by gatling phasers, thats about right, if people want to use them defensively thats what they do.

Not really, when was the last time a ship with a PhGs in FedCom stopped a plasma S fully without having to use another weapon? In FedCom it would stop half of it.

I'm not neccsarily saying that is wrong for ACTA, The way plasma (and drones to an extent) work is one of the big turn offs to me. But, given that ships in ACTA can't run from plasma then having more effective phasers is one way of compensating to produce a similar end result.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

In regard to Killzones. If you removed the kill zone from a PH-3/G, it actually creates a nice pattern for the standard phasers - Ph-1 (8"), Ph-2 (4") and then PH-3/G (no kill zone).

It makes Ph-3 defensive weapons as they don't climb in damage when close (so no need to close), and means a Ph-G can do 3-4 points against a Ph-1 2 points at range, even a Ph-2 has 2 pts damage for 66% of it's range.

This increment follows though on max ranges for all Phasers (Ph-IV = 24"/Ph-1 = 18"/Ph-2 = 12"/Ph-3 = 6"), with only Kill Zones begin odd (10/8/4/2 respectively). I don't have any SFB/FC weapon charts, but would a Ph-IV have a similiar damage curve to a disruptor ? (so, say it could be KZ 12", but without (possibly) the multi hit ? - just a thought)

 

[storeylf]

A Ph4 is vastly more powerful than a disrupter in FedCom:
Range 3 = 20 max (average 18)
Range 6 = 20 max (average 13)
Range 15 = 5 max (average 3+)

Disrupter (double for overloads to range 8 )
Range 3 = 4 max (average 3-)
Range 6 = 3 max (average 2)
Range 15 = 3 max (average 2)

 

[SneakyPete]

Orion Light Raider
Best with Phasers only, with new rule it would be:
3 Turreted Phaser 1's
1 Fwd Phaser-G in FWD Weapon slot
2 Centerlineable Phaser's 1 in PH/SH Weapon slots
For a grand total of 9 Phasers possible in killzone for 95 points. (Turn 3 Agile, Stealth, Dilithium boost, Free Power Drain SA every turn due to phaser only)
The addition of Killzone makes this ship 40-50% more powerful at point blank, and with Killzone removed or between 2 - 6 inches range 5-15% more powerful.
With all Phaser-G traits removed (Killzone, Precise, +1 Accurate) from point blank to 6 inches it is about even to a bit under and beyond six inches it loses 15% hitting power compared to an all Ph1 LR, but has improved defense against seekers and better IDF ability (which is not automatic like escorts get)

Orion Salvager
Best with Drones, previously both weapon slots would go to more drones for 6 total overwhelming any defense easily, I never even had a close fight using three of these with a few LR's providing IDF cover.
Now You would probably want to add one Phaser-G to a WEAPON slot to provide better self protection as IDF can be unreliable. So the total drone output of a trio of these is more likely 15 now.
Turn 4, Stealth, Dilithium Boost)
So using this ship as an overpowered trio has been somewhat neutered with the new escort rules which I think is a good thing. They are more likely to be loaded with less drones and the escorts help greatly in stopping them. Killzone removal would not affect this.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Ok, so maybe it could keep the multi-hit and have KZ 12" instead (having 4 damage out to 12" would make base attacks the fleet operation they are). That would bring all phasers into line in regard range and kill zone.

 

[McKinstry]

The LR was already very nasty at 6 Ph-1's whereas at 5 Ph-1's and 1 Ph-G it is nastier. Coupled with drone heavy Salvage cruisers and the Orions are a really offensive fleet with usually a big initiative sink edge, particularly at points north of 1000 and really ugly at 1500+.

 

[Captain Jonah]

I had a look at the ADB board and Steve Cole has posted this.

Matt always says everything is fine (big grin), when it is and even when it isn't. [I already told him that limits on the escorts in a fleet are REQUIRED for SFU compliance.] He just won't ever change something he did (even done as a quick "go playtest this" thing) without being dragged to it.

I wish he would just say "We're testing it" and not insist on "never admit anything might change until the change is officially announced". I mean, Jeez, everything in Fleet Update 1 is PLAYTEST and MIGHT CHANGE so get over it.

Aside from the can of worms this opens I am not impressed by a very different game system with totally differing mechanics being locked in this way.