Phaser-G Kill Zone discussion

[storeylf]

Mark, I don't care that you don't care about FC, I do think that there is some relevance even if you don't. This game is meant to be based on other SFU games, and in particular, it is supposed to produce similar results according the game designer. Therefore they are relevant in any discussion of what results are produced, balance etc etc.

Or to put it another way, if escorts totally screw plasma empires in FC then raising the issue about it in ACTA seems somewhat pointless, it would produce the same result, and job is a good one according to the design goal that Mr Sprange has stated. But escorts don't screw plasma in FC because they have a limit on how many you can have, and the game system means the ships are not hugely reliant on special escorts for seeker defense in the first place. It may be that the mechancs of how ACTA will avoid that will be different, but by referring to FC you can say that the result is so different (at fleet level, as well as ship vs ship probably) that something is wrong with ACTA (if escorts do indeed screw plasma).

 

[MarkDawg]

ACTA:SF is not a replica of FC. You want to play it go play it you want to talk about it go to the FC boards stop hijacking threads with meaningless crap about FC nobody cares.

Read the thread title bud Phaser-G Kill Zone discussion have something to add I love to hear it you want to spew more drivel about how things need to be like FC GTFO.

I am going to play a game tonight with the escorts Vs Klinks I will let ya know how it goes.

Good Day!

 

[Talonz]

I would much rather Phaser Gs (and Phaser 3s) were looked at and balanced now with regard to both current and future uses than have the rules change every time a new ship or fleet is released.

In that we are in agreement, although it hasnt been proven that gatlings are really a problem. An actual example from play experience would help greatly.

Again I am going to ask this, have you read the rules. Heavy weapons are not powered up.

I might not have been entirely clear, let me try again. Escorts do not pay for heavy weapons both in power and ship *cost*. If a hydran vessel is moving top speed to hunt something down with gatlings, it is not getting full use out of the heavy weapons it has *paid* for. It can't even use the classic hack and slash tactic as the target will get to move before he can load his fusions over the 'turn break'.

An escort often does not have this problem, or its impact is reduced due to reduced heavy weapons in comparison to its original combat hull. Ergo escorts with gatlings and no (or limited) heavy weapons are more of a problem than your typical hydran vessel, and we havn't even covered the cost of the fighters it carries.

What do I want:
A situation where it is MY choice to use a type of ship or not.
The ability to take a pair of BDEs so that I can deploy my 1000 point fleet as two battle groups rather than having to keep my entire fleet within 8” of the escort or get picked off if fighting a Drone heavy enemy.

Limits do not eliminate choice, they are by definiton only a limit. Choices within those limits become all the more important. You already have other limits based on your models in your collection and the points cost for ships and the total fleet, an escort limit is only one more factor to deal with.

Assuming 6+total ships, im sure 2 escorts would be fine.

What do I not want:
Unbalanced weapons that make some fleets unbeatable.

Strong words. What exactly is unbeatable currently?

I am playing ACTA.

...set within the Star Fleet Universe.

 

[storeylf]

ACTA:SF is not a replica of FC.

I never said it was, it patently isn't, and I don't have an issue with that (as you'd note if you read back at various comments i've made). However, It has been stated a couple times that a design goal is that if 2 ships/fleets meet then the result if ACTA should roughly mirror the result in FC/SFB, even if the way it happens is different. It may not be a replica of FC but it is apparently meant to replicate results.

It hard to discuss possible 'issues' with PhG or escorts without reference to the games design goal that has been stated by the games designer.

nobody cares

Judging by the number of posts by a good number of other people referring back to FC/SFB I think you'll find that statement to be patently false, plenty of people seem to care. Some may care about every minute detail, others about broader aspects, but plenty of people do care.

 

[seattledv8]

Any time you fellows go on and on about SFB and FC I am reminded of the historial gamers that have a hissy fit if a unit has the wrong color hat in a wargame.

I play ACTA's because it is simple , dare I say elegant, rule system.
I have tried SFB and was unimpressed, I looked at the rules for FC and passed without playing.

Yes, ACTA is based on these games, but they are NOT those games.

The rules are different and as such need to be discussed as it's own game.
I do not care in the least how the rules work in the other systems.
I don't play (or even wish to play) those games.

History and backstories are important to a game. It adds a depth and richness to the game.
That said it is still fluff and not rules.
This forum should be about the rules and the interaction of the rules in ACTA.
This is not about what color cap the Gorn wear in SFB.

 

[Nerroth]

I might also point out that not one of the games using the ACtA game engine exists in a vacuum, design-wise at least.

A Call to Arms, in its original form, was based on Mongoose's then-licence for Babylon 5, and a large portion of the miniatures used for that game (not to mention the design philosophies behind them) were sourced, one way or another, from the earlier Babylon 5 Wars game. (Despite that game being defunct by the time ACtA first rolled in, its legacy lived on, at least among those who first came into the game from B5W.)

Then, you have A Call to Arms: Noble Armada, which exists thanks to another external IP; this time, from Holistic Design, who sub-licence access to the NA setting to Mongoose. (Before Mongoose made the switch to 3D modelling, they seem to have used the same miniature moulds for the first wave of ACtA:NA minis, just as they had once adopted B5W's minis for ACtA:B5.) While the original Noble Armada game engine is currently lying fallow, the re-born FASA Games (aka the company formerly known as RedBrick), who currently support a revised edition of the Fading Suns RPG (set in the same universe as Noble Armada), have plans on doing their own revision of the NA spaceship combat game system. So, once that happens, the minis that Mongoose are developing for A Call to Arms: Noble Armada will be available for FASA 2.0's Noble Armada; just as the Starline 2500s are good for players of SFB, FC, and Starmada, as well as ACtA:SF.

And there is Victory at Sea. Yes, that game is "home-grown"; there is no other wet-navy game which Mongoose have a licence with in order to develop that game. But even so, VaS (in either its WW2 or Age of Dreadnoughts eras) has an onus to try and capture at least some of the historical flavour involved. Yes, there are a number of abstractions, but there would still be a desire for it to "feel" right.


So, no matter which version of A Call to Arms you look at, you will have at least some sort of external influence shaping the development of the game. The main difference here is that the source game/s for ACtA:SF are still alive and kicking; as opposed to B5 Wars or the original Noble Armada, which are dead or lying fallow respectively.

Those members of the pre-existing SFU fandom who are committing themselves to A Call to Arms: Star Fleet are not going to go away; but that doesn't mean they (we) have to be the enemy of those coming into the setting through ACtA.

(And in any case, it's still up to Mongoose and ADB to set the agenda, and make sure that the right balance can and will be struck.)

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Agreed - ActA is not SFB/FC. But it needs to model the effects of the SFU 'WITHIN' it's own game system. Does it do that at the moment - well, to be fair (from my point of view), yes, reasonably well. Is it prefect - NO. Does how things work in the other SFU systems effect these rules - Yes.

Well, Back to Phaser-G's and Killzone. At the moment, i'm more inclined to thnk that removing killzone from phaser-3/G would actually be good (and actually increasing Phaser-IV kill zone to 12"). It would balance the 'offensive' issue, as the range doesn't effect damage, but totally uneffect defensive fire, as Kill Zone doesn't effect this.

 

[Nerroth]

The only long-term issue I might see with removing Killzone from phasers-3 is that, should there be a unit type which uses a smaller base size than the 50mm standard, but which required more than one point of damage to kill.

Say, if we ever get gunboats. (As a point of comparison, the smaller raider craft in A Call to Arms: Noble Armada, such as the Kurgan Mujahidin, use the smaller flying bases. If a PF were to go on a similar small base, you could, on a point of technicality, get within 2" range of one without going into base-to-base contact.)

But then, I might just be overthinking things.

 

[SneakyPete]

The topic is removing Killzone from Phaser-G not Phaser 3, nor Phaser 4.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Sorry, but as a Phaser G is basically 4 phaser 3, i think it might be relevant (take your point on the Phaser 4 though)

 

[firekite]

Sneakypete:

I must have misunderstood what you were stating as the weapons load. Sorry if i gave offence that was not my intent.

 

[firekite]

Markdawg:

FC/SFB is the source material for this version of ACTA. I am sorry that it bothers you when it is referred to but until the escorts go from playtest to finished product it is what it is. When that happens i will happily refrain from quoting it since we will all know what the ACTA:SF "Version" for lack of a better word is.

As for the issue of removing the Killzone trait from the phG i am opposed to it at this time. It will cause no end of problems for the Hydran fleet and since it is basicly 4xph3 in the same mount i believe that you would have to also remove it from the ph3's which will change alot of things.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Arguments about whether or not ACTA:SF should ignore the SFU setting aside, I'm actually wondering if it's such a bad thing that escorts can be forced into a suicide gunship role.

a) Practicality wise, making effective use of this tactic means point blank range. Point blank range is when base sizes come into play, meaning that it will be even harder to focus fire on a single ship with multiple kamikaze escorts.

b) The PhG has been likened to the modern day M61 Vulcan (of Phalanx CIWS fame). Whilst this weapon works at longer ranges by putting a cloud of lead in the air and hoping that something hits, my understanding is that at shorter ranges the high concentration of lead can chew up a target pretty badly. In this respect, the PhG still works.

c) Ok, I am going to refer to the SFU setting on this one - SF haters will just have to close their eyes. Whilst I haven't played any more than a couple of SFB games before now, wasn't someone saying that even in the SFU setting the PhG does healthy damage at point blank range?


As for the idea of ship limits, my preference would be to have no hard limits, but instead add reasons why you wouldn't want too many of them. One example would be a trait whereby a ship grants double VPs when crippled/destroyed, representing that fact that its value to the fleet (VPs) is greater that its battlefield utility (points cost). Then again, I've been arguing for such a trait ever since the Explorer class started being dragged into every skirmish it could find as a cheap command carrier back in the B5 days.


Edit:
Thinking about it, the modern day escort doesn't just load up on fast firing weapons to defeat threats - another important weapon is the fire control system that is focused on targetting those threats. In ACTA terms, this would translate into something like a +1 to hit for defensive fire. Is this a possibility, or just something else that SVC would shoot down?
If it is an option, it would cause an increase of points cost with no increase of anti-ship capability. In an ideal world however, it would be part of a larger rebalance whereby drones and torpedoes are at a -1 to be hit by defensive fire (just like shuttles).

 

[firekite]

best way to find out what Svc thinks is to Email him you could post in the ACTA general descussion group but there is no garrantee when he will respond.

I would be interested in hearing what Matt and everyone else thinks of your suggestion.

 

[MarkDawg]

I played a 1000 pt game I took

NCL
CLE
NCL
DWE
NCL
DWE
War Destroyer

I was playing Klingon's tried to use the Phaser G's as gun boats and get side shots but the Klingon's then could overload disruptors and I didn't have enough Photons to cut through them all. I will say this much I got one alpha strike that took 14 shields and 6 hull off a klingon ship in the first shot for a 135pt ship that's hitting like a dreadnaught.

In the end I lost the game I didn't do enough damage and I could not always get side shots. I got tore up by the Klinks.

My observations are that the fed escorts are OP vs Plasma races but the Phaser G Vs klingons is good but OP.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

So, out of 3 escorts which were trying to gunboat, only one of them succeeded, and that ship did so only once. In return, by forcing your escorts into such short ranges you were giving double damage shooting to the Klingons, thereby allowing them to tear your fleet apart.
One data point isn't enough for firm conclusions, but that certainly sounds like the PhG threat is being significantly overstated.

Now, the fleets with the most concern are the Romulans and Gorn. I will be interesting to see how they deal with Fed escorts.

 

[TheBeerPope]

So just so you guys know the other side of the battle, I took
F5W x 2
E5E x 2
D7F
D7C

The first alpha strike Mark had on me, in the second turn did make me worried, but it became apparent very quickly that my maneuverability, in turn with his lack of torpedoes gave me the freedom to be extra aggressive without having to fear torpedoes in my weakened side and rear shields. The E5E also came into play as exceptionally useful in the second half of the match, as i could just over load his defenses with drones.

In the end, certainly not enough to prove one way or another, but the general feel at our gaming place is that PhG's are great offensive weapons vs. plasma races, but against others, they may fall short. A few more games will give a better feel.

I know one of the biggest fears we have is the Orions putting them on their 85pt light raiders with two additional Ph1's giving them even more phasers for their phaser boat load out. They then can go all power to engines, get in close and unload with Kill Zone phaser's and if they get destroyed in response its only a 85pt loss...

 

[Talonz]

Good to see actual reports, keep it up.

The orion phaser boat is a common threat, and not one to be taken lightly for sure. Such is the nature of the beast though!

 

[archon96]

If plasma could overload at under 4 inches then i would worry one bit about the gunboat escort concept. By that point if he wanted to run up on me id just take my lick then pound him. I do fore see a change in my plasma tactics with escorts. Always leave 1 f type in the tube. That way if he does run up you can pound him with KZ phasers of you're own and then launch a F to eat up his Gatling which is 1 weapon system so even if it only did 2ad to a torpedo it would still have used all four to shoot it down.

 

[McKinstry]

I don't have the rules in front of me but I believe the 5 Phaser-1 & 1 Phaser G Orion Light Raider is 95 points, not 85.