Play for fun, or play to win!
- Thread starter H
- Start date
For amusement, take a look at Signs & Portents Wargamer 46, specifically the article about Raiders, most specifically the bits about Enemies of the Raiders. The Raiders are probably the least cheesy fleet possible so some of the "tactics" are rather dubious, being a light-hearted guide to the various types of misbehaviour the author has seen at the game table. For example, take so long to move that the opponent falls asleep, then remove his most powerful ship while he's not looking. :lol:
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
That's something that always bugged me about ACtA and the FAP. It's always been stated that the raider ships were intentionally weaker than the other fleets, because they were 'underdogs' or something like that. This just didn't make sense to me when the FAP is supposed to be a scale of a ships effectiveness in a fleet. If one fleet is weaker at the same FAP 'just because' then that makes the system broken. Any typical points based game, if a fleet has weaker ships, than those ships cost less, requiring them to bring more to the fight. If someone is an underdog, they simply get less points to spend. If the raiders have to bring twice as many fighters to a fight to make things equal, then they should be able to do so at the same cost as their opponent.
Did that make sense? Ugh, whatever. My point is, raider ships being weaker never made sense to me.
Did that make sense? Ugh, whatever. My point is, raider ships being weaker never made sense to me.
The Raiders do have to bring more fighters and can do so at the same cost - 1 Patrol Point buys 8 Delta V's. They also get a Skirmish level fleet carrier.
What the Raiders don't have is powerful heavy ships. Their capital ships appear to be relatively tough, poorly armed and well supplied with cheap fighters. The whole fleet seems geared to support those fighters and will not do well against the heavy ships of most other fleets.
So don't play them as a battle fleet, play them as Raiders. They're pirates, so give them some civilians to attack. That means something like Convoy Duty or one of the Raiders scenarios in various issues of S&P. Used in that manner, I suspect the Raiders ships are balanced for their PL's.
Back on the theme of win vs. fun, I wouldn't go as far as the suggestion in S&P 46 to refuse to play against anything other than civilians. But, if the other player is using Raiders, I would also not demand to play scenarios like Annihilation. Rather I'd want to play something more suitable, e.g. Convoy Duty at Raid level or lower.
What the Raiders don't have is powerful heavy ships. Their capital ships appear to be relatively tough, poorly armed and well supplied with cheap fighters. The whole fleet seems geared to support those fighters and will not do well against the heavy ships of most other fleets.
So don't play them as a battle fleet, play them as Raiders. They're pirates, so give them some civilians to attack. That means something like Convoy Duty or one of the Raiders scenarios in various issues of S&P. Used in that manner, I suspect the Raiders ships are balanced for their PL's.
Back on the theme of win vs. fun, I wouldn't go as far as the suggestion in S&P 46 to refuse to play against anything other than civilians. But, if the other player is using Raiders, I would also not demand to play scenarios like Annihilation. Rather I'd want to play something more suitable, e.g. Convoy Duty at Raid level or lower.
Democratus
Mongoose
I'm very fortunate to be in a group where playing very hard to win IS considered the fun way to play. We tend to play only large campaigns where wins and losses have "context" - so it makes us even more competitive. If you loose a big battle, it's never too late to get clever and make up for it.
My play at Aldershot, OTOH, was criminally casual. I think I brought a knife to a gun fight!
My play at Aldershot, OTOH, was criminally casual. I think I brought a knife to a gun fight!
That would describe me, all except for the crying at home because I don't tend to fail to win :shock: J/K, in all seriousness I play the games very hard and tactically (like Greg, KennyBoy, etc.) but would much rather a close game than handing out a thrashing. Unfortunately in tournaments, sometimes you have to win a game or two by quite a margin before the players all get paired up with similar ability/fleet power levels but that's a small bugbear.Burger said:
I also tend to choose fleets that are pretty well balanced but are near as powerful as I can make them. What I don't do is choose "one-trick pony" fleets as I both like to have a chance in every game (even if that chance isn't as good as it could be) and I like for my opponent to at least have a chance too. That means I (and my opponent) tend to enjoy every game more.
As some may have noticed though, I do tend to "play to win" too...
Since the Raiders got their ship upgrades in P&P, they tend to be much closer to their PL in power (I agree with l33tpenguin on this issue). That they lack any real big hitting ships is an intentional and strategic flaw but no worse than many fleets. In fact, now for anything at Raid PL or lower I'd consider them a fun and pretty balanced fleet!AdrianH said:
I'd agree - they're a very nice fleet, provided you can keep games small and understand their limitations.
One thing to bear in mind is that raider capital ships tend to play like a low-quality version of a 'classic' ship one level higher; the hull 6, interceptor-protected, boresight laser armed lumbering battlewagon behaves more like a baby Omega or G'Quan than like a normal raid level ship, and the strike carrier behaves a bit like an Avenger heavy carrier or Balvarin chopped in half.
Powers and Principalities made the raiders effective, verging on ridiculous in the right circumstances. Modified Freighters with Heavy Armour and Interceptor Grids may be slow and short ranged but they're ridiculously tough - unless you're turning beam weapons on them, nothing below raid level has a realistic chance of hurting one....making them one of the best initiative sinks in the game.
