Playtest - Whitestar

[eldiablito]

Before I begin, this is not an attack upon wpngjstr, just a response to his list of ideas...

General feeling is that WS with CBD is too powerful, due to Beam snipers (ignoring for the moment that others can do this (cough Teshlan cough))

The WS, IMO, is not too powerful with CBD... If anything, the ship just has too many little things in it's favor to make the correct change hard to pin down: AA combined with Dodge is good, it is tough with CBD and it's ability to stay out of range from enemy secondaries "appears" to be the issue. That said, although Teshlans seem to play a similar role and have comparable weapons to the White Star, fail to be as nasty a raid level ship because Teshlans only have 2 turns at 45 and the White Star has 2 turns at 90. In effect, it sounds like I'm for removing CBD on White Stars, far from it; I just think that a subtle change is all that is required to make them fall in line with the rest of the ships out there.

Effectiveness of dodge varies widely with all the "anti dodge" weapons available...

Indeed. This is probably the biggest reason why the ISA was given such a wide variety of allies. Instead of being used to offset Narn E-mines or EA firebolts, people are able to bring some SERIOUS firepower to support the WS and make the fleet really nasty. Today, the Minbari suffer from similar problems because e-mines and killer fighters also are tough for stealth reliant fleets, but they do not have access to allies. So, I would just not worry about this weakness and try to find other ways to soften the fleet.

WS perceived maneuverability is hurt by the initiative system

Huh? Not quite. The fleet is hurt IF they are given bore-sight weapons. So, keeping their forward arc is fine by me... At least until the game gets a MAJOR overhaul.

The fire power Nerf is seen by many as too much (ISA players) and many as good (opponents of ISA players)

Not quite... As a Minbari and Vree player, I am against this change. I fall in the group of the fire power nerf is too much AND an opponent of the ISA. If you don't believe me, go check out the Vree 1.1 thread.

Boresight is debated as being canon (ship design) and non cannon (maneuverability)

Yup... if the bore-sight guns are altered or the initiative based system is changed, then the WS could change it's neutron beam to become bore-sight... Until that happens, the maneuverability of the ship should trump the appearance of the beam within the show.

-Shorten beam ranges to make it a knife fighter, as many of us already play them (and watch them die a lot) suggestions run about 10-12" for both weapons)

Yes! This would make them much more vulnerable to multiple weapon systems baring down on them. It requires less altering the game system and simply balancing a single ship; a good fix given that we are only getting a single revision of the current book and not a v3.0 for the game.

-drop Precise (either just for the WS Beam or across the board)

if you force the White start to get in closer, they will not CBD as often; They will loose the opportunity to fire their great secondary weapon too. IOW, precise isn't the issue, it is giving the enemy a chance to hammer away at the tough little bugger.

Edit: Ah yes, ISA and allies. Feeling that it allows for abuse by covering ISA fleet gaps, with the expansions to the ISA fleet, perhaps not as needed. Suggested alternatives include; no allies, ISA become an allies choice for other fleets, or limiting the selection of allies (certain ships or ISD ranges)

As mentioned earlier, I do like the idea if the ISA only has access to a limited number of ships (cannon only would be preferred). Also, from a fluff point of view, it could be fun to open up all Minbari, Narn, League and Earth fleets to taking a FAP worth of White Stars. This does help me greatly, so I can understand if it makes me seem biased.

Give it the SM capability the Vree have, probably as a SA, rather than the new AS&T capability. This would also reflect a knife fighting role, and demonstrate their legendary maneuverability. I would make it a maximum of 4-6" move while SM rather than 1/2 speed.

Although I too think that SM would make the fleet move closer to the show, I think that they are fine enough with 2 turns at 90 degrees WITH agile.

 

[Da Boss]

Pretty much agree with all of the previous post - Nice

 

[wpngjstr]

Not in any way seen as an attack. I would observe that I (tried to) neither support nor oppose anything before "my perspectives", but rather simply tried to list the major arguments as I understood them (yes, that meant I oversimplified at times- mea culpa)

Full Disclosure: I play ISA (Big ship heavy, with WS "Knife fighters") Also EA-crusade, Narn, Gaim(post nerf)

 

[l33tpenguin]

You might want to try reading the actual suggestion rather than just an incomplete synopsis of it before complaining about a suggestion you neither know anything about nor understand.

I do know and I do understand the basis of speed based initiative, it's been discussed before at length and it's still a *bad* solution for ACTA as a game. I really don't think that breaking the entire system is worthwhile to fix one ship but that's just my opinion of course.

However, thank you for your comments and your opinions, I shall bear them in mind for future reference....


Regards,

Dave

Speed based initiative isn't to fix one ship, it actually has nothing to do with the WS. Speed based initiative would be to fix init sinking. Even if you are skining at the same speed, you can have as many extra ships as you want, but your slow lumbering ships isn't going to 'magically' outperform faster ships. I *hate* *hate* *hate* that a Ka'bin'tak can be the most 'agile' ship on the board, getting a bore sight every time it wants as long as there are more ships sinking for it that its opponent. Thats just stupid.

Speed based initiative added with a strong (not TTT) SA to allow ships to track and engage a specific target (oh, kinda like how a ship would in the real world) rather than trying to guess where it is going to move (you don't GUESS movement, you FOLLOW it) would fix bore sighting, fix init sinking and make game play closer to realistic.

 

[CZuschlag]

Ok, I'm going to take task to this.

What we have with this miniatures system is PanzerBush. And PanzerBush was never realistic, ever.

For those of who you don't know, Panzerblitz was the first successful (and continues to be wildly successful) modern tacitcal boardgame. Avalon Hill published it in the 1960's and caused a revolution. All the succeeding WWII tactical games owe it as inspiration, from Squad Leader to Panzer Grenadier to computer games such as Battlefield 1942.

Not that it was perfect. You see, you couldn't fire during your opponents turn. So, you could take a tank from a hidden position in the woods, drive it across an open plain, and, as long at it ended in the bushes again at the end of the turn, was totally invulnerable. This phenomenon was called "Panzerbush".

From Wikipedia:

Although the abstract simplicity of PanzerBlitz attracted a wide following, certain unrealistic aspects were heavily criticized. Units in towns and wooded hexes were invisible unless an enemy unit was directly adjacent to them, even though those units may have moved to that position in full view of the enemy, and fired from it as well. This ability of units to hop from one woods hex to another without being seen or fired upon was called "Panzerbush Syndrome", and Panzerbush became a scornful nickname for the game itself. The game provided a cumbersome optional rule to overcome this, but the later versions of the system (Panzer Leader and The Arab-Israeli Wars ) provided much better solutions, such as "opportunity fire" and more realistic rules for spotting and visibility. In these systems, a hidden unit that fires on the enemy becomes "spotted" and can be fired upon in return. A common practice for those who desire more realism is to play Panzer Blitz with the Panzer Leader spotting rules.

Notice that the answer to the problem was opportunity fire. Many miniature games have created such things, and we could have its use here, too; ships can zoom through other's firing arcs and never give a shot. Boresight is a fantastic example of this. But games like that are usually not fast-and-loose like ACtA is; they are slow affairs with "Wait" actions and the like.

ACtA is clearly not going down that road.

If this is the case, then, we have to agree to what PanzerBlitz as an original agreed to: this is a game, and not a simulation. And if you want more reality and still have a game, you're going to have to give up on complexity.

Speed-based initiative sounds like an answer, but I predict, with great confidence --- it doesn't work here, either. Seriously,

-- with its low speed of 4", shorter range, and F-only arc, will the Wahant ever get a shot?
-- how about the Jucaya?
-- the Octurion?
-- the Rohric?
-- and how is it, again, that the Vree under SM would almost always have to move first, if we are trying for reflecting maneouverability?
-- the speed at which you can all stop and pivot has nothing to do with your turn rate and everything to do with your speed?

It's a game. We're looking for balance and fun. We are not looking to create a tactical treatise on starship combat. I want PanzerBlitz, not Advanced Squad Leader.

The ASL of space combat is Star Fleet Battles. Leave that to them, this is for us.

 

[l33tpenguin]

It's a game. We're looking for balance and fun. We are not looking to create a tactical treatise on starship combat. I want PanzerBlitz, not Advanced Squad Leader.

The ASL of space combat is Star Fleet Battles. Leave that to them, this is for us.

I know... thread derailment...

I agree, I don't want a complex game system, I enjoy ACtA for its fast and quick game play. I remember taking *days* to finish a game of B5 Wars. Because of that, I've designed a speed based initiative that doesn't add much to the pace of the game. Instead of a base initaitive, you have a base initiative + a ships speed. Hopefully we are all capable of doing some basic math Is it more work? Yes. But not noticably so, and I think that the advantages to game play it brings outweight the cost of a slight time increase

As for your questions,

-- with its low speed of 4", shorter range, and F-only arc, will the Wahant ever get a shot?
-- how about the Jucaya?
-- the Octurion?
-- the Rohric?

Yes. The 'Bring Weapons to Bear' SA that is house ruled lets any ship declare a target and track to engage it. While faster ships WILL be able to get out of line of sight, it can be difficult. The SA basicly allows the ship to save a single turn for after the target has moved.

-- and how is it, again, that the Vree under SM would almost always have to move first, if we are trying for reflecting maneouverability?

Maneouverability, in my opinion, does not reflect speed. I can do back flips, but if I'm doing them in the same spot over and over again it would be easy to train a weapon on me. SM is just that. You can turn all you want, it doesn't take you out of the crosshairs. You just get shot in the butt instead.

-- the speed at which you can all stop and pivot has nothing to do with your turn rate and everything to do with your speed?

How I've written them, SAs and crit damage affect your speed, which affects your order in initiative. If a ship declares All Stop, its speed, for initiative, becomes 0. Just the same, APTE can be used to move a ship to a higher initiative group.

Although, I just realized I need to put a comment that all ships declaring AS or ASnP must do so at the beginning of initiative... Thanks

Edit: A speed based initiative is not something I would expect or try to push for until a new edition is underway. While I could understand it as an optional rule, it is too much of a change (that I will admit, requires play testing. My resources are limited) to enter the game outside of a new edition. The 'Bring Weapons to Bear' SA, on the other hand would fit in nicely and eliminate a lot of issues. Of course, again, my resources to test these rules are limited. I appreciate those that have requested a copy of my house rules. Feed back is appreciated

 

[l33tpenguin]

On topic -

I would love to see the White Star as a knife fighter. We never see the WS used as a sniper platform, and its 18 inch beam lets it. Now, 18 inches isn't huge, but when you combine the WSs defenses, speed and maneuverability, its effective. Bringing it into most secondary range would be fitting to what we see in the show. Leave its AD the same, drop the range to the 10-12 area (no boresight) and I think you would see a much more accurate depiction to what is on screen: the white star getting up close and personal with its opponents while still using its beam to full effect.

 

[Methos5000]

I agree the range of the beam should be shorter. We have to be careful when deciding its range though, at 10" the Vree are very dangerous to Whitestars(and the gunship/carrier assuming these changes apply to them too) at raid and above. They can potentially outmaneuver a Whitestar and it would be impossible for a WS to get out of arc while facing an absolute ton of AD.

Personally I would like to see 12" for both guns. At 12" they still have to be in the thick of things and will still be able to be targeted by many of the larger ships (Whitestars couldn't outflank an Octurion, for example).

Perhaps that is too much...what do you guys think?

 

[Ripple]

Off topic speed = initiative thing

By allowing ships to effectively 'slow to zero' they can now sink again for the big ships. Your speed based initiative doesn't help with sinking, your SA does. For Hermes in the corner on ALL Stop is still a painful sink issue making that Omega dance like a gypsy maiden.

To Chris's argument - I agree we don't want to go down the ASL road, but some issues like sinking and boresight need addressing in some way. We can't chase side shooting whitestars (strafe) if we aren't going to also chase opportunity fire.

On topic -

I like the idea of the whitestar as a short range knife fighter. It isn't a bad fix, though I like bore too... if accompanied by a good version of TTT or other suggestion for following a target. The original version of TTT was better as you traded firepower for arc (even if boresights had gotten a 50% increase in AD for being bore, use of TTT would have still left them 75% of the firepower of equivalent other ships, and down an SA).

When the ship was trolling for crits with the 1 AD beam, it was rarely used as a sniper... folks wanted to throw more dice. The changes in second ed really changed the ships play style as CBD became way more effective and the second die on the beam, though less accurate against hulls 5 and 4, made it a more significant threat... again as any single hit could cripple a ship of its own class due to x3 crits.

So shorten the range to get the ship back in to the short fight... good solution to some of the issue. I still think it will destroy any race with shorter secondaries that isn't able to field the stack of mines... but maybe.

Ripple

 

[Hindsight]

When we drop to 10-12" on all our weapons, which I think seems to be the consensus change, I think we also need some more damage, as we're going to be soaking up attack dice, and I'd like 2-4 more damage to absorb this, as it is now, White Stars drop like flies when they do knife fight, so some kind of balance that keeps it in line with 1.0 Raid would be great.

I will say that I'll be using Jump Tech a lot more, jumping in to just the right spot, to surgically do what the White Stars do.

yea... Vree suck =) Thats a lot of dice, without any arc... = Dead White Stars. Once our range drops, we won't have a lot of options in destroying them.

 

[Foxmeister]

When we drop to 10-12" on all our weapons, which I think seems to be the consensus change, I think we also need some more damage, as we're going to be soaking up attack dice, and I'd like 2-4 more damage to absorb this, as it is now, White Stars drop like flies when they do knife fight, so some kind of balance that keeps it in line with 1.0 Raid would be great.

That would work, but only against races which have secondaries within the 10" to 12" range. For those with lower ranges (thinking Abbai, Narn, some EA), all you are effectively doing is making the WS harder to kill when you increase their DPs since they will still be able to get round the back and shoot and scoot with no return fire.

That being said, I'm not a fan of 8" secondaries anyway. I think for the most part, there is too much variation in secondary weapons range making some of the largely superfluous - a G'Quan may have bucket o'secondaries, but it seldom gets to use them unless someone "decides" to put one of their ships in harms way.



Regards,

Dave

 

[Rawwar]

I really like the short range idea but being a Narn player I agree with what Foxmeister says whether it was 10 or 12 inches it wouldn’t make a hill of beans to me. However if we go down the road of overhauling all secondary’s you’re into new edition territory again.

Some of the best games I’ve seen have been Minbari v ISA simply because the Minbari have the ability to retaliate when the White Stars attack them. As both fleets are very quick or potentially so this makes for a much better B5 experience (very close to how fleet battles appear on the show).

Dare anyone reduce a White Star’s range to 8” and leave everything else as is at present? If you come screaming in at full tilt and in a squadron you can still take a ship out in one pass the only down side is you actually might pay something for doing it.

Alternatively leave the pulse gibbles as is & reduce the beam to 8” and leave it at 2AD as the pulsars are fired a lot more often on the show.
If White Stars had to come in range of my guns so I could retaliate I would care how manoeuvrable they were so they could have SM to vi with the Vree if you really wanted.

Just thoughts thrown into the hat so don’t crucify me for it.

 

[Jetbaker]

I like the 8 in range on the White Star. That definetly gives them that knife fighter look and feel. I am sure people will not like 8 inch range but just compare it to the Shadow Scout that only has 8 inch range and still performs very well. I am sure the same can be said for the White Star as well.

 

[Foxmeister]

I like the 8 in range on the White Star. That definetly gives them that knife fighter look and feel. I am sure people will not like 8 inch range but just compare it to the Shadow Scout that only has 8 inch range and still performs very well. I am sure the same can be said for the White Star as well.

I certainly think it would engender the use of more canon tactics, rather than sit back and snipe tactics that are more often employed. It's certainly an idea that warrants a fair bit of playtesting though as I can definitely see the argument for some extra hull points to compensate.

Regards,

Dave

 

[skavendan]

As long as they don't get extra crew that's fine :twisted:

 

[Rawwar]

Well as we’re in play testing mode at the moment it could be one to throw out to everyone along with some of the others. You could give an and/or to ISA players see which they prefer this or the current nerf?

Damage wise that’s something we could look at after initial play testing, I say look later because I find Whit Stars very tough already even when I can draw a bead on them.

 

[Foxmeister]

Damage wise that’s something we could look at after initial play testing, I say look later because I find Whit Stars very tough already even when I can draw a bead on them.

True, but when you are getting into secondary range you are often looking at quite a few more dice, so the WS are going to get hit more often even with layered defenses.

Regards,

Dave

 

[l33tpenguin]

Off topic speed = initiative thing

By allowing ships to effectively 'slow to zero' they can now sink again for the big ships. Your speed based initiative doesn't help with sinking, your SA does. For Hermes in the corner on ALL Stop is still a painful sink issue making that Omega dance like a gypsy maiden.

With my current speed init rules, this wouldn't help. Yes, you CAN sink ships at the same speed. But that only works against other ships of the same speed. A fleet of Omegas facing a fleet of G'quans, for instance, Yes, they could sink against each other. If EVERYONE is doing AS, then all ships would be at the same inititive score (pending inititive rolls).

For the omega, with its speed of 8, though, a ship that did an all stop would be in a low inititive bracket (they are broken up in groups of 6) so it couldn't sink for the omega.

Further more, using All Stop is more than likely going to put that ship in a lower init group than your opponent, meaning that their faster moving ships will move after your AS ship.

You roll a 4 for inititive, your oppoent gets a 2. You use all stop on your hermes, its inititive score is 4. Your oppoent uses APTE on his Omega, its inititive score is now 2(init roll)+8(base speed)+4(50% from APTE)=14. ships with a score of 1-6 move first (your hermes), then 7-12 then 13-18 (his omega)

 

[Rawwar]

Dave Dave Dave Dave Dave

Come on now you know secondary’s do naff all to White Stars, you’d be lucky to score a point of damage. Well I would with Narn Secondary’s.
Ask Dan he’ll back me up Shadow Omega’s did nothing to them with their side fire either, I’d have laughed if I hadn’t been equally appalled.

Basically my approach is to change one thing at a time & see how it goes. Then if that’s ok change the next thing ie more damage if it become obvious they need it. That way when you do the one thing that breaks it you know what it is & can fix it with one step back. If you change too many things at once you almost have to get rid of the lot & start again to see what broke it therefore making more work.

They’re still going to have the speed & the manoeuvrability to get round our main weaponry & a few of them together & it’s pop dead big ship. So that on its own might not be the end of it but we’d have to wait for feedback & see.

 

[l33tpenguin]

Dave Dave Dave Dave Dave

Come on now you know secondary’s do naff all to White Stars, you’d be lucky to score a point of damage. Well I would with Narn Secondary’s.
Ask Dan he’ll back me up Shadow Omega’s did nothing to them with their side fire either, I’d have laughed if I hadn’t been equally appalled.

Basically my approach is to change one thing at a time & see how it goes. Then if that’s ok change the next thing ie more damage if it become obvious they need it. That way when you do the one thing that breaks it you know what it is & can fix it with one step back. If you change too many things at once you almost have to get rid of the lot & start again to see what broke it therefore making more work.

They’re still going to have the speed & the manoeuvrability to get round our main weaponry & a few of them together & it’s pop dead big ship. So that on its own might not be the end of it but we’d have to wait for feedback & see.

Thats a good idea. Try the White Stars out with a 10 inch beam and 12 inch pulsars. See how well they fair at close quarters. Are they getting shredded and not able to put out the damage that a raid ship is worth before getting slaughtered? If they are getting slaughtered before their worth, is it because of crew loss or damage? Balance them out one step at a time.