Redundancy/Armour - Which Version?

[MongooseMatt]

it also shows you really do read these forums.

Wasn't aware that was in doubt. . .

1: Crits
2: Boresight
3: Init sinking
4: Big ships losing to swarm fleets

I'll go through these, and give my thoughts, as I see them. At least two are tied firmly into the fundamentals of the game, though, and cannot be solved by 'tweaks'. They really would need a new edition of the game - that said, if a new edition of the game was to be done, it would be my intention to either solve the above issues, or remove them altogether.

1. I presume here you mean their effects on larger ships, which is mostly valid. There have also been arguments on critical hits being too common - that I have something of an issue with, as the presence of critical hits is, I feel, one of the draws to the game, and it certainly gives players the feeling of what exactly is happening to their ships. Perhaps a better argument is that critical hits can be _too_ critical. Something to look at.

2. I would actually view Boresights as a 'feature' (using Microsoft terminology) rather than a bug. Anything that changed how Initiative works would have a big effect here though, in another universe, I would look seriously at removing Beams and related super-weapons altogether. CTA works very well when weapons just 'chip' away at enemy ships (our Star Wars mod is superb at reflecting this - not a Beam in sight!).

3. This could also be described as a 'feature', but one that demands rather more attention. There are certainly some options available to players that allow them to 'game' initiative, and I would not be unhappy to see those options go.

4. Now, this one is a relic from 1st edition, before Sky Full of Stars ever appeared. Before the points splits, swarm fleets were greatly curtailed, and the Priority system had a lot more power in reflecting the kindof battle you wanted to play - by giving more options, we flattened its impact altogether.

However, it all stemmed from the idea that two smaller somethings should always be able to win over one slightly larger thing on a level playing field (and level is a relative term in CTA, as it is most certainly a fleet game, not a ship game - an easy trap to fall into). The problem gets magnified when someone starts taking a lot of smaller things (and this is an issue many wargames fall into - it has been fairly well documented in, say, 40k). It is basically an area of the rules where one side was advanced in a rules update, but another was not. We'll certainly be looking into this in the future as, well, big ships are just cool

That said, there always has to be a penalty for putting lots of eggs in one basket (and that may be where critical hits come back into their own - don't know yet though).

Anyway, just some of my own thoughts on your specific concerns. We have always said CTA is an evolving game, and we have never been frightened of what the players themselves have thought. If it were down to me, White Stars would still have the same stats they had in the very 1st edition of the game!

 

[SylvrDragon]

Ok, first. On the reading the forums. I seriously didn't mean that in a bad way. It's not uncommon for game designers, or just companies in general, to pay little-to-no attention to forums. Not personal, just a positive reflection.

To topics at hand...

1: I understand what you mean. And yes, I meant their effects on big ships. I feel that crits are a draw to a game, and I feel they are necessary to attain the feel this game requires. To be specific, it's not cool how vulnerable big ships are to them. Yea I know they add realism, but, realistic or not, it's never fun to have the center piece to your fleet critted into a useless hulk. Especially when it still has 50%+ of hits damage remaining. : / I have never, ever fielded an Armageddon because of this, and I've largely stopped fielding wars because of it. I mainly field raids to be honest. I'll put maybe a battle or 2 just for fun, but I don't expect them to do much more than a Carnifex would. lol

2: I agree, it's a feature...er, "feature", and it adds a nice feel to certain fleets. But it can be quite the handicap at times. TTT goes a long way to help this, but I fear it adds other issues. <.< I also realize this is a hard issues to deal with, as it is so closely tied to raw game mechanics.

3: I personally have never been bothered by init sinks, aside from its poor effect on boresight, I just simply listed it because it is a commonly agreed upon issues. I play Dilgar, so I abuse init sinking as much as possible, and I enjoy doing so. lol

4: I liked the old point break system better than the 2nd ed one. I must admit I'm aslo very pleased with the P&P breakdown...though my Drazi friend isn't so much. :twisted:

And yes, that is exactly the problem! If 2 smaller things can beat up a slightly larger thing, then what can the 2 slightly smaller things for each of those 2 slightly smaller things do to the now much larger thing!...even I find that slightly confusing after having said it. But it's true. Many games, including 40k, have that problem. I personally washed my hands of GW, and it's games, many years ago. Still visit the local game store every now and then, but not to play. I just like seeing my old Manager, very cool guy.

Problem with an evolving game is the inevitable growing pains. I am glad to see you do actually care though....again, nothing personal on that statement so much. I just don't expect much from most game designers these days. Gaming in general has become so much more about the money, and less about the game. Very disheartening.

Oh, and I have to admit I was relieved to see changes in the White Stars back when the did change. My best friends played ISA back then and god where those White Stars a pain in my ass. lol In the game the other day, however, I was really envying the 3+ dodge my friend used to enjoy. lol

 

[nekomata fuyu]

One issue I would have with those 4 points: points 2 and 3 are near enough the same problem viewed from different angles. If you fixed initiative, there wouldn't be a boresight problem. If you removed boresights from the game, you would still have the initiative problem, but it would stand out a lot less and would probably just be something that a few diehards want fixing*.

With regards to beams being superweapons, that was originally because we sometimes see beams slicing ships in half, correct? Thinking back though, wasn't it just the Ancients and Minbari we see wielding these superbeams? If so, the beam mechanic could be changed to something like like a superweapon, and it could just be the Ancients and Minbari that get some trait on their beams to turn them into slicers. Also, how often do we see the Minbari slicing ships up does anyone remember? I personally can only remember the Trigati, so it may well be that that particular ship was a specialist, and that even Minbari beams aren't superbeams as a rule of thumb.


*You know the type. The one one who will stop at nothing until the game is 100% perfect.

 

[SylvrDragon]

*You know the type. The one one who will stop at nothing until the game is 100% perfect.

Though it may be unattainable. It still sounds like an excellent goal to me! X3

 

[Clanger]

I like the idea of the larger ships ignoring X crit effects per game based on Priority level (Battle+ Level).

An idea I had would be Half the Hull as a crit effect redundancy with Battle + 1 War + 2 Armageddon + 3. Then modified by Race. For Example Narn + 1, Vorlon +1, Shadow +1, Pak +1.

Re the super weapons. I like the idea that "slicer" beams should be limited. Keep them for the Shadows, Vorlons and their favoured Races the Minbari and Drakh.

 

[AdrianH]

I voted for save versus effects but not damage. If I'd had a second choice, it would have been ignore X hits. Either the save or the X should be dependent on ship size, represented either by priority level or initial damage points.

It's mostly the Shadows, Vorlons, Minbari and Drakh who already have the super-powerful beams - multi-damage precise. Other races tend to have either multi-damage or precise, but not both. I'm not sure how often we actually saw a beam slice a ship in half, apart from big Shadow ships doing it to G'Quans. (Where do people get the idea that Narn ships are particularly resilient? ) And then there was the Trigati, which had its drive fin sliced off; that's a relatively thin part of the ship, and it's also a good example of a 1,6 critical.

 

[Burger]

And then there was the Trigati, which had its drive fin sliced off; that's a relatively thin part of the ship, and it's also a good example of a 1,6 critical.

I think they'd need slightly more than CQ9 to repair that with damage control!

 

[AdrianH]

True, but there is no "engines disabled" vital systems critical. Maybe something to consider if a 2D6 critical table is introduced... Meanwhile, give the Trigati a "No Damage Control" critical as well.

 

[phoenixhawk]

I don't want it to be a roll, since I always fail those rolls. Like the close blast doors, I managed to save 1 die of two dozen damage dice that hit me. I like to use the larger and higher PL ships, especially given that I like Crusade EA, and so I like the idea of having the bigger ships shrug off a bit of damage and the first crit.

Chris

 

[Silvereye]

I'd prefer just the first X critical effects get ignored. The Criticals damage should be applied as normal.

You'll probably find that any 'armour' type protection in the damage track would be burned through pretty quickly and not really help out much, unless you have a large amount of 'armour'.

No if you can just sneak in those proportional speed crits as well....

 

[Da Boss]

The problem is that there are thousands of CTA players in the world, and they all have different opinions. What you see as 'obvious', someone else may just shrug at - or be absolutely opposed to.

Added to that, P&P was _never_ intended to be a wholesale change to the game and, as the Five Good Men know, there have already been more fundamental changes than I had originally intended driven, in part, by both them and the playtesting done here. The original brief for the supplement was to give players 'cool things to do'. Nothing more.

Many of the ideas raised during this playetesting would be better placed in a new edition of the game - and you can be sure we are taking notes about them. There will be some more information on our future plans in the forthcoming State of the Mongoose.

Hmm I understand the point in not constantly tweeking things. The danger to me seemed to be that releasing a new supplement without addressing percieved problems and weakness's BUT adding "cool" things" that could in actuality cause much more problems (Original space station rules, Bonehead, Centauri wolf pack) could mean the worst of both worlds.

The game presently is very good - most enjoyable but tweeking is an essential part of development IMHO and many of the new addiitons - some evolved from the forum are going to help the games.............again I would have liked to see:

More small adjustments to a larger number of ships
no "useless" ships like the Vorlon Dreadnought when there are much more interesting ways to add tho their fleet
A new ship (variant) for each fleet - now thats cool, especially since some races, lets face it, have proved too hard to come up with something cool - pak'mara?
Unique Admiral per fleet (and rules that make them usable)

I can imagine however from your point of view that is has been a little disapointing that perhaps there has not been enough playtesting (and I am as guilty as anyone else of this) However there were aspects to the document that were self evidently in need of revision before proper testing could be carried out and I think this is what confused/surprised people.

It was concerning to me at least that when the playtest document came out - how "broken" the Space Station and few other rules were - most suprising that they had in fact lasted in this state to this stage. The present version is better but not usable - Triggy has come up with / collated ideas but is that an official revision - one hopes so?

re a new edition fixing things - all very good but we are playing in the present and being impatiant gaming types "Want it now" and surely P+P or indeed S+P would be a good place to start trying to sort out perceived and actual problems.

but I think thanks is due for the opportunity to contribute.

 

[Tolwyn]

I'm missing the ship for the winner of the Earth-Centauri War. It could be the long wanted EA Raid Level ship :wink:

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I'm missing the ship for the winner of the Earth-Centauri War. It could be the long wanted EA Raid Level ship :wink:

They got the fusion missile from that...

 

[Tolwyn]

No thank you :? . I dislike the entire Fusion Missile idea, please no more E-Mine like weapons.

 

[Burger]

Minbari's web of death would be better if it had the e-mine trait. That is a better representation of an anti-fighter screen, than just giving them a reduced-power "escort"!

 

[Triggy]

I'm missing the ship for the winner of the Earth-Centauri War. It could be the long wanted EA Raid Level ship :wink:

It would have been but since miniature production went on hiatus these plans had to be halted.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Minbari's web of death would be better if it had the e-mine trait. That is a better representation of an anti-fighter screen, than just giving them a reduced-power "escort"!

You men, shang-hai the pak'ma'ra plasma web rules? Maybe drop the squadron requirement?

 

[Ripple]

Do we even need more answers that simple remove options? How often do folks take fighters vs the Narn? It's a total waste of time, so folks simply don't do it.

Too many things in this game don't degrade things, they simply trump them.

Ripple

 

[Tolwyn]

I'm missing the ship for the winner of the Earth-Centauri War. It could be the long wanted EA Raid Level ship :wink:

It would have been but since miniature production went on hiatus these plans had to be halted.

As IWM now has the production why not ? :wink:

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Probably because they're still trying to sort out the current models?