emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Davesaint said:
:shock: What allowed the AMERICANS to win? Somebody's been taking U-571 and such films as fact!
Roleplayer vs Wargamer
- Thread starter Geekybiker
- Start date
:shock: What allowed the AMERICANS to win? Somebody's been taking U-571 and such films as fact!
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
Geekybiker said:
More PLs at release would have solved this. Instead, if the Sharlin had been the only of the younger races at PL6, where the Vorlons and Shadows also had ships, things might feel more balanced while still true to the show.
Geekybiker
Mongoose
hiffano said:
What the Russians? The french resistance? The australians?
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
emperorpenguin said:
Aren't you aware that america is single handedly responsible for the victory in Europe? I mean, what a small feat is it for us to defeat Germany when we were responsible for such things as founding of modern religion, Cloning, the great wall of china, Cold Fusion, the letter 'Q' and panda bears?
Geekybiker
Mongoose
l33tpenguin said:
I think you forgot that America is responsible for Chuck Norris.
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
Geekybiker said:
That is circular reasoning, since Chuck Norris is responsible for America, the new world and pandas
emperorpenguin said:
I do not discount the contributions of the British or the Russians. But what allowed the American units to win battles against a technologically superior foe in the Germans, especially in armor, was Airpower, Huge numbers of tanks, and a darn good Anti-Tank weapon in the Jackson and the Hellcat.
And no, I do not take U-571 as fact. Especially since, as a Chicago Native, I have the U-505 for touring. They have accounts of both sides of that conflict for review. It's an excellent display.
BTW for all of the Brits out there, don't forget just how much material we sent you under Lend-Lease that allowed you to keep the sea lanes open, and helped keep the skys clear of ME-109's and Ju88's. Not to mention the Million plus troops we provided. WW2 was not won alone, afterall, we needed a good place to base all of our B-17's from. :wink:
Dave
Picking up the whole "balance" and wargamer vs. roleplayer issue...
I think at the core everyone wants a fun game, be you wargamer, roleplayer or some unholy hybrid of the two. To be quite frank we're all playing a game that involves moving pretty little toy spaceships around and throwing dice which pretty much puts us into an "elite" category all of our own from mainstream humanity without having to sub-divide further.
However, rather than wargamer and roleplayer let's say we have two, non-exclusive, tendencies...
Type A: Simulation aka "Copycat Generals"
Now some people think it's fun, if they run a simulation i.e. re-create things like the Battle of the Line, and, if playing EA, try their damnedest to last as long as possible before succumbing to the inevitable Minbari beam ass-whopping. The fun there ISN'T in the winning (well maybe for Minbari), but rather in the recreation, the feel, and seeing how you compare to the historical (or in this case fictional) event.
Type B: Cointossers aka "50-50 Gamblers"
Course, we can all see that some find the most fun in 50 - 50 games, and they identify "balance" as an equal shot at winning over a single game and the theme can go hang itself as long as the game remains "balanced" and therefore fun.
Two types of "fun" here folks, question is - What do you want? I kind of like both types of game depending on my mood and you can experience both in what I think is the *best* part of ACTA and that is CAMPAIGN play. Campaign play generates a range of scenarios from those were winning is simple to an outside chance at best. Seeing how you cope in face of near overwhelming odds can be fun (at times) and campaign play lets you play the full range of possibilities. Conversely your opponent(s) will have to do likewise so by minimise your losses and choosing your battles carefully you have a fair chance of coming out on top even if you get screwed over a little along the way.
In the words of my avatar, - What do you want?
I think at the core everyone wants a fun game, be you wargamer, roleplayer or some unholy hybrid of the two. To be quite frank we're all playing a game that involves moving pretty little toy spaceships around and throwing dice which pretty much puts us into an "elite" category all of our own from mainstream humanity without having to sub-divide further.
However, rather than wargamer and roleplayer let's say we have two, non-exclusive, tendencies...
Type A: Simulation aka "Copycat Generals"
Now some people think it's fun, if they run a simulation i.e. re-create things like the Battle of the Line, and, if playing EA, try their damnedest to last as long as possible before succumbing to the inevitable Minbari beam ass-whopping. The fun there ISN'T in the winning (well maybe for Minbari
), but rather in the recreation, the feel, and seeing how you compare to the historical (or in this case fictional) event.Type B: Cointossers aka "50-50 Gamblers"
Course, we can all see that some find the most fun in 50 - 50 games, and they identify "balance" as an equal shot at winning over a single game and the theme can go hang itself as long as the game remains "balanced" and therefore fun.
Two types of "fun" here folks, question is - What do you want? I kind of like both types of game depending on my mood and you can experience both in what I think is the *best* part of ACTA and that is CAMPAIGN play. Campaign play generates a range of scenarios from those were winning is simple to an outside chance at best. Seeing how you cope in face of near overwhelming odds can be fun (at times) and campaign play lets you play the full range of possibilities. Conversely your opponent(s) will have to do likewise so by minimise your losses and choosing your battles carefully you have a fair chance of coming out on top even if you get screwed over a little along the way.
In the words of my avatar, - What do you want?
Neo
Mongoose
Geekybiker said:
I think the question is worded in a particularly one way biased point of view. Not all roleplayers who play ACTA are fixated on maintaining the relative feel of species in relation to the show over balance.. but certainly a happy medium must be maintained or your minbari cease to be minbari, your narn are no longer narn etc.. anf if you want something generic and not themed then there is nothing stopping people just making up thier own factions and ships and simply making use of the system for something other than B5.. indeed people have done that on these forums.. I've seen Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica conversions etc..
Ideally though things should be a happy balance between accuracy and theme and game balance and useability.
Geekybiker said:
Can you imagine the outrage on here if no Sharlin was included :shock:
Mad, man, mad (you been out in the sun?).
You are right of course, the PL system has hamstrung us. From what I remember from B5W a Sharlin equated approximately to 2 Omegas in pts. (and 3 or 4 under 1st ed?) - which seemed reasonably balanced during play. Could easily have been done here as as these are the sort of ratios the PL system is good for without getting into the nit-picking of odd points.
Slightly Norse John
Mongoose
With the Sharlin at War and the Omega at Battle, one Sharlin equates to two Omega in PLs anyway.
Strategy consists of trying to avoid a fair fight, anyway, giving your own people the maximum possible chance, and screwing the enemy as thoroughly as humanly (or Minbarily) possible.
Strategy consists of trying to avoid a fair fight, anyway, giving your own people the maximum possible chance, and screwing the enemy as thoroughly as humanly (or Minbarily) possible.
Geekybiker
Mongoose
philogara said:
Yah, I know. But the bigger shadow and vorlon units have been excluded thus far for the exact same reason.
Using b5w comparisons is pretty useless here though as stealth in the b5w was considerably weaker. Dont get me wrong, it was still powerful, but nowhere near ACTA stealth. However aside from the playing time factor I always felt that the main races in b5w(SOTF 1 ships) were pretty well balanced. Minor issues here and there but nothing that couldnt be over come.
If it wasnt for all the pesky bookeeping.....
