Roleplayer vs Wargamer

[Geekybiker]

It seems that we have two distinct camps here on this forum.

Wargamers- people who came from other tactical systems and first and foremost want a balanced system that allows a realistic chance to win with any race at any PL. The b5 theme and story considerations are always secondary to balance.

Roleplayers- People from the b5 rpg or just fans of the TV show. Mainly concerned about perserving the relative feel of the different races. IE a Sharlin should be able to destroy just about anything 'cause it did in the show. Ancients should be terrifying, etc. If it makes for impossible match ups, so be it.

So what camp do you feel like you belong to?

 

[Celisasu]

BOTH! Point system for the win. 500 point Sharlin that can kill three 150 point Omegas!


Seriously though, that's my view. I want a balanced system that keeps the flavor of the fleets. If you're playing Narn and assuming equal fleet values you should have an equal chance of either side winning even if it's the Minbari. On the other hand I want the fleets to be accurately represented. If this means that four G'Quans are considered to be equal to one Sharlin, then the system should have them valued as such. That's why I've always liked point systems and I'm happy to hear that War Without End has chosen to go that path. I'd rather like the 3rd Edition of Call to Arms to go that way as well. They don't need to do silly numbers like "A G'Quan is 127 points while a Sharlin is 902 points". Multiples of 5 would be good and easy to work with. Or multiples of ten where every ship has a value that can be divided by ten.

 

[WickedE]

All I know is, in a Wargame? I don't have to worry about.."Would my Character do this?" When I'm ravaging an Omega Destroyer with Centauri Battle lasers.

 

[B5freak]

Wargamer. Though some fleets should be better than others at some things, and there should be a definite "behind the power curve" issue for fleets like EA in early time periods (i.e. EA will have a harder time against Minbari/Centauri in 2230 than in 2260), all the fleets should be pretty balanced by the time we get into the 2260's.

The Flames of War folks have done a great job of capturing Germany's advantage at the beginning of WWII and then having that advantage slowly degraded by Allied advancements as the war progressed. I see no reason why B5 should be any different.

 

[Cailet]

Much as I like roleplaying, in B5 I do want to have an evens (or slightly worse) chance of winning, not a 'roll PL, if Battle or above, concede defeat, against ISA the Raid or above' style of game.

 

[Geekybiker]

Wargamer. Though some fleets should be better than others at some things, and there should be a definite "behind the power curve" issue for fleets like EA in early time periods (i.e. EA will have a harder time against Minbari/Centauri in 2230 than in 2260), all the fleets should be pretty balanced by the time we get into the 2260's.

The Flames of War folks have done a great job of capturing Germany's advantage at the beginning of WWII and then having that advantage slowly degraded by Allied advancements as the war progressed. I see no reason why B5 should be any different.

You see, that would put you square in the roleplayer camp to me. That they should be weaker vs another race because of historical concerns. Unless early EA ships were all lower priority level so that you could balance their poor design with lots of em.

 

[Malarion]

Wargamer. 80%.

Roleplay because I really like campaigns and Characters on ships. But then again, its really really hard to get a campaign started.

On the table I only want to have even chances at winning. If Sheridans Omgea gets ravaged by a single G'Quan from 38 damage down to 4, to hell with the background. The fun is far more important than the historical accuracy. (Oh yeah its not fun if you think: "Oh NO not Minbari at Battle PL...")

 

[Slightly Norse John]

This seems like a choice between two different definitions of 'unbalanced'. Neither option seems to be a positive one.
Anybody remember- I'm sure you do- OGRE? Evil Stevie Jackson? One side had massively more powerful individual units than the other, but it balanced out because of the hordes on the other side, and made for a good game precisely because of it's asymmetry.
The unit list was several orders of magnitude simpler, but it worked- is that the direction you really want to go in?

 

[lastbesthope]

A healthy mix of both!!!

LBH

 

[B5freak]

Geekybiker,

The concerns aren't at all roleplayer, they're actually wargamer in the traditional "historical" sense of the word. You simply have to baseline the game to a period in which the fleets are all balanced against oneanother.

 

[kinsha]

Without the "roleplaying" side this would just be another space combat game. Without balance, who would want to play? Both are needed. Both are required. The ratio of each is the question.

A Sharlin should dominate (but not overlly so). The First Ones should terrify.

If your dreams can come true, then what of your nightmares.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Wargamers- people who came from other tactical systems and first and foremost want a balanced system that allows a realistic chance to win with any race at any PL. The b5 theme and story considerations are always secondary to balance.

Now, to me, that's not a Wargamer, that's just a Gamer. A Wargamer, in my opinion, is someone who wants to recreate or simulate a specific setting (usually a War, but there have been 'Wargames' with no war...). And the vast majority of Wargamers I know play only vaguely balanced games - 3 attacking Battalions vs. 2 defending, or something like that. Wargamers balance by victory conditions, not forces - look at the assault on Berlin, 1945, or Rourke's Drift, both popular Wargaming scenarios that one side just cannot 'win' by absolute measures. Roleplayers want individual character balance, it's the D&D influence that brings us ECLs and all that c**p.

EDIT: oh, and I class myself primarily as a Roleplayer :wink:

Wulf

 

[Locutus9956]

Both in equal meassure, I like the ability to play a balanced game if need be but I dont think this should come at the expense of the 'B5 feel' of the game. (or indeed whatever flavour the game is running along)

Just look at the battle of the line scenario, its perfectly possible for earth to 'win' but I think they might struggle a tiny bit if they try to kill all the Minbari ships

 

[philogara]

I think you have got your classifications muddled up GeekyBiker! Definitely wargamer and as such I want it to reflect the "history". I wouldn't expect a WW2 game to give a T-34 and a Tiger equal points/stats to make a fair game, so why should we here?

The challenge sometimes is not to win, but to see how well you can do!

 

[H]

to play devils advocate, surely we can only accurately balance and setup correctly games of a historical nature, such as those set in WWII where we actualy know the abilities of each tank, warplane, gun etcetera.
The Babylon 5 universe is much more freeform with a number of ships performing as they need to for the good of the plot. Straczynski himself has said this for example when asked how fast a star fury can flay.. as fast as the plot needs.
We perceive that a Sharlin should be able to take a Nova because of the superiority during the war, but how do we know how one should square up to a G'Quan for instance? we don't have the full on accurate stats for these vessels from the show as they are fictional. Do we ever see a G'Quan face off against a Sharklin? do we see one face off against a Nova? everything in this game is based upon observation and intuition, therefore roleplayer, wargamer? whatever your personal preference, the game is at best speculative, to achieve a form of gaming balance, when people want true to show, how can that be, the Octurion never took on a VCD, a Vorlon heavy Cruiser nevere took on a drakh mothership.
Personally, I wouldn't put myself in either camp, I play because I love B5, and because I have a good group of friends who like gaming, and also conveniantly love B5.

 

[wargame_insomniac]

The game needs to be balanced and have consistent ship stats between tournament lists & campaign lists.

But why do we play ACTA rather than BFG, Full Thrust.....

It is because we love the show- it inspired and enthused us. So powerful ships in the show should be powerful in the game. Shadow ships and Vorlon Cruisers should be rock hard and utterly lethal- but pay the points cost for it.

From what I have seen so far, too many of the iconic ships from the show are not taken because they are not points efficient. That would suggest that the balanced pendulum has swung too much in favour of the wargamer as opposed to the roleplayer.

Just my opinion- yours may vary.

Cheers

James

 

[emperorpenguin]

I'm not voting because I firmly believe in a mix of the two

The game must be balanced, otherwise it's unfair and no one will play

But it must be true to B5 so scary Minbari, Vorlons, Shadows. If a weapon appears/doesn't appear in the show then this should be reflected in the game

 

[Davesaint]

The game needs to be balanced and have consistent ship stats between tournament lists & campaign lists.

But why do we play ACTA rather than BFG, Full Thrust.....

It is because we love the show- it inspired and enthused us. So powerful ships in the show should be powerful in the game. Shadow ships and Vorlon Cruisers should be rock hard and utterly lethal- but pay the points cost for it.

From what I have seen so far, too many of the iconic ships from the show are not taken because they are not points efficient. That would suggest that the balanced pendulum has swung too much in favour of the wargamer as opposed to the roleplayer.

Just my opinion- yours may vary.

Cheers

James

Huh? The iconic ships are not point efficient means that the balance pendulum has swung to the favour of the Wargamer? Are you serious?

I am a Wargamer. I believe that in any even PL battle that both sides given equal level of players should have roughly a 50-50 chance of winning. Frankly if my chances are within 10% either way, I'm ok with that. I don't mind there being variations in the fleet, and fluff for each race. You can have that even in a wargaming set up. Historically Shermans died to Tigers and Panthers. What allowed the Americans to win? Numbers. That and good Anti-Tank units in the Jackson and the Hellcat. Plus airpower. These things help create balance. Boresight based races need tweeking. IMO for the Drazi, the 2nd boresight weapon on their ships should be expanded to Forward Arc.

The concepts benind ACTA are for the most part pretty good. I have read alot of posts on this board discounting Point Values for ships, or balancing ships across races because they don't want it to turn into Star Fleet Battles. I will say one thing about SFB, it has had a loyal and dedicated fan base for over 30 years. I may not agree with some things Steve Cole has done, but he has managed to keep a game going and selling for a very long time. They have done this by making sure each race had a chance against another in head to head play. This keeps people playing it. If there is no balance, people will play for a little while, get frustrated, and quit.

Just my 2 cents.

Dave

 

[Geekybiker]

I think you have got your classifications muddled up GeekyBiker! Definitely wargamer and as such I want it to reflect the "history". I wouldn't expect a WW2 game to give a T-34 and a Tiger equal points/stats to make a fair game, so why should we here?

The challenge sometimes is not to win, but to see how well you can do!

I agree that they shouldnt be the same, but the t-34 would be valued less in a points system than the tiger so as to allow you to bring a relatively equal force to the field.

Id also love to see ultra powerful ancients, etc but unfortunately we're hamstrung by the PL system and Id rather see balance than a precise accounting of the story. Personally I think that maybe they should have just left the Sharlin out of the game if it really is that much more powerful than other race's dreadnaughts.

 

[H]

The game needs to be balanced and have consistent ship stats between tournament lists & campaign lists.

But why do we play ACTA rather than BFG, Full Thrust.....

It is because we love the show- it inspired and enthused us. So powerful ships in the show should be powerful in the game. Shadow ships and Vorlon Cruisers should be rock hard and utterly lethal- but pay the points cost for it.

From what I have seen so far, too many of the iconic ships from the show are not taken because they are not points efficient. That would suggest that the balanced pendulum has swung too much in favour of the wargamer as opposed to the roleplayer.

Just my opinion- yours may vary.

Cheers

James

Huh? The iconic ships are not point efficient means that the balance pendulum has swung to the favour of the Wargamer? Are you serious?

I am a Wargamer. I believe that in any even PL battle that both sides given equal level of players should have roughly a 50-50 chance of winning. Frankly if my chances are within 10% either way, I'm ok with that. I don't mind there being variations in the fleet, and fluff for each race. You can have that even in a wargaming set up. Historically Shermans died to Tigers and Panthers. What allowed the Americans to win? Numbers. That and good Anti-Tank units in the Jackson and the Hellcat. Plus airpower. These things help create balance. Boresight based races need tweeking. IMO for the Drazi, the 2nd boresight weapon on their ships should be expanded to Forward Arc.

The concepts benind ACTA are for the most part pretty good. I have read alot of posts on this board discounting Point Values for ships, or balancing ships across races because they don't want it to turn into Star Fleet Battles. I will say one thing about SFB, it has had a loyal and dedicated fan base for over 30 years. I may not agree with some things Steve Cole has done, but he has managed to keep a game going and selling for a very long time. They have done this by making sure each race had a chance against another in head to head play. This keeps people playing it. If there is no balance, people will play for a little while, get frustrated, and quit.

Just my 2 cents.

Dave

Um, what allowed the Americans to win? A brief history lesson might be in order, but there were some other important players that helped defeat the Axis forces.