Seriously stupid question... but I need to ask...

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

Forget about balance?! A game that is not balanced is not fun, and there really is no point in even playing a game that is severly unbalanced. I don't want to reinvent someones game in order to make it playable.

Not truly so: Remember the Alamo!!! or the Blitzkrieg, or any realistic (not talking FoW here) ww2 game involving italians etc...

You know your outgunned and outclassed and end up losingm but hell how hard will you sell your skin

 

[Chernobyl]

certain ships are more powerful than other in a PL.

in the case of the Command omega, its better than an omega, but is it worth a war choice?

on my + or - idea, each ship may be rated a few points above or below the PL. A Command Omega could be a Battle +5. So to make up for it, you need to bring a Battle -5, maybe an Avenger.

If you don't want an avenger, then you need to bring 2 of the PL below it at -5, maybe olympus gunships or pulse hyperions.

Overall, you fleet needs to balance to 0. In this way, you can adjust each ship as needs be because some are always better than others, but not by a whole PL. This would limit the "one ship fleets" to ships to examples that are more average; the 10 sag fleet wouldn't show up in that situation, it would obviously be a +5 ship...

Chern

 

[Abraxas]

If we make too many levels (>15) then we may as well switch over to a point based system. It'll get complicated if we have too many levels especially since some fleets don't even have enough ships to fill the current priority levels (I'm looking at you Shadows, Vorlons and ISA).

 

[Furious Jedi]

Forget about balance?! A game that is not balanced is not fun, and there really is no point in even playing a game that is severly unbalanced.

A lot of historical wargamers would argue with that. Some people enjoy playing an "unwinnable" scenario rather than facing off with two even forces - for example trying to refight scenarios from the Earth-Minbari war (the fictional one, not the scenarios in the Mongoose rulebook of the same name). Some of us don't play a game to try and beat our opponent, we play it because recreating a battle accurately is how we have fun, seeing if we can do better than the "expected" result. I'd happily play a scenario from the Earth-Minbari war where the aim was just to make the Earth ships survive longer than the expected three turns (which is a pretty accurate representation of the E-M war, the Earth forces shouldn't have a chance). I like my Vorlons and Shadows unbeatable. That's the whole point of a B5 wargame to me - otherwise its just a bunch of playing pieces shaped like and named after the ships seen on TV.

We aren't talking about Historical recreation games.Those scenarios and or games are unwinnable because they were intended to be. B5 ACTA is intended to be balanced. I would submit that even an unwinnable game has balance. If I produce a game and my intent is to accurately recreate the D-Day invasion and the Germans succesfully repel the invasion then I have failed in my intent and the game is unbalanced.

In your example if you "do better than the expected result" then you have not "recreated the battle accurately" and you therefore could not have had "fun". Winning is not always defined as he who has peices on the board at the end wins. Some game systems and scenarios would call that a win, moving it from the Unwinnable Scenario column, into the Winnable Scenario column. You have in fact just "beaten" your opponent.

 

[Silvereye]

Farseer
"I didn't have to worry about upgrades and tweaking every last point to make the list as "effective" as possible. I am utterly SICK of power gamers minmaxing points to squeak out a force. Hence a reason I no longer play many EE games."

Farseer, this may come as a shock to you, but this game is actually a powergamers dream come true. Name a game where I have absolutly no restrictions on the units I take other than the size of the game ( some senarios not with standing ) that my opponent and I agree upon. In this game I can take the best, most powerfull units from all catagories and field them as long as I stay within the game size limit (In an EE game sure wish I could bring nothing but 1850 points of Terminators and every Termy had an assualt cannon). I will never have to field a Vorchan (because it sucks ). It doesn't matter that it is the most common ship in the Centari fleet, my opponents will never face one.

Have you ever tried playing 40K with a Deathwing army? I guess not, as you would realise just how very few terminators you have to work with, and how quickly they can be swamped. I would rather have more Terminators than more Assault Cannons, and Cyclones are massivley under-rated. As to the Vorchan, I find them to be excellent ships, due to their speed, manoeuvreability and focussed firepower. In a recent game two of them were unlucky not to take down a Battle choice in a single pass. I suggeast you try them out as a sqadron, don't send them straight down the throat of the enemy, and don't fret when one of them is destroyed.

Farseer
"I chose this game for a streamlined way to pick a fleet (NO upgrades, etc) and the ability to recreate stuff from the shows/movies. forget about balance, I'm in it for the story.."

Forget about balance?! A game that is not balanced is not fun, and there really is no point in even playing a game that is severly unbalanced. I don't want to reinvent someones game in order to make it playable.

Part of the reason I like this game is the simplicity of fleet choice. And a lot of the skill is choosing the right fleet for the job ahead. Sure 10 saggs will take on most all comers, but there is no skill there. As to playing 'unbalanced' games, I like it. You have to beat the scenario. Space Hulk was like that. Sure the mission was win-able, but you usually REALLY had to work for it. Or an RTS, yeah, I can beat 3 allied AI's on the Hard difficulty, but adding a fourth made it a challenge. Most of the time you lost, but that one time when you won, or defeated the scenario, it made it better.

Farseer
"All I see from this thread is yet another group concerned about nothing but winning. I play the game to have a good time and see what you can do given the scenario/fleet. No matter the odds, theres always a tactic, manuver, combo that will win any game. Trying to do that with B5 ships that everyone thinks are ass is a great time for me. What happened to just having fun?"

I don't see that at all. I see a group that would like to have a reason to bring a Vorchan, but also ( because we are all tring to have fun ) would like to have a reasonable chance of winning. Losing all the time isn't fun either. Accusing everyone of being only concerned with winning and the implication that we are powergamers is unfair and unnessecary.

I personally do not have a problem with powergaming. I think there is a time and place for everything. A good gamer knows when and where.

So learn how to use Vorchans. One will die horribly, a squadron of two or three will do a lot more. It is very rare that I will take a Centauri fleet without a few. Heck, I still keep trying to find good uses for Torothas and Kutais.

 

[mthomason]

I would submit that even an unwinnable game has balance. If I produce a game and my intent is to accurately recreate the D-Day invasion and the Germans succesfully repel the invasion then I have failed in my intent and the game is unbalanced.

If the both sides followed the historical tactics and the Germans repelled the invasion, then yes. If they used different tactics then no - thats much of the point of historical gaming - to see if you can make better tactical decisions than the original army commanders did.

In your example if you "do better than the expected result" then you have not "recreated the battle accurately" and you therefore could not have had "fun".

Er, I think I know when I'm having fun and when I'm not... I have fun by trying to do better than the original army commander did with the same set of resources. I don't as a rule get as much fun in "tournament" style games. I play both, but my preference is for an accurate scenario over a balanced game if I have to choose. Ideally I like both - a scenario with an expected result that I have to beat in order to win. My only argument with the current ACTA system is that ships are artifically tweaked to be alike instead of being accurate representations, in order to fit within the PL system - and still there's people all over the board complaining that this or that ship is over- or under- powered.

I'm not asking for the game to be changed, as most people like it the way it is - I wouldn't want to change something the majority are happy with, and it'd be a bad business move for Mongoose to do so and therefore I doubt they'd make that change anyway. I'm asking for an alternative for those of us that want something else.

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

Actually B5 ACTA wasn`t intended to be a spaceship game at all, but an easy system for using space ships in the RPG that took on a life of it`s own when fans caught wind of this

 

[Furious Jedi]

Whoops, my computer locked up and I thought I lost my first post so I had to retype it. Sorry about that.

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

If the both sides followed the historical tactics and the Germans repelled the invasion, then yes. If they used different tactics then no - thats much of the point of historical gaming - to see if you can make better tactical decisions than the original army commanders did.

Listening to Pluskat or hiding the sleeping pills would have been a good start in this particular skirmish

 

[Target]

If you are going to add more priorities that would make far more complicated so it would be easier to use points. No trying to divide 1 (+) raid point into all different lvls less than it. Imagine trying to decide what lvl game to play. Should we play 5pt (-) Raid or (+) Skirmish.

 

[Chernobyl]

thats just it, I wasn't trying to create new levels. Raid +, raid -, and Raid would all count as a raid choice for priority level.

Chern

 

[Target]

So if you took a Raid +, you would have to select a raid - if it was a 2pt raid game?

 

[Furious Jedi]

Have you ever tried playing 40K with a Deathwing army? I guess not, as you would realise just how very few terminators you have to work with, and how quickly they can be swamped.

Yes, DW Termmies with 2 cannons per squad do get swamped, but my example didn't use just 2 cannons I said all Terminators have assault cannons. that's 31 deepstriking Terminators with a 2+ save/ 5+ invulnerable, firing 124 strength 6 ap4 rending shots at range 24". There is nothing in the game that could withstand that. Luckily because of squad type and equipment type restrictions in the game no one is allowed to do that, which of course was my point. There are no such restrictions built into this game. Example: War level 5, player A (Minbari) takes 1 Sharkaan, 2 Sharlin, 1 Morshin, 3 Tinashi. Player B (Narn) takes 20 Dag'Kar. This isn't a hypothetical several of us did it as a play test, it wasn't even a contest. The Narn destroyed every last Minbari ship and fighter by the end of turn 3, the Narn lost 5 ships.

So learn how to use Vorchans. One will die horribly, a squadron of two or three will do a lot more.

I have used and know how to use Vorchans. I'll take a squadron of Darkners up against your Vorchans anytime.

 

[Pauly_D]

There are no such restrictions built into this game. Example: War level 5, player A (Minbari) takes 1 Sharkaan, 2 Sharlin, 1 Morshin, 3 Tinashi. Player B (Narn) takes 20 Dag'Kar. This isn't a hypothetical several of us did it as a play test, it wasn't even a contest. The Narn destroyed every last Minbari ship and fighter by the end of turn 3, the Narn lost 5 ships.

well with most races they will do either very well or very badly against specific fleets, Narn do well against Minbari because E-Mines ignore Stealth, although the fleet is totally cheesy and i do agree that there should be restrictions on certain ships (mainly because no military would let 20 Dag'Kars go out on their own because some enemy fleets would be ideal for facing them they would get massacred and it would be a waste of ships) its also a sportsmanship issue as well, but some people aren't bothered about that.

 

[Chernobyl]

So if you took a Raid +, you would have to select a raid - if it was a 2pt raid game?

right. or, 2 skirmish -

 

[Pauly_D]

So if you took a Raid +, you would have to select a raid - if it was a 2pt raid game?

right. or, 2 skirmish -

are you sure, see its confusing enough already

 

[Furious Jedi]

I think that no matter what is done it is going to get more complex. Which defeats one of the purposes of the Priority Level system. I actually like the PL system but I think there needs to be availability restrictions on ships. Maybe something like, at least 50% of your fleet must use ships from the PL selected.

 

[Furious Jedi]

I'm sorry Chernobyl but I'm going to have to agree with Pauly. That sounds more confusing and time consuming than just converting to a traditional points system. :shock:

 

[Pauly_D]

i think that varients should be limited, either no more varients of a ship than "original" versions or no more than x% of your fleet can be varients

 

[Chernobyl]

a little bit more, true, but otherwise, you restrict someone to picking another ship of the same PL. if you play 5 point raid, and choose a Battle+, you'd have to choose another battle choice to make up for it, a battle-. which eats up most of your raid fleet. but if 2 raid- or 3 skirmish- etc equal a battle -, than at least you have a little flexibility back.

Just an idea. probably needs fine-tuning.

Chern