Squadrons and Centauri

[ShopKeepJon]

I don't know why we don't all throw our rule books in the bin; make a load of green crayon rules and play our little provincial versions of ACTA. It would stop all the non-stop constant bloody whining. Try using tactics to beat squadrons; generally I find that trying to play a tactical game using tactics is a good idea and normally helps.

p.s - that was directed at no one in particular; you can all be offended if you like.

If you knew you would be offending people, why did you post this?

I'm just saying... :roll:

ShopKeepJon

 

[GhostRecon]

In pertinence to the question, I think the problem lies less with the inherent aggregation of benefits that Squadrons apply, and more the imbalance of Centauri ships, being at the high end of their priority levels (And in some cases exceeding them) and the interaction of Initiative Sinking and Initiative sinks.

I posted a proposal in the 3 Ed. Thread that addressed the initiative problem, albeit in somewhat roundabout way.

 

[Ripple]

No need to throw out the rule books just yet... that would wait for the new edition, but folks would like to try out new ideas long before that happens so we get less surprised by things like massively random beams.

Perfectly civil discussion of how to make a good thing better shouldn't draw insulting comments implying that folks aren't using tactics. You don't know the majority of the situation involved, try assuming the other person isn't completely stupid.

(as to why those ships are so awesome but can still lose... always depends on opponents, terrain and scenario... part of my point was not that they always win, or are unbeatable, but that they give a bad taste to some folks. There is a much longer discussion to be had on specific situations that can be too tough, or too weak, and how to get the balance closer so you don't sit down to a game see what your opponent brought and just shrug and say next round I guess...)

Ripple

 

[David Anla Shok']

Squadrons too powerful? This is a joke, right?

You forgo init sinks in order to concentrate firepower - it's a meta-game rule built into the (as far as I'm concerned seriously flawed) you-go-I-go turn sequence. It's no more or less powerful than the ships using it and the luck of the dice.

As long as you got a forward arc you have no serious problems with ini sinks. For fleets with boreside squadrons are no option. Just another drawback of boreside races.
The ability to fire 3 or 4 ships at once is a huge advantage especially if we assume that one or two of these ships could have been destroyed before they where able to fire.
While squadrons are to power full used by certain races they are next to useless for other fleets, and therefore not balanced at all.

Not quite. Drazi ships do well in small squadrons.

 

[David Anla Shok']

The poll is biased. There is no "its all fine" option.

I concur. Are you a political pollster by trade?

 

[David Anla Shok']

I disagree on the poll being biased, the No Making ships more powerful is the whole point covers that aspect.

Squadrons are tough. We had a problem fleet at a local tourney that turned a number of people off the game. 5 Battle fleet with ten hermes, 3 olympus (squad), 2 oracle and 5 hyperion squadroned. The issue was the just too much of the fleet moved last and fired first. And that was under the last edition without the 2 for 1 specials that allow even move concentration in the late move early fire modes.

Folks say that you give something up to have a squadron, that's rubbish. If you couldn't break a squadron the moment you needed sinks that might be true, but it isn't. Effectively squadroning allows swarm fleets to have all the concentration of a big ship fleet and then reclaim their sink advantage at any moment.

Not advocating a change at this time, just saying that it is part of what I've seen drive people out of the game. Too many times fielding an iconic big ship that never gets to fire in anger even once. Not so bad when its a smaller ships, but when you lose your largest ship first cause of the other guys swarm has grown a big ship in effect.

Ripple

It's not "rubbish". You surrender maneuver and initiative to your opponent. You see it more with some fleet combos than others, but it is there.

 

[David Anla Shok']

I don't know why we don't all throw our rule books in the bin; make a load of green crayon rules and play our little provincial versions of ACTA. It would stop all the non-stop constant bloody whining. Try using tactics to beat squadrons; generally I find that trying to play a tactical game using tactics is a good idea and normally helps.

p.s - that was directed at no one in particular; you can all be offended if you like.

Be offended by the truth? Naw... I play Centauri and play against them (gots lots o' fleets). Quite honestly I don't know why more folk don't use squadrons. It is so seldom seen here abouts. I suspect that most players are concerned with init sinks that they don't see the benefit of squadrons.

 

[David Anla Shok']

In pertinence to the question, I think the problem lies less with the inherent aggregation of benefits that Squadrons apply, and more the imbalance of Centauri ships, being at the high end of their priority levels (And in some cases exceeding them) and the interaction of Initiative Sinking and Initiative sinks.

I posted a proposal in the 3 Ed. Thread that addressed the initiative problem, albeit in somewhat roundabout way.

I don't know about the Centauri ships being "at the high end of their priority levels". Had my ass handed to me by multiple volleys of Narn emines not too long ago. :/

 

[inq101]

Squadrons are tough. We had a problem fleet at a local tourney that turned a number of people off the game. 5 Battle fleet with ten hermes, 3 olympus (squad), 2 oracle and 5 hyperion squadroned. The issue was the just too much of the fleet moved last and fired first. And that was under the last edition without the 2 for 1 specials that allow even move concentration in the late move early fire modes.

This is a swarm fleet problem, not a squadron problem.

Folks say that you give something up to have a squadron, that's rubbish. If you couldn't break a squadron the moment you needed sinks that might be true, but it isn't. Effectively squadroning allows swarm fleets to have all the concentration of a big ship fleet and then reclaim their sink advantage at any moment.

O.K. I agree with you about breaking a squadron up. I don't like the 'ships have to move out of squadron range' idea. Many ships that you'd want to put in a squadron are fast enough to do this by moving forwards and it doesn't make sense in a high tech sci-fi setting. I'd suggest breaking up squadrons at the end of the turn so that a ship is either in or out of the squadron for the entire turn (or the end of the movement phase so you sacrifice the coordinated shooting).

Overall squadrons do what they're supposed to.

Tom

 

[Burger]

I disagree on the poll being biased, the No Making ships more powerful is the whole point covers that aspect.

It doesn't make the ships more powerful, it makes the fleet more powerful by giving it the ability to fire first, at the cost of having to move first. I have no problems with the squadron rules. So which option do I vote for? There are none suitable. Therefore, poll is biased.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

Simple solution to squadronned Vorchans - take squadronned bombardment ships like Dag'Kars, Saggi, whatever. Go concentrate all fire on the centremost vorchan, and thwack it with those precise AP DD weapons until it explodes and damages the rest of the squadron.

 

[CZuschlag]

You only have to e within 6" of one single other ship to be in a squadron. At long ranges where arc positioning isn't of great worry, it's very easy to keep this spacing -- at least, it is for the Demos.

If the Vorchans don't feel like they all have to pick on the same target(s), it isn't overly difficult, either.

In any event, the explosion of a Vorchan will do approximately 3 damage (8 dice, looking for 5's to hit.... I'm actually overestimating a bit) each, so if you get 3, that's 9 extra damage ..... that, well, you could have directly put into the other Vorchans because of the amount of overkill that you wasted in the exploding Vorchan. There's zero profit to this; you're just hoping the explosion corrects for your misallocation of firepower.

 

[David Anla Shok']

I disagree on the poll being biased, the No Making ships more powerful is the whole point covers that aspect.

Squadrons are tough. We had a problem fleet at a local tourney that turned a number of people off the game. 5 Battle fleet with ten hermes, 3 olympus (squad), 2 oracle and 5 hyperion squadroned. The issue was the just too much of the fleet moved last and fired first. And that was under the last edition without the 2 for 1 specials that allow even move concentration in the late move early fire modes.

Folks say that you give something up to have a squadron, that's rubbish. If you couldn't break a squadron the moment you needed sinks that might be true, but it isn't. Effectively squadroning allows swarm fleets to have all the concentration of a big ship fleet and then reclaim their sink advantage at any moment.

Not advocating a change at this time, just saying that it is part of what I've seen drive people out of the game. Too many times fielding an iconic big ship that never gets to fire in anger even once. Not so bad when its a smaller ships, but when you lose your largest ship first cause of the other guys swarm has grown a big ship in effect.

Ripple

Biased, incomplete, whatever you choose. It is.

 

[Delthos]

I posted the poll and the "No, Making ships more powerful is the whole point." is the "There is nothing wrong with the squadron rules." option. I guess it could have stated it that way, but I don't see a problem with the way it is. I can't change it now in any case. It's not biased, it just appears that way to some people.

 

[David Anla Shok']

I posted the poll and the "No, Making ships more powerful is the whole point." is the "There is nothing wrong with the squadron rules." option. I guess it could have stated it that way, but I don't see a problem with the way it is. I can't change it now in any case. It's not biased, it just appears that way to some people.

Bias is not necessarily pejorative. Bias can simply mean, "leaning toward".

 

[Delthos]

Perfectly civil discussion of how to make a good thing better shouldn't draw insulting comments implying that folks aren't using tactics. You don't know the majority of the situation involved, try assuming the other person isn't completely stupid.
Ripple

I wanted to avoid this kind of conversation, but yes, lets not assume the person asking the question is clueless and doesn't know how to develop some tactics for beating something. Seeing a problem and asking about it doesn't make a person incompetent.

The question was asked because I see a problem, not because I can't beat ships in squadrons. If there wasn't a problem with the squadron rules or with different ships that are placed in squadrons, there wouldn't be a discussion about it.

In any case I agree now after listening to what others are saying that the squadron rules are not the problem. Although I still think their benefits outweigh their drawbacks some, its not bad, unless poorly balanced ships are put together in them.

 

[Delthos]

Bias is not necessarily pejorative. Bias can simply mean, "leaning toward".

Ok, lets say it is biased and I don't know what it means to be biased, how would you fix it then?

 

[David Anla Shok']

Bias is not necessarily pejorative. Bias can simply mean, "leaning toward".

Ok, lets say it is biased and I don't know what it means to be biased, how would you fix it then?

You can't. I was just making an observation. Most "polls" are biased. Some deliberately, with malice, some deliberately, limiting responses for statistical purposes, and some are biased because great thought isn't put into them before clicking the Submit button.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

You only have to e within 6" of one single other ship to be in a squadron. At long ranges where arc positioning isn't of great worry, it's very easy to keep this spacing -- at least, it is for the Demos.

If the Vorchans don't feel like they all have to pick on the same target(s), it isn't overly difficult, either.

In any event, the explosion of a Vorchan will do approximately 3 damage (8 dice, looking for 5's to hit.... I'm actually overestimating a bit) each, so if you get 3, that's 9 extra damage ..... that, well, you could have directly put into the other Vorchans because of the amount of overkill that you wasted in the exploding Vorchan. There's zero profit to this; you're just hoping the explosion corrects for your misallocation of firepower.

I thought it was 4", not 6. My bad. But even so, if you use squadronned bombardment ships, you still get to loose an impressive volley of fire downrange, even if you're splitting it amongst a squadron.

 

[Delthos]

Ah, so you are just stirring the proverbial pot then?! Got ya.