Stealth - A New Approach

[Commador Q]

Finally Stealth roles should be made before the player declairs his targets (after all you would know which ships you computer can and can't lock on to).

No they shouldn't for the following reasons:

1) IRL, Stealth and ECM can produce false locks, but the attacker doesn't know that.

2) It allows the attacker to save all his weaponry until he m akes a Stealth rolll that succeeds, not really fair compared to the current rules.

LBH

1) that may be true, but i'd suspect it would be more along the lines of you see 2 targets and have to pick one hopin it will be the real one rather than you see one target and it isn't real. so you should have some idea if you have a perfect lock rather than some chance of iterference. but that's just my opinion.

2) yes, that was the whole point of that perticular sugestion, if you think that's bad that's your opinion, but don't pretend it's an unforseen consequence. my reasoning is if you manage to get a shooting solution on one ship out of 10 you should shoot everything you can at that ship (unles you have some reason not to).

besides it's probably the least important part of my sugestion.

 

[lastbesthope]

1) that may be true, but i'd suspect it would be more along the lines of you see 2 targets and have to pick one hopin it will be the real one rather than you see one target and it isn't real. so you should have some idea if you have a perfect lock rather than some chance of iterference. but that's just my opinion.

Well I'm not familiar with all forms of ECM but a normal passive effect of radar is called 'Glint' which is a phenomenon whereby the 'bright sot' of the target can appear to be somewhere the target is not, and that's without any stealth systems.

LBH

 

[Commador Q]

ok, well you clearly know more about this subject than i do, but personally i'd have clasified that sort of phenominon as part of the factors associated with the existance of a to-hit role.

anyway does anyone have any feedback one way or the other regarding the rest of the sugestion?

what does everyone think of the whole dodge score for unbroken stealth idea?

 

[Target]

Better than current system not sure about going to 2+ but the idea is workable. Less complicated than bulkhead system.

 

[Commador Q]

well the dodge score would be dependent on the quality of the stealth systems the ship is supposed to have, so most minbary shouls have 2+s in my opinion, but other ships with stealth may have 3+, 4+, even 5+ dodge scores depending on just how stealthy they are ment to be. alternatively less stelthy ships could have weaker lonck on scores so that a normal ship is capable of negating the stealth all together.

 

[tenabrae]

The problem I always have with these threads is that Minbari ships are inherently weaker than those of other races. Stealth is the balance that protects them, to blanket nerf them means they're screwed, any kind of stealth nerf needs to balance stealth, not just make it irrelevant.

You already have fighters and scouts to bring a stealth roll down, in armageddon you're getting a point better check... what else do you need ?

Minbari also have a problem in that their small ships are generally extremely short-ranged with restricted arcs and their big ships long-ranged so mutual support outside stealth bonus range is impossible under armageddon.

If anything, I think a change to stealth should be based on the size of the minbari ship in question, smaller ships should be able to benefit from stealth even closer to the enemy where their speed and small profile will make them hard to hit, wheras large ships should be vulnerable to manual targetting (which would be reflected in poor stealth scores at close range)

From a fluff perspective I suggest stealth systems don't stop a ship being able to detect an enemy vessel, they just prevent targetting systems from tracking it, we know Sinclair locks onto the Minbari Cruiser in SFoS to ram it, his ship obviously knows it's there, it just can't get a firing solution (we could also interpret this as locking onto its gravitational field or something if we wanted another explanation).

 

[Target]

If Stealth wasn't all or nothing , Mimbari ships could be stronger. A Sharlin could be hull 6 if when a stealth roll is failed people still had a chance of hitting. I think the new stealth rules have made other races scouts to weak now. Fighters are going to have a field day with them.
Yes the Torotha is rubbish always thought it needed dodge as well.
Disagree a bit with Mimb ships being weaker, they have AJP, Flight Comp, nearly all weapons are non interceptable, longer ranged, anti fighter everywhere( doesn't so much anymore) AP or better, similar hits, average troops, average hits nearly no hull 6 ships.

 

[LaranosTZ]

Erm, no, the Sharlin could never be hull 6, if it was there would literally be zero reason to ever take the other war class ship in the Minbari Arsenal, the Nesathan....not that there really is now.

 

[Target]

The problem with priority vs points. It would be bit like why a Centurion when you can have Prefect, Primus vs Tertius but i wouldn't really like see a Hull 6 Sharlin. But why have two war lvl ships anyway?
I hoped that they give each Race ships at every lvl eg Torotha at patrol.

 

[LaranosTZ]

The point behind having multiple ships at each priority level is to (supposedly) fulfill different roles within a fleet. The problem is that in many cases Mongoose has created ships that do the same thing as another ship in the same class, with one being obviously superior to the other. As a result, unless a person is seeking to challenge themselves, or is filling fluff, there really isn't much reason to take any other ship. The minbari are just one of the more blatant races where this is the case.

 

[Target]

Suppose there's not a lot roles a war lvl ship can fill other than move slow and vaporise everything in it's path.

 

[Alexb83]

There's nothing to recommend the Neshatan. Hull 6? Sure, but it has stealth 4+, not 5+ (even though it has a lower profile hull).

It also has a poorer damage and crew track than the sharlin, fewer AD in its fusion cannons, and no auxiliary craft. Why would you ever, ever take it and not a Sharlin?

The Veshatan on the other hand - quick, snazzy. I'd say it offers an interesting alternative to Tinashis, as although it's less maneuverable (and less well armed with secondaries) it has a nicer damage track, and is faster.

 

[Locutus9956]

Well I'd agree with you Alex when the Neshatan was hull 5 as in the tourney list but at hull 6 its a very different story. Even with stealth 4, that hull 6 means that you are ALOT tougher for the times when stealth DOES fail, indeed the Neshatan is one of the toughest Warships in the game to kill in its hull 6 version. And let's not forget the Veshatan, it may not look that great on paper but have you tried using one to run a blockade?......

Now to be honest I would still favour the Sharlin as a War choice as I DO like my Nials and frankly the Sharlin is basically the reason I built a Minbari fleet (its just a beutifully designed ship (in every sense of the phrase)) but thats not to say the Neshatan is without its uses (vs Narns its arguably a MUCH better choice for example - emines dont care what your stealth value is but hull 6 takes ALOT of their bite away, and as for the Nials, well against an Emine armed opponent theyre just debris waiting to happen, they may be just about the best fighters in the game but emines couldnt care less )

 

[Burger]

Well with the new stealth rules, stealth rolls are very often "anything but a 1" now. So, hull 6 compared to 5 is a much better defence than stealth 5+ compared to 4+, IMO. Neshatan 4tw.

 

[philogara]

Dpending on how you took that conversation, Sheridan did seem to imply EA had equipment that could see through the Stealth (checking the model of the sensors fitted with Ivanova). Conversely of course, if he thought EA had the tech, why be surprised in the first place that they could see the ships?

I don't see it that way, I saw it that he was checking that the B5 sensors were not new ones that might have been improved since the ones he last used in anger at the Minbari. B5 being as underfunded as it was, it makes sense that it had 10 year old kit.

As I said "Depending on how you took that conversation...".

I would think he would be aware if newer, capable kit was available, because I cannot believe EA would keep quiet about it, and if they did, it would soon be obvious once fitted to ships of the line and installations.

 

[Black Omega]

As a minbari player i have been following the stealth debate with interest.

I agree that the current stealth rules are, as has been said countless times already, "hit or miss". From a personal point of view i think the biggest gripe i have about the stealth is that you have to reroll the stealth each turn regardless of what happened in the previous turns.

As a possible (and at the moment half thought-through) solution, how does the following sound to other players:-

Keep the stealth as it currently is in the rules (i.e one stealth roll per ship targetting the minbari vessel), but, if the ship successfully beats the stealth and obtains a lock on then that lock on is carried over into the next and subsequent turns with the ship being able to target the minbari vessel automatically without a further stealth check. This "lock on" would automatically be broken if the attacking ship performs a special action (other than concentrate all fire on the target minbari ship), as the crew are distracted and/or ship systems are under strain etc. Also the minbari player could attempt to break off the stealth lock on with some kind of dice roll or special action. Perhaps a special action entitled something like "evade sensors" would be used to break the lock of the targeting ships sensors such that the enemy ship would have to then again reroll for stealth in the next round. This would force the minbari player into an intersting tactical situation, choosing between becoming stealthy again or using the other special actions (concentrate all fire, come about etc. etc.) but at the risk of remaining painted for the next round.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Burger]

Sounds quite good BO, except it adds to the paperwork

 

[Black Omega]

Yeah i know, unless you used a counter beside the targetting ship to indicate its lock on status but it could also become quite confusing which ship you are locked onto etc. in the heat of battle

 

[captainsmirk]

Or you could allow a ship to only be locked on to one ship at a time, using all its sensors to maintain the lock on the one ship.

Nick

 

[Burger]

Yeah i know, unless you used a counter beside the targetting ship to indicate its lock on status but it could also become quite confusing which ship you are locked onto etc. in the heat of battle

Yeah the usual tactics: splitting fire, getting multiple arcs to bear, etc... means a lot of counters would be needed!