Better frame of mind to hold this chat wkehrman...
Part of the problem is I have had a number of the longwinded versions of these discussion over the past year plus. Re-capping the 20+ page threads on the reason the whitestar was (and remains) a very good ship sometimes gets frustrating, similar with other topics. It's not that new people shouldn't be able to jump in on the current topics, they should, but it can be daunting to have to go back and re-fight issues with each new person as they come on.
A perfect example is the Omega vs Primus and three Corvans in the corner. This debate has been had virtually every month since I started playing the game. Rather than due full battle reports, describing every turn and action, we refer to only the problem situation. If we try to talk about the entire battle you have brought in so many variable that the discussion moves off topic.
If I was to say an Omega vs a Centurian, Vorchan, Kutai and two Havens, the folks who don't see an issue with bore sight respond well that's a fleet choice issue, just as you have intimated. If I changed the EA fleet to two hyperions... you say the same thing. If I change the EA to a Hyperion, an Oracle, and two hermes, and I still can't target the Centurian that is in front of the Hyperion most turns, you say it's about tactics or maneuver. It will never be about the rule and whether a situation makes sense, ie how the moving of distant ships somehow makes the centurian/primus immune the heavy weapons of the hyperion/omega.
In effect, your bypassing the argument I am making and discussing something else entirely. It's why I tried to tell you what kind of issue it was. It may or may not be a 'game balance' issue, but it is a 'suspension of disbelief' issue. Why a Centurian accompanied only by fighters and one Vorchan is vulnerable to being targeted by the hyperion in the final configuration and the one accompanied by the Vorchan, Kutai and Havens is not, I can't come up with a believable reason for.
You asked how I would reflect the tactical advantage a player with more ships has, my question would be what is the advantage in the real world?
You can be in more places at once, already present.
You are more resilient to 'lucky hits', already present.
More points of view for gathering intelligence about the enemy -
Harder to simulate in a game where you are effectively omniscient. We have it to a degree with stealth already and am not sure I would want more than that. I would normally try to reflect that by playing double blind and the spread of ships would let you see a larger area, but in a game with a top down view of the world I don't think it can be reflected well.
The initiative system right now makes the player with more ships effectively more maneuverable in regards to ships that have effectively the same information. Two ships facing off directly across empty space from each other would not effectively benefit from the additional information provided by a transport ship hiding on the other side of a planet.
I suppose I might say that if you are trying to simulate better sensor data, I would consider a free scout roll as long as you have twice the ships you opponent has? Seems a better reflection than the ability to out maneuver a whitestar with an Olympus.
As to the why swarms are an issue outside of game mechanic effects, it's a matter of balance. Point based fights assume that the players on either side have a similar chance of victory based on the number of points they spend. Our points just happen to be FAP. If the points are not accurately reflecting the ability of the ships, that is a problem, the problem that Triggy outlined above.
Right now a Primus is supposedly equal to a Centurian, Vorchan, Kutai and two Havens. I think that is pretty questionable based on the amount of damage, AD, critical resilience (losing the front arc on one crit won't hurt the bought down fleet as badly), troops available in each fleet. Add in initiative sequence advantages and I'm not even sure you can make the case. Change that to an EA fleet... Omega vs Hyperion, Olympus, two missile Tethys and two beam Tethys and bore sight mechanics exacerbate the issue.
The two solutions I've seen as the most promising, and most in line with what ACtA has as core mechanics, were rebalancing the PL chart to make buying down less efficient and adding an SA that works similar to CAF (but maybe no/lesser CQ check? Maybe not as half the time isn't bad, no check limits race rule interactions though), 'follow that target', where you reserve your final turn to target a predesignated target once it moves.
Sequence on the sa... I activate a ship, declare the SA and which ship I am targeting, move the ship as normal with the exception that I do not use one available turn. At the end of ship movement, but before fighters move, I turn the ship to boresight the stated target or as close as I can come to it.
The SA idea was very clean as it forced you to line up on the target exactly (or take you maximum turn in the attempt), so no finagling to get extra arcs etc., and provided minimum disruption to the rules. It also kept the solution and the problem local to each other, so shouldn't cause too many unanticipated side effects. The only question would be due certain bore sighted beams have too many dice under that rule, but given you give up you special action to do it, which would normally be enhancing your survivability or damage, as well as some control of your maneuver, I feel it's fairly close.
Changing the buy down to better reflect the value of the ships total stats as well as their value as initiative sinks, would eliminate the unpaid for advantages in small ships and also to encourage buying closer to the level of the fight, something the PL system used to do. The unpaid for advantage I see is the benefits of sinking. I think of them as unpaid for due to the totals of damage, AD, crew, troops usually being better when you buy down. I think critical resilience and the possibility of sudden death for smaller ships balances out to a degree. I think that is all the real differences, but I can be wrong here...
The Drazi issue could be resolved by the SA solution above, no other race regularly loses firepower due to poor initiative rolls. I don't think you need to rewrite the fluff or the stats of drazi ships if you include that SA. I actually believe the fluff will be better represented as the Drazi will actually feel like dedicated dogfights single mindedly pursuing a chosen target regardless of the evolving tactical situation around them.
Anyway, I'm always looking to inspire a good discussion, I'm just not always as clear as I should be. In part due to these being old topics that I've gone over with lots of folks, both supportive and deriding. It makes me think certain things are obvious or givens which aren't necessarily. I'm also not always the most focused person.
Ripple
