Suggestion for boresight/inisink problem solution

[dag'karlove]

And I think thsi is where the disagreement is. Some dont think its a problem. Some DO So im Guessing on teh Initiative issue were going to have to agree to disagree

As I said earlier, it has been my experience that no rule ever written has been liked by every player. The flip side of that is no rule ever written has been disliked by every player... (though some rules are more liked or disliked than others...)

This is alway the problem with this kind of debate. If a player likes a particular rule (or has never had any problems with it), then he will not understand why someone else does have a problem with it... (The reverse is also true. If a player has a problem with a rule, he will never understand the person that doesn't have any problem with it.)

Maybe we should be looking at this from another perspective. If a large number of people have a problem with a rule and that rule can be "fixed" without ruining the game for the people who don't have a problem, shouldn't we "fix" the rule? Wouldn't the game be better if the most people possible are happy with the way it plays?

ShopKeepJon

Well While I can see your point i look at it this way. Should everyone who plays the game who has an issue with a a rule always get that rule changed?If we did that then wed have a totally different game and it quite possibly would make the game Shite. I have an Issue with Stealth big time. However i regularly play against Minbarri (Who i see as Cheesy) but i just accept the challenge and do my best against it.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

Well While I can see your point i look at it this way. Should everyone who plays the game who has an issue with a a rule always get that rule changed?If we did that then wed have a totally different game and it quite possibly would make the game Shite. I have an Issue with Stealth big time. However i regularly play against Minbarri (Who i see as Cheesy) but i just accept the challenge and do my best against it.

I completely agree. We shouldn't change rules just because someone has a problem with them. It's impossible in a game like this to make everyone happy with every rule and I'd hate to mess up a good game by haphazard rules changes.

But...

If a large number of people have a problem with a rule and that rule can be "fixed" without ruining the game for the people who don't have a problem, shouldn't we "fix" the rule? Wouldn't the game be better if the most people possible are happy with the way it plays?

ShopKeepJon

 

[wkehrman]

Ripple:

Explain the problem to me using small words, short sentences and simple thoughts, because clearly I don't get it.

I thought it had to do with two game mechanics, which seem to work well on their own, coming together and creating some unusual and, according to some, nonsense scenarios.

I thought this situation seemed to come up when one player had too few ships, equipped with a main gun with a boresight forward firing arc against an enemy who could move the primary target AFTER the first player's ship has moved.

I thought my response was that this situation can be avoided through player actions.

(1) Do not surrender initiative or make the initiative situation worse by taking one or two ships (thus addressing the hyperion example). This is not how things work in real life. They call them Carrier Battle Groups and Surface Action Groups for a reason, not the least of which is that there is more than one or two ships in the outfit.

(2) Take ships approriate to the situation. The Hermes is a TRANSPORT not a warship. For all practical purposes the Hyperion, oracle and two hermes example is STILL two warships against four.

(3) Strike at targets of opportunity to maintain/gain initiative. If one of your Havens ends up in front of my hyperion you can be sure it's going to get a dose of Heavy Laser Cannon. Is it shooting a squirrel with an elephant gun? Perhaps, but it reduces your options.

(4) There's something to be said for running your opponent to ground. I don't buy this "my opponent has extra ships that he's hiding somewhere," argument. Fine, GO KILL THEM! Havens don't have anti-fighter and they don't have interceptors. If I'm stuck using your hyperion / oracle / 2xhermes mix, I'm going to send my three flights of Auroras (one each from the Hyperion and the 2xHermes) after them. I might even send my Hermes after them and get some Precise, SL, SAP Missle action involved.

ACtA is a game, not a simulation. It is three dimensional space represented in two dimensions in a very abstract sense. That some of these abstractions break down is to be expected, particularly in the face of the KISS principle.

What do you propose as a fix and how does that fix affect everything else in the game? How do you change initiative without eliminating all the swarm fleets? How do you change boresighting without making some ships (EA in particular) overly powerful? How do you do all of this within the limits of what little canon does exist?

 

[wkehrman]

What I see you saying is that nothing is ever broken. As long as there is one build out there that one person can win with vs his local opponent, nothing is wrong. The Pinto's exploding gas tank wasn't a problem with the car, it was operator error in allowing it to hit in the rear.

Ripple

I single this analogy out for a special case of ridicule because it is so embarassingly flawed.

First, I never said nothing is ever broken. I said it is not my first response to an unpleasant gaming situation. I know what a broken rule looks like, I've argued against them in playtesting OTHER systems, and I've been overruled by the game designer. I've also seen situations that I don't like, but that I have to deal with in the context of an oversimplified set of rules.

Second, as a player I am, as someone has already said, nearly omniscient (I still can't read minds, yet.). I know what ships my player has, I have a Fleet Book handy to tell me it's performances, I have a rulebook. In short, I have an embarrassing amount control over the course of a game. Pinto owners were never told, "hey, you want to avoid rear end collisions, they can be very bad." Have you ever tried getting out of the back seat of one of those vehicles? If you have, you know there's no escape in an accident.

Third, What makes the Ford situation even worse is that, not only did Ford not tell its customers, it KNEW FULL WELL there would be a problem and sold it anyway.

So, what you are saying is that Matt Sprange has knowingly designed a flawed system because it saved him a few bucks and that he's calculated that he'll make more money in the short term than he'll lose in the long term? It must be, because that's what Lee Iacocca did.

 

[dag'karlove]

By The way, for those of you who dont know what K.I.S.S. Means its Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

ACTA is a game, not a maths problem. It's better when it acts like a game instead of a maths problem. Having to worry about the mechanics because they're not matching up with what intuitively should be happening pushes the game towards being a maths problem.

Now, about the argument of "take a different fleet then!" This is basically just another way of saying that the rules should be the way they are because they're that way already. If you want to justify why a fleet should be a good or bad choice, do so without using "because that's the way the rules are!" as a crutch. We already know that the rules have a tendancy to turn the game into "who can take along the most init sinks". If you think that the rules are ok like that, say why you want the game reduced to that level.

 

[DrSeltsam]

Hi !

Sorry but I find it a little bit arrogant to say "just take another fleet selection". This will only work if both players decide ( and are able regarding their fleet list ) to use the breakdown and get more small ships.

In IMHO this does not sound like fun. If i play the "wrong" fleet list I can not buy-down or I will only get weak ships .... yeah, great :roll:

Maybe the boresight rule is not broken but as soon as you combine it with the initiative rule and the breakdown it will get very strange ....

Davesaint, Triggy and Ripple all have spoken valid points. Would it not be better to try a discussion about this ?
Just a thought ...

 

[k3ndawg]

Hi !

Sorry but I find it a little bit arrogant to say "just take another fleet selection".

Improvise, Adapt and Overcome! If not then get whooped up on by your opponent.

It still comes down to fleet/ship choices. If your going to run a boresight only fleet, and/or a small fleet and lose initiative, then you're got to adapt your tactics to fit the rules. Start wasting this init sinks enmasse!

Seems like one group is focusing on the problem and another group is focusing on possible solutions.

 

[Ripple]

There has been a lot of posts since I last was on... I won't go into all of it, but I do have a few comments.

If I've been snippy or belittling I apologize... I'm frustrated in trying to get my point across and or addressed.

I don't believe that wkehrman is a power gamer (or other derogatory term), I just don't think he has been addressing my points and has often dismissed my examples in ways that had nothing to do with the discussion.

He has (along with Dag'karlove) in essence called me an incompetent player, poor fleet constructor and lazy in the face of a challenge. After a few renditions of this I started to lose my cool, likely inappropriately. Again I apologize... but please, try to understand what I'm saying...

both Davesaint, ShopkeepJon and Triggy have tried to outline the points as well, so it's not just me seeing an issue.

as too the KISS principle... absolutely keep it simple, it's why I pushed for the SA. It was simple, added only a minor variation to something that already is a staple of the game, and would cover all situations where boresight/initiative interactions caused distress for those of us who experience it. I did not see how it would detract from others enjoyment, unless, in their view, the game should not gain new options.

as too do I think Matt deliberately published a game with known flaws, yes I do. VPs for each fighter flight comes to mind (Kotha wings are worth how many VPs?!), the FAP having to be revised, twice, the horribly warped covers and defective bindings, Bimith losing its turns and becoming lumbering... All issues that should have been resolved, but weren't for business reasons, personal reasons or lack of understanding reasons. I don't think Matt's a bad person or malicious or what have you, but I do think expedience won over good mechanics/quality control a few times. And like the FAP issue or the binding issue, I'd like to see a few more fixed. I'm actually grateful he's behind the game and keeping it coming and profitable.

Ripple

 

[Ripple]

k3ndawg

I used to encounter this in my 40K days... folks saying just go kill his stuff.

When you explain that it physically can't be done in time to affect anything, what is the answer?

Usually it's build a different force then.

That's not focusing on solutions, that's avoiding the issue.

Valid tactic in sometimes... but that sends us back a few pages to what constitutes an issue that needs to be fixed. Right now that seems to be as much the disagreement as whether there even is an issue.

Ripple

 

[Burger]

ACTA is a game, not a maths problem.

Heresy!!!!!

You lose this thread!

 

[DrSeltsam]

Hi !

Sorry but I find it a little bit arrogant to say "just take another fleet selection".

Improvise, Adapt and Overcome! If not then get whooped up on by your opponent.

It still comes down to fleet/ship choices. If your going to run a boresight only fleet, and/or a small fleet and lose initiative, then you're got to adapt your tactics to fit the rules. Start wasting this init sinks enmasse!

Seems like one group is focusing on the problem and another group is focusing on possible solutions.

Sorry but i won't see this as a "solution" - you just try to justify a work-around as "solution" to a valid issue. The problem will still be around ...
If I take your post and try to read between the lines it says : not all fleets are suited to play a game and get a chance to win. If you pick the wrong fleet - your own fault. Please correct me if I got it wrong.

Wasting inti sinks sounds easy but maybe your fleet list does give you the option to do this ?
What will happen if adapting to the play style of your opponent only leads to less AD and less range but now enough init sinks that won't help ?

Matt said that not all fleets are on the same on each PL and I think we can agree to this, don't we ?

 

[k3ndawg]

you fucking losers don't know a tongue smiley when you see one? That's it, I'm outta here...

Try to lighten the mood a little and got ASSRAPED???

FUCK YOU!

And yes, some kindly admin, please ban my account now. :!:

 

[Da Boss]

That seems to be a slight overeaction :shock: ah well..........

 

[Galatea]

I think that "keep that target"-SO is a very good idea, didn't think of that but it's way easier and really helps to solve the problem.
What do you imagine for the crew check DC?
7? Higher? Or even automatic?

 

[Ripple]

Suggestions for the cq were either automatic (so the pak aren't left out in the cold) or an eight. This lets most races target at least half the time, win or lose initiative.

The idea was you gave up something to get to use your gun. As a lot of the time bore sighted ships need to use come about already I didn't see it as a game buster to go automatic, but other folks think that since bore weapons seem to have an extra die or two on average there should be limits. I can't argue the logic so put up both proposals as equally valid depending on point of view.

Sorry you felt that way K3ndawg, I thought I was just commenting...

Ripple

 

[David Anla Shok']

Hmmm. Mucho testieness from some. It's no biggie. No power here. No one who can affect how the game is played. Time for chill pills all around
We appear to have two approaches here. One group of folks postulating changes to the rules. Nice, interesting, but not likely to occur. They are what they are unless you want to have house rules.
The other group is focussed on work arounds. More practical (some of it) even if unpalatable to some.
I do miniatures gaming in several periods, ancients, medieval, Renaissance, WWII, fantasy you name it. Shock of shocks, no set of miniatures rules is ever perfect. Accomodations are made for the sake of playability and having fun. Also, no matter what the game, there are the armies/fleets that are more or less playable than others. Like playing Classical Greek against Imperial Roman. You won't win many games. You play them because you have an affinity for the army. Same thing here. Your fleet will do well against some and not against others. That's the way it is. How is it said? "sometimes you are the windshield, sometimes you are the bug". You just try to have fun either way. 'Nuff said.

 

[Davesaint]

Hmmm. Mucho testieness from some. It's no biggie. No power here. No one who can affect how the game is played. Time for chill pills all around
We appear to have two approaches here. One group of folks postulating changes to the rules. Nice, interesting, but not likely to occur. They are what they are unless you want to have house rules.
The other group is focussed on work arounds. More practical (some of it) even if unpalatable to some.
I do miniatures gaming in several periods, ancients, medieval, Renaissance, WWII, fantasy you name it. Shock of shocks, no set of miniatures rules is ever perfect. Accomodations are made for the sake of playability and having fun. Also, no matter what the game, there are the armies/fleets that are more or less playable than others. Like playing Classical Greek against Imperial Roman. You won't win many games. You play them because you have an affinity for the army. Same thing here. Your fleet will do well against some and not against others. That's the way it is. How is it said? "sometimes you are the windshield, sometimes you are the bug". You just try to have fun either way. 'Nuff said.

David,

I understand your point, however, IMO there is a difference between historical and Sci-Fi minatures games. When designing a historical game, there are much more stringent guidelines that you have to follow that cover the actual strengths and weaknesses of a given army. For example, it is highly unlikely that that imperial roman army would be able to defeat an English rennisance army. When designing a game in a sci-fi genre, you have the flexability to make balance. IMO every fleet should have roughly between a 40 and 60% chance of winning a given battle. If the fleet that was chosen to be played is only good as the bug being smashed by the windshield, then you don't have any fun. I guess that in my ramble, that every fleet should be playable against all others. This allows both for a fun aspect to the game, and better minatures sales.


The fix that ripple suggests to boresight along with a revised FAP breakdown list is likely the most simple change to reduce the problem with the swarm fleet. Couple that with making the 2 for 1 EA, Centauri, and Narn ships 1 for 1 patrol vessels, and the swarm fleets will be lessened.

My thought was that if the breakdown list was something like this

Suggested Currently

1 level lower - 2 ships 1 level lower - 2
2 levels lower - 3 ships 2 levels lower - 4
3 levels lower - 4 ships 3 levels lower - 8
4 levels lower - 6 ships 4 levels lower - 12
5 levels lower - 8 ships 5 levels lower - 24

then the effect of the swarm is significantly reduced. With the "reserved turn" special action, then the reduction in ships by the change in the FAP chart won't be an issue for only boresighted races like the Drazi.


Dave

 

[Burger]

I don't see what was wrong with the Armageddon FAP splits. We were all used to it, knew it well and it was good. But it changed inexplicably *sigh*

 

[David Anla Shok']

When designing a game in a sci-fi genre, you have the flexability to make balance. IMO every fleet should have roughly between a 40 and 60% chance of winning a given battle. If the fleet that was chosen to be played is only good as the bug being smashed by the windshield, then you don't have any fun. I guess that in my ramble, that every fleet should be playable against all others. This allows both for a fun aspect to the game, and better minatures sales.
Dave[/quote]

True enough, but, it is what it is. Some of us are willing to take up the challenge of unbalanced fights. Maybe not as much fun as riding roughshod over the other guy but an intellectual challenge to be sure.
But, even with the level playing field allowed by a game in the fantasy/sci fi genre where you create elements out of whole cloth, you won't find complete balance. One tries to make each opposing force unique and interesting on its own. It's more difficult to balance than you would think. Those of us who have toyed with game design tend to be less critical of those who design and sell.