GhostRecon
Mongoose
To save, er recenter the discussion, I bring attention back to my suggestion -- Raking Fire. Any comments? Only a few people have even spoken of it.
Suggestion for boresight/inisink problem solution
- Thread starter Galatea
- Start date
dag'karlove
Mongoose
neat in theory But I still dont think anything needs to be fixed. I think The rules in this capacity support the fluff and so im not a big fan of change. Hoever I think The raking fire idea would porbably solve the Perceved problem better than follow that ship etc etc.
whitestars... yes they should be bore sighted, but eh... a different (and very long thread)...
raking fire... the concern I have is just getting bonus attack dice/arc for no limitations, and it has all the limitations of book keeping that seem the main detractor of other solutions that include some form of trade off. If bore sighted weapons had not gotten additional AD in second ed I would have been happier with it.
secondary dislike is, at least as I read it last, you could end up with bore sighted ships shooting whitestars that are behind them at the point the ship is declared to fire. It would feel very odd even knowing what it was simulating, especially as the rest of my forward and side guns would not benefit from being able to fire as the whitestar went by, but my rigid forward laser would.
Ripple
raking fire... the concern I have is just getting bonus attack dice/arc for no limitations, and it has all the limitations of book keeping that seem the main detractor of other solutions that include some form of trade off. If bore sighted weapons had not gotten additional AD in second ed I would have been happier with it.
secondary dislike is, at least as I read it last, you could end up with bore sighted ships shooting whitestars that are behind them at the point the ship is declared to fire. It would feel very odd even knowing what it was simulating, especially as the rest of my forward and side guns would not benefit from being able to fire as the whitestar went by, but my rigid forward laser would.
Ripple
Was thinking instead on the turn later SA maybe you could have in conjuction of a ship with command, get to "tap" like the dilgar do with thier pentagons on sucessfull CQ check 9 or so, only 1 roll per ship with command or no rolls to the command value. You wouldn't be able to use the Pentagon rule & SA to tap twice. Maybe the ship with command wouldn't be able use a SA unless it was using this SA.
eg Drazi jumphawks could be very useful or even maybe a Poseidon & 3 Omega fleet might work. The Poseidon just release it's horde of t-Bolts & then each Omega gets a chance to tap so it get more a choice of what it boresights. This might work as fleets with boresight tend to have more options of command ships or get them a lower level or would complicate the game too much.
eg Drazi jumphawks could be very useful or even maybe a Poseidon & 3 Omega fleet might work. The Poseidon just release it's horde of t-Bolts & then each Omega gets a chance to tap so it get more a choice of what it boresights. This might work as fleets with boresight tend to have more options of command ships or get them a lower level or would complicate the game too much.
Gray Dagon
Mongoose
Whew. I wish I could have finished reading this thread before posting, but I stopped on page 4 somewhere. I understand the frustration of not being able to get a boresight shot and the issues with sinks. I see this in alot of games I play(not boresight per say but being out sinked) I play Vree and regularly get to move 3+ ships after my opponents are done. I usually lose initiative but I still retain the advantage of moving mutiple ships last just because my fleet has more ships in it. This doesn't seem right to me but its how the rule works I move 1 ship the my opponent moves 1 ship etc...
The reference to BattleTech earlier in this thread got me to thinking about playing that game last century, man I feel old all of the sudden. The initiative system used in that game allowed the player who won initiative to get the last move. IE- player 1 with 4 mechs wins initiative vs player 2 with 7 mechs, player 2 moves 2 mechs(5 left) player 1 moves 1 mech(3 left) player 2 moves 2 mechs(3 left) player 1 moves 1 mech(2 left) player 2 moves 2 mechs(1 left) player 1 moves 1 mech(1 left) player 2 moves 1 mech(all mechs moved) player 1 moves last mech
This system lets the player who won the intiative retain the advantage because even though his opponent has more mechs he's moving them in a way to allow the winner of initative to react to at least some of his movements. The really important part of this method is getting the last move, even if its 1 vs 5 the winner of initative gets to go last.
I dont know if this method has been tried or not but it shouldn't cripple a swarm fleet and would seem to give a better chance to boresight/outnumbered fleets. I haven't play tested this but will mention it to my friends Friday before our next campaign turn and see if they want to test it out.
The reference to BattleTech earlier in this thread got me to thinking about playing that game last century, man I feel old all of the sudden. The initiative system used in that game allowed the player who won initiative to get the last move. IE- player 1 with 4 mechs wins initiative vs player 2 with 7 mechs, player 2 moves 2 mechs(5 left) player 1 moves 1 mech(3 left) player 2 moves 2 mechs(3 left) player 1 moves 1 mech(2 left) player 2 moves 2 mechs(1 left) player 1 moves 1 mech(1 left) player 2 moves 1 mech(all mechs moved) player 1 moves last mech
This system lets the player who won the intiative retain the advantage because even though his opponent has more mechs he's moving them in a way to allow the winner of initative to react to at least some of his movements. The really important part of this method is getting the last move, even if its 1 vs 5 the winner of initative gets to go last.
I dont know if this method has been tried or not but it shouldn't cripple a swarm fleet and would seem to give a better chance to boresight/outnumbered fleets. I haven't play tested this but will mention it to my friends Friday before our next campaign turn and see if they want to test it out.
it would cripple a swarm fleet if say you aplyed one shadow ship with its init +6 againsta full drazi fleet with init +1. likelyhood there is the drazi would never get to move 2nd and therefore never get to target the shadow ship losing by default.
its our full boresight fleets, and init mods that dont allow a battletech type system to work.
its our full boresight fleets, and init mods that dont allow a battletech type system to work.
Gray Dagon
Mongoose
Hadn't thought about a full on bore sight fleet like the drazi, but in that case why not change up tactics- fighters and ships that have forward arc weapons as secondaries. It would be a rough match but some fleets just dont' match up well vs others. Bottom line for me is winning initiative should mean something no matter how many ships my opponent has.
GhostRecon
Mongoose
I still think the "raking fire" idea provides the best solution to boresight; you have to have boresighted the target in the first place, so its not like you're getting extra AD (You had the boresight and your enemy's million initiative sinks meant you would normally magically miss what is really a sure-fire boresight shot), and it even (*le gasp*) encourages players to use their capital ships agressively instead of hiding them behind clouds of initiative sinking escorts.
To reiterate:
Raking Fire --
1. You must boresight the target --before-- it moves.
2. Enemy ship moves out of boresight, and you declare "raking fire." (The louder and more british you say it, the higher your imaginary AD bonus on your "ego" weapon system).
3. You get half your boresighted weapon's AD so long as the enemy ship remains in the front arc. If the enemy moves out of your front arc, it is moving too quickly to be hit by your boresighted weapon, and thus the shot is missed and wasted. (i.e. you cannot retarget your boresight shot on another ship if you are trying to raking fire another, either you rake fire the ship you boresighted and it moved, or you don't fire it at all. Period).
To reiterate:
Raking Fire --
1. You must boresight the target --before-- it moves.
2. Enemy ship moves out of boresight, and you declare "raking fire." (The louder and more british you say it, the higher your imaginary AD bonus on your "ego" weapon system).
3. You get half your boresighted weapon's AD so long as the enemy ship remains in the front arc. If the enemy moves out of your front arc, it is moving too quickly to be hit by your boresighted weapon, and thus the shot is missed and wasted. (i.e. you cannot retarget your boresight shot on another ship if you are trying to raking fire another, either you rake fire the ship you boresighted and it moved, or you don't fire it at all. Period).
The extra AD you gained was the extra AD boresighted ships were given because they were bore sighted and would struggle to get a shot. Your system guarantees bore sighted ships will get a shot most turns, thus increasing the effective 'AD per turn' the ship is expected to put out. If bore sighted weapons had not been give a general increase in AD as a balance factor I would agree with you that raking fire would have been a good solution from an opportunity fire standpoint.
To gray dragon - we covered it in a few different places, but may have been after page four...
We're dealing with different issues here...
one is sinking - feels artificial and 'gamey' and gives a bonus to swarm fleets that doesn't feel earned vs capitol ships.
related is bore sight - bore sight rules absolutely require that the bore fleet out sink its opponent. Thus any attempt to 'even out' the activations puts bore sighted fleets, especially the drazi which is all bore sighted, at a huge disadvantage, as they will effectively lose their main guns.
third is swarm - right now due to the very attractive buy downs, swarms generally have a large advantage in critical resilience, total damage/crew, total AD, effective initiative due to sinking, and bore defense.
suggested solutions have been to...
change the fap buy downs to reflect the sinking advantage and help reduce the advantages in crit resilience, damage/crew/ad totals.
new SA - follow that target - allow ships to reserve their final turn, this turn must be used to bore sight (or as close as possible) the targeted ship at the end of movement. Target is designated at the time the SA is declared.
raking fire - bore sight a ship during movement, if that ship moves, you get to fire your bore weapon with half ad if it moves beyond your front arc, full if it stays within.
both help with bore sighted restriction issue... my preference for the sa has been outlined a few times.
other than changing the FAP scale folks have suggested that larger ships get to ignore a certain number of crits per game, gain a geg like system where you have where smaller ships have to get a certain number of hits to effect a larger ship and changes to crit repair for larger ships where they start repairing crits at 2+ with the number going up with each crit they attempt to repair.
Hope that helps catch you up...
Ripple
To gray dragon - we covered it in a few different places, but may have been after page four...
We're dealing with different issues here...
one is sinking - feels artificial and 'gamey' and gives a bonus to swarm fleets that doesn't feel earned vs capitol ships.
related is bore sight - bore sight rules absolutely require that the bore fleet out sink its opponent. Thus any attempt to 'even out' the activations puts bore sighted fleets, especially the drazi which is all bore sighted, at a huge disadvantage, as they will effectively lose their main guns.
third is swarm - right now due to the very attractive buy downs, swarms generally have a large advantage in critical resilience, total damage/crew, total AD, effective initiative due to sinking, and bore defense.
suggested solutions have been to...
change the fap buy downs to reflect the sinking advantage and help reduce the advantages in crit resilience, damage/crew/ad totals.
new SA - follow that target - allow ships to reserve their final turn, this turn must be used to bore sight (or as close as possible) the targeted ship at the end of movement. Target is designated at the time the SA is declared.
raking fire - bore sight a ship during movement, if that ship moves, you get to fire your bore weapon with half ad if it moves beyond your front arc, full if it stays within.
both help with bore sighted restriction issue... my preference for the sa has been outlined a few times.
other than changing the FAP scale folks have suggested that larger ships get to ignore a certain number of crits per game, gain a geg like system where you have where smaller ships have to get a certain number of hits to effect a larger ship and changes to crit repair for larger ships where they start repairing crits at 2+ with the number going up with each crit they attempt to repair.
Hope that helps catch you up...
Ripple
GhostRecon
Mongoose
Ripple said:
Just to reiterate and ensure clarity, in the "raking fire" proposal you get your AD halved if the target moves out of boresight, but remains in your front arc. You only get the full AD of the weapon if your target remains boresighted. If it moves out of your front arc entirely, you can't shoot at it at all with the boresight weapon, regardless of whether you had boresight or not.
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
I would like to see Raking in action. It is 1/2 AD of the Bore weapon which should put it well below most other Fwd weapon AD so it's not getting a silver bullet and having to announce that you're leading a target is can also be a disadvantage, though to less a degree. Is it 1/2 AD rounded down or up?
After a quick glance at the Battle Level ships I'm not seeing all that much "extra" firepower for Bore weapons versus Fwd. I'll look more closely at some of the others when I get more time, maybe the extra power is at Skirmish.
After a quick glance at the Battle Level ships I'm not seeing all that much "extra" firepower for Bore weapons versus Fwd. I'll look more closely at some of the others when I get more time, maybe the extra power is at Skirmish.
GhostRecon
Mongoose
Sulfurdown said:
Without heavy playtesting I can't say either way, but Im inclined to favor that the 1/2 AD penalty is rounded down (To a minimum of 1) rather than up, to further lower the possibility of gaining extra AD.
If I can get some time I'll try it out; others can give it a whirl at their leisure =P
The discrepancies are in total firepower of the ship, not in flat AD.
The hyperion has huge potential for a raid ship but the bore sight helped it not get the criticism that the prefect and sulust got.
The omega went up 2 dice between editions in part due to being bore sighted.
The drazi have been told consistently that their are 'overgunned' for their pl to compensate for being boresighted, and that opening them up to front arc (even just the twl) would require a reduction in AD.
And thank you for being clear on the percentage of ad and arc restriction. In several of the earlier posts folks seemed to be talking about firing on ships that had reached the side arcs. Essentially, ships that depended on maneuver to defend were getting eaten by that description. F arc restricted helps somewhat... but that still leaves a lot of room for complaint from the F arc guys who aren't going to get better from getting bore.
Ripple
The hyperion has huge potential for a raid ship but the bore sight helped it not get the criticism that the prefect and sulust got.
The omega went up 2 dice between editions in part due to being bore sighted.
The drazi have been told consistently that their are 'overgunned' for their pl to compensate for being boresighted, and that opening them up to front arc (even just the twl) would require a reduction in AD.
And thank you for being clear on the percentage of ad and arc restriction. In several of the earlier posts folks seemed to be talking about firing on ships that had reached the side arcs. Essentially, ships that depended on maneuver to defend were getting eaten by that description. F arc restricted helps somewhat... but that still leaves a lot of room for complaint from the F arc guys who aren't going to get better from getting bore.
Ripple
Dizzy Vree
Mongoose
this may have been mentioned before, but im far to lazy to read the whole thread.
me and a freind(ea player) have been thinking of a solution to the B problem, i think it works, but hes getting fed up of omegas only shooting xaars.
I belive that the problem with boresight is not the arc, but the order of movement, surely it would be far easyer to predict the movements(and therefore easyer to target and hit) the movements of a far larger/slower/more cumbersom ship, ie a xaak, so mab ships should not move in any order, so that quick, darting frigates are the ones being boresighted, but in order of size, or manuverablility, we are going to try and get together and have a "mobility rating" system where the player must pick from his lowest 1st then his highest last..........(this would also make skirmish level fleets less "your broken" targets)
This would be a number between 1 and say... 10, it would take into acount speed, turns, agile or lumbering, possesion of dodge, "size" (this would be based on damage/crew cus the scale is a bit .... off) and the race/ship itself
just wandering if this has been done of thought of....
me and a freind(ea player) have been thinking of a solution to the B problem, i think it works, but hes getting fed up of omegas only shooting xaars.
I belive that the problem with boresight is not the arc, but the order of movement, surely it would be far easyer to predict the movements(and therefore easyer to target and hit) the movements of a far larger/slower/more cumbersom ship, ie a xaak, so mab ships should not move in any order, so that quick, darting frigates are the ones being boresighted, but in order of size, or manuverablility, we are going to try and get together and have a "mobility rating" system where the player must pick from his lowest 1st then his highest last..........(this would also make skirmish level fleets less "your broken" targets)
This would be a number between 1 and say... 10, it would take into acount speed, turns, agile or lumbering, possesion of dodge, "size" (this would be based on damage/crew cus the scale is a bit .... off) and the race/ship itself
just wandering if this has been done of thought of....
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
How many times? No ad-hoc fix is going to work; the perceived problem is in the core turn sequence. There's no way to "patch" it quickly and simply, if people think boresighting and init. sinks are a problem the turn sequence needs to be re-written, which isn't going to happen. The you-go-I-go method is a sacred cow, same as the PL system.
Dizzy Vree
Mongoose
i agree with the alternate turns system, and to a lesser extent PL's i just reckon it needs some.... "sureing up", mab a little more complexity -ducks for cover-
