We are 8 weeks into our campaign, and i have yet to see or hear of anyone using an xp die to reroll anything. Our games have been so off, with so many cruddy scenarios rolled, that my running offer to each player (first ship to earn 10xp, whether used on other things or not, gets a persona for the ship, modified from S&P article) was just reached, and it was by a Centauri player. Needless to say, it's been a little rough, most seem more interested in making ships more survivable/deadly than rerolling.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The (ab)use of Campaign Experience Points
- Thread starter prelude_to_war
- Start date
Okay a few things...
First die roll defenses - I said these were not purely balanced 50/50 as the defender gets to wait and see if you succeed in your first roll, if you fail and you spend he gets to see if you succeed in you second roll. Only if you succeed in one of the above does he have to spend. So if the roll is 50/50, and you take two shots at it you should still fail some portion of the time, in which case the defender will not spend. It is true if the attacker succeeds and the defender then fails to force a failure on the reroll it will balance out, but this has been less common in our games.
The above argument has become wasted however as Matt has ruled you can't re-roll a re-roll so only one player can actually cause the die to be re-rolled. IE if the attacker succeeds the defender can try to re-roll, if the attacker fails he can try to re-roll but the second roll stands.
As too the crit chart, yeah, being able to roll twice for the second die is huge, first die is nice but two shots for an x-6 roll is a big deal, and a much bigger deal for multiplier weapons.
The refit and other duties tables are not equal, I agree with that. My question is more are they so unequal that we are better off playing without them. The same can be said about the special rules for races. The abbai rule about a turn of peace getting them extra cash is by no means even vaguely equal to MoD. Is there a balancing element between the charts and the fleet strengths. (excepting the one really bad Narn roll...I think that was honestly thought to be a bonus, and just not thought through.) I think that would have to be looked at on a case by case basis to see where folks thought things were weak.
I don't think there is any real argument to be made about CQ improvement or ship damage repairs after the battle. All races should be able to benefit from these if they chose or not without being at a penalty or bonus.
Using exp dice for special actions/damage control is somewhat different. Certain races are more dependant on these types rolls than others, what I am not sure of is whether those races get an unfair advantage out of it. The ISA and damage control certainly concern me as they are one of those bleeding edge races...balanced so finely that one wafer thin mint is all it might take to make a real mess of things. Vorlons...not so much. Drazi...well...lets just say I still think in campaign they need help, and the nice lady with the couch is not what I'm talking about.
Anyway..tried to keep this somewhat general as we'll hash out the direct stuff for our campaign based on who wants to run what and what house rules/fleet style we use.
Ripple
First die roll defenses - I said these were not purely balanced 50/50 as the defender gets to wait and see if you succeed in your first roll, if you fail and you spend he gets to see if you succeed in you second roll. Only if you succeed in one of the above does he have to spend. So if the roll is 50/50, and you take two shots at it you should still fail some portion of the time, in which case the defender will not spend. It is true if the attacker succeeds and the defender then fails to force a failure on the reroll it will balance out, but this has been less common in our games.
The above argument has become wasted however as Matt has ruled you can't re-roll a re-roll so only one player can actually cause the die to be re-rolled. IE if the attacker succeeds the defender can try to re-roll, if the attacker fails he can try to re-roll but the second roll stands.
As too the crit chart, yeah, being able to roll twice for the second die is huge, first die is nice but two shots for an x-6 roll is a big deal, and a much bigger deal for multiplier weapons.
The refit and other duties tables are not equal, I agree with that. My question is more are they so unequal that we are better off playing without them. The same can be said about the special rules for races. The abbai rule about a turn of peace getting them extra cash is by no means even vaguely equal to MoD. Is there a balancing element between the charts and the fleet strengths. (excepting the one really bad Narn roll...I think that was honestly thought to be a bonus, and just not thought through.) I think that would have to be looked at on a case by case basis to see where folks thought things were weak.
I don't think there is any real argument to be made about CQ improvement or ship damage repairs after the battle. All races should be able to benefit from these if they chose or not without being at a penalty or bonus.
Using exp dice for special actions/damage control is somewhat different. Certain races are more dependant on these types rolls than others, what I am not sure of is whether those races get an unfair advantage out of it. The ISA and damage control certainly concern me as they are one of those bleeding edge races...balanced so finely that one wafer thin mint is all it might take to make a real mess of things. Vorlons...not so much. Drazi...well...lets just say I still think in campaign they need help, and the nice lady with the couch is not what I'm talking about.
Anyway..tried to keep this somewhat general as we'll hash out the direct stuff for our campaign based on who wants to run what and what house rules/fleet style we use.
Ripple
demonllamma
Mongoose
Chernobyl said:I would limit XP dice to CQ raise attempts, Extra Duties / Refits, and re-rolling a CQ check for a special action. Anything else, and you're seriously affecting game mechanics.
in KOTJ 3 and 4, I'm allowing ships to earn XP in each round - but they can only be spent between games - refits/duties/CQ.
Chern
This is what we're doing in our big mega campaign thing here. Makes the ships better without making it wonky.
Commador Q
Mongoose
i tend to think that in the grand scheam of things, XP value is likely to even out. sure some races get more punch out of a given type of re-role, and less from another, but i think everyone has something worth spending XP on.
if nothing else, you can make your oponent re-role a sucessfull role that you don't want to see. (ie that beam hit in the first volley, the redirect role against your flag ship, etc.)
as for the refits and other duties, if you don't like your list save the XP for re-roles, as has been pointed out a timely re-role of a 6-6 crit can turn the tide of a battle. If you ask me XP is just another reasorce the managment of which is crucial to the tactics of a campagne. To me it seems that the leage fleets tend to have the most special rules, presumably to offset their somwhat less powerfull and versitile ship selection.
the only issue i've heard brought up that does concern me is the one regarding the distribution of XP. Some races do tend to have more disposable ships, and less ability to keep any one vessil arolund long enough to gain much XP (the raiders come to mind). In that case, there may be a balance issue, but i suspect that races with a high turnover rate in ships would tend to have a sort of advantage in that they need to spend less RRs repairing and recruing their fleet as most of their ships are barnd new at any given time. So while they have less XP they also are less likely to send out a half strength ship because their destroyer squaden was almost decrewed.
if nothing else, you can make your oponent re-role a sucessfull role that you don't want to see. (ie that beam hit in the first volley, the redirect role against your flag ship, etc.)
as for the refits and other duties, if you don't like your list save the XP for re-roles, as has been pointed out a timely re-role of a 6-6 crit can turn the tide of a battle. If you ask me XP is just another reasorce the managment of which is crucial to the tactics of a campagne. To me it seems that the leage fleets tend to have the most special rules, presumably to offset their somwhat less powerfull and versitile ship selection.
the only issue i've heard brought up that does concern me is the one regarding the distribution of XP. Some races do tend to have more disposable ships, and less ability to keep any one vessil arolund long enough to gain much XP (the raiders come to mind). In that case, there may be a balance issue, but i suspect that races with a high turnover rate in ships would tend to have a sort of advantage in that they need to spend less RRs repairing and recruing their fleet as most of their ships are barnd new at any given time. So while they have less XP they also are less likely to send out a half strength ship because their destroyer squaden was almost decrewed.
Respectfully disagree on your last point Commander.
We've played two fairly intense campaigns and refit and repair has proven to be easily handled. If it were not for the free repairs at home I might have sent an unrepaired Kaliva into a fight but most everyone else had no issue. If we had not caused site values to be inflated (we link new sites to old) making battles pay off better I could not have competed in any way with the larger races as my losses would have removed my fleet by roughly the third battle I was in (ie around turn 4/5ish).
As too the league have the most special rules...again have to disagree.. .league have a lot due to being a lot of races, but Dilgar/Shadows /Vorlons/Drahk/ISA all have at least as much. The Narn and EA have the variant weapons and/or ship by ship special rules. Oddly I can't remember whether there are special rules for the Centauri/Minbari. But I believe special rules are fairly widely distributed.
Ripple
We've played two fairly intense campaigns and refit and repair has proven to be easily handled. If it were not for the free repairs at home I might have sent an unrepaired Kaliva into a fight but most everyone else had no issue. If we had not caused site values to be inflated (we link new sites to old) making battles pay off better I could not have competed in any way with the larger races as my losses would have removed my fleet by roughly the third battle I was in (ie around turn 4/5ish).
As too the league have the most special rules...again have to disagree.. .league have a lot due to being a lot of races, but Dilgar/Shadows /Vorlons/Drahk/ISA all have at least as much. The Narn and EA have the variant weapons and/or ship by ship special rules. Oddly I can't remember whether there are special rules for the Centauri/Minbari. But I believe special rules are fairly widely distributed.
Ripple
Commador Q
Mongoose
Ripple said:Respectfully disagree on your last point Commander.
We've played two fairly intense campaigns and refit and repair has proven to be easily handled. If it were not for the free repairs at home I might have sent an unrepaired Kaliva into a fight but most everyone else had no issue. If we had not caused site values to be inflated (we link new sites to old) making battles pay off better I could not have competed in any way with the larger races as my losses would have removed my fleet by roughly the third battle I was in (ie around turn 4/5ish).
As too the league have the most special rules...again have to disagree.. .league have a lot due to being a lot of races, but Dilgar/Shadows /Vorlons/Drahk/ISA all have at least as much. The Narn and EA have the variant weapons and/or ship by ship special rules. Oddly I can't remember whether there are special rules for the Centauri/Minbari. But I believe special rules are fairly widely distributed.
Ripple
i'm not enteierly sure in what way you disagree. are you saying that you had a high ship turnover rate (caused by the race you were playing and not just a result of how the battles hapened to go), and suffered a disadvantage because you had less chance to earn XP due to the high turnover rate? if that's what you mean, then perhaps there is an inbalance with regards to XP distribution. however if you are just comenting that the XP and RR system favors fleets who take less damage and loose fewer ships then, i have to say i don't think that's a balance issue, unless one or more specific races can't be played so as to capitalize on the XP system.
also i'd like to clarify my earlier comments on this regard:
i don't see the fact that the XP system favors ships that last longer as a problem. as i see it that's what XP is suposed to do. I also don't have a problem with races that have a hard time earning XP because their ships are cheep and fragile (like the raiders who have week ships but due to their low priority level and their special rules, can more easily replace any given casualty). Nor do i think the system is unbalanced if a competitive campagne is basicly won by XP, as XP is a reasorce so whoever uses it best (assuming all players have equal oppertunity to earn it or another reasorce, such as replacment ships), deserves to have an advantage. In short, you shouldn't be suprised if loosing a lot of ships leads to shortages, that's the point of a campagn forcing player to look at the big picture and decide where and when to commit their ships. However if a race is supposed to have a throw away ship fleet doctrine where they just keep sending more and more ships in no matter how many they loose, they should have special rules that compensate them for the loss of their ships, and any chance those ships had to earn XP, if that isn't the case for the fleet you are using, perhaps a more conservative approach would yield better results. i speek from experience here as i tend to loose games (multi-player games, since oponents are in short supply where i live), because i'm too reckless with my white stars in the last turns, i have a hard time resisting the urge to push for that last kill even though i could break off and have a chance at winning, depending exactely how the points divide up amoungst my oponents.
I guess I wasn't being clear.
You seem to be saying that ships that are more likely to survive combat and earn exp dice are balanced against brand new ships due to the cost of repairing/re-crewing the ship. I disagree with this statement as we will likely pay very similar costs but the player of the larger ships will not have lost half his exp dice with the destroyed hulls, and those exp dice he has will be concentrated more. A benefit as Refits and Other Duties require multiple dice on a single ship.
Use a Solarhawk vs a Sulust as an example. The sulust has much greater survivability (interceptors and x2 the damage points) and over two turns has easily the firepower. (we'll ignore ease of use.) The solarhawk will rarely survive a battle but the sulust can absorb an equal amount of punishment and still come out financially ahead. It would cost around seven points to repair enough damage and crew to build a Solarhawk, but fifteen points to buy a new one. So he has an exp advantage, an economic advantage and his relative survivability goes up every encounter he survives.
That is a somewhat extreme example but extreme can clarify what would otherwise be viewed as a murky 'minor' advantage. In campaign play a minor advantage will play out many times, becoming something major just by the constant repetition.
There was a thread on here for a while about something that was called Redundancy(and/or Bulk). It was very contraversial. Many folks commented that giving ships the ability to ignore the first critical or two was a huge deal, in effect that is what the winner of every campaign battle receives. As the die can only be re-rolled once, he force his opponent to roll a six twice to get a crit until he runs out of exp dice.
Too tired and drifting off thought again.
Ripple
You seem to be saying that ships that are more likely to survive combat and earn exp dice are balanced against brand new ships due to the cost of repairing/re-crewing the ship. I disagree with this statement as we will likely pay very similar costs but the player of the larger ships will not have lost half his exp dice with the destroyed hulls, and those exp dice he has will be concentrated more. A benefit as Refits and Other Duties require multiple dice on a single ship.
Use a Solarhawk vs a Sulust as an example. The sulust has much greater survivability (interceptors and x2 the damage points) and over two turns has easily the firepower. (we'll ignore ease of use.) The solarhawk will rarely survive a battle but the sulust can absorb an equal amount of punishment and still come out financially ahead. It would cost around seven points to repair enough damage and crew to build a Solarhawk, but fifteen points to buy a new one. So he has an exp advantage, an economic advantage and his relative survivability goes up every encounter he survives.
That is a somewhat extreme example but extreme can clarify what would otherwise be viewed as a murky 'minor' advantage. In campaign play a minor advantage will play out many times, becoming something major just by the constant repetition.
There was a thread on here for a while about something that was called Redundancy(and/or Bulk). It was very contraversial. Many folks commented that giving ships the ability to ignore the first critical or two was a huge deal, in effect that is what the winner of every campaign battle receives. As the die can only be re-rolled once, he force his opponent to roll a six twice to get a crit until he runs out of exp dice.
Too tired and drifting off thought again.
Ripple
Similar threads
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 634
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 199
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 1K
