The effect of critical hits
- Thread starter Keith
- Start date
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
That would only be true if all criticals knocked out the ship that suffers them. Seeing as a lot of the "critical" results don't knock out the target ship, throwing around the 1/6 and 1/3 probabilities is really nothing more than fearmongering.Fin-man said:
Unbalanced would be if heavily damaged ships operated at peak efficiency right up until the dying moments of their life (when they become crippled), and the "critical" effects are important to avoid this problem. If the critical critical effects are cropping up too frequently at present, what's needed is to shift the tables around so that the non-critical critical effects (such as speed reductions) crop up more often instead. The best way that I can see to do this would be to rejig the tables to use a 2d6 roll instead.
Example:
Engine Criticals (1-2 on a d6) Roll 2d6 for severity.
2 No turns
3-4 Each turn needs 4+ to succeed
5-8 Speed -1
9-11 Speed -2
12 Speed 0
Set the Damage and Crew values for each result as necessary, and make reductions cumulative.
With a table such as that above, a speed 0 or no turning result will be rare, a reduced turning or speed -2 result will be uncommon, and the usual result will be a gradual degrading of the ship's speed. This will allow criticals to do their job of degrading the target's performance without having the more drastic results being quite as common.
I just HATE the crew critical table, its now becoming a running joke that all I ever get is crew crits (well about 1 in every 2 or 3 crits). It just seems to me that the crew crit table is taking the micky, esp as its number 5.
I like Fin-mans idea and think I will talk to my mates about it, although I might fiddle with it a touch, a failed crit becomes 2/2 damage and then modified if the weapon allows. This will give a solid hit and a smile, without making them too powerfull.
I like Fin-mans idea and think I will talk to my mates about it, although I might fiddle with it a touch, a failed crit becomes 2/2 damage and then modified if the weapon allows. This will give a solid hit and a smile, without making them too powerfull.
Neko,
That's why I said, "I'm all for the lucky hit that knocks out a key ship, but should this really happen on a 1 in 6 chance?"
Over 50% of the criticals on the chart can take a key ship out of the fight, or at the very least degrade it's ability to contribute to the battle. (A G'Quan that can only fire weapons on a 4 or better each turn , or a Victory that is Speed 0 - Yea.)
The way the game plays now, there is not any reason to take a Battle or War level ships [Note: Exception - Minbari Sharin, until they fix the stealth rule] - they will only get a crit that will knock them out or severly degrade their performance. The better way (at least for now) is to play a swarm of Raid and Skirmish ships. Yes, they die easier induvidually - but there's many more of them on the horizon.
Our house rule makes it so the big ships are viable again, without making them too powerful. Try it for a few battels - I think you will find that it makes the game more about tactics and maneuver, and less of a 'critical-fest'
Fin-man
That's why I said, "I'm all for the lucky hit that knocks out a key ship, but should this really happen on a 1 in 6 chance?"
Over 50% of the criticals on the chart can take a key ship out of the fight, or at the very least degrade it's ability to contribute to the battle. (A G'Quan that can only fire weapons on a 4 or better each turn , or a Victory that is Speed 0 - Yea.)
The way the game plays now, there is not any reason to take a Battle or War level ships [Note: Exception - Minbari Sharin, until they fix the stealth rule] - they will only get a crit that will knock them out or severly degrade their performance. The better way (at least for now) is to play a swarm of Raid and Skirmish ships. Yes, they die easier induvidually - but there's many more of them on the horizon.
Our house rule makes it so the big ships are viable again, without making them too powerful. Try it for a few battels - I think you will find that it makes the game more about tactics and maneuver, and less of a 'critical-fest'
Fin-man
neko said:
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Considering you have to roll a 6 to GET a crit in the first place (barring Precise weapons, which are still rare), that makes it 1 in TWELVE chances of a disabling crit, even by your definition of 'disabling' (which I would call 'priority damage control').Fin-man said:
Is 1 in 12 acceptable? Yes, it is. I haven't got a fortnight to play a single game.
Wulf
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
And that's why I said that it's only a 1/6 chance if all criticals knock a ship out of the battle, You then contradict yourself by giving a figure of only ~50% of criticals taking a ship out of the battle OR degrading the ship's ability to contribute to the battle - Even if 50% of criticals took a ship out of a battle, then it's a 1/12 chance of taking the ship out of the battle, not the 1/6 that you state. That figure also includes criticals that merely degrade a ship's performance, which is the whole point of critical hits.Fin-man said:
As it is, I count 4/36 effects that will take the ship out of a battle, 5/36 effects that will usually be a drastic degredation of a ship's ability, 18/36 effects that will usually be a more minor degredation of a ship's ability, and 9/36 criticals which have no effect other than to create additional damage or kill off crew.
Overall this gives us:
4/216 (1/54) chance that a hit will take a ship out of the battle.
5/216 chance that a hit will severely degrade a ship.
18/216 (1/12) chance that a hit will give a more minor degradation of the ship.
9/216 (1/24) chance that a hit will give no effect beyond damage/crew loss.
This also fails to take into account that minor degredations don't stack, so it's fairly often that they're ignored for having already been suffered (getting -1 speed twice for example). This is why I say that minor effects should be made more common and allowed to stack, whilst the major effects should be reduced. Your system penalises not only the overly major effects, but the minor degredation that should be in there.
Neko,
I respect your opinion, but it doesn't sway the experiences we've had in our group. When game after game becomes, "who got the luckiest critical first - wins!", then there is a problem with the rules set. You can disagree, but it doesn't change what we've seen in the 50+ games we played before recognizing the impact critical hits had in decided the game.
Fin-man
I respect your opinion, but it doesn't sway the experiences we've had in our group. When game after game becomes, "who got the luckiest critical first - wins!", then there is a problem with the rules set. You can disagree, but it doesn't change what we've seen in the 50+ games we played before recognizing the impact critical hits had in decided the game.
Fin-man
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
No, there is a problem with the players in your group. Look at the poll on this thread. 4 to 1 say there's no problem. Just because you have a problem doesn't automatically mean everyone else is wrong.Fin-man said:
Wulf
Wulf,
Maybe - but maybe not. It would be fairly comical if the six or seven players in our group were critical rolling super-studs, but I don't think that is the case. (This is based on the fact that we aren't all rich from playing the craps tables here in Nevada :lol: )
Anyway, it was a house rule we play because our group found that critical hits decided the winner in 80% of the games we had played at that point. Some people agree, and some don't.
Your milage may vary.
Fin-man
Maybe - but maybe not. It would be fairly comical if the six or seven players in our group were critical rolling super-studs, but I don't think that is the case. (This is based on the fact that we aren't all rich from playing the craps tables here in Nevada :lol: )
Anyway, it was a house rule we play because our group found that critical hits decided the winner in 80% of the games we had played at that point. Some people agree, and some don't.
Your milage may vary.
Fin-man
Wulf Corbett said:
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
And that is, in fact, why I have no problem at all in stating that you are wrong when you state that there is a problem with the rules. There may possibly be, but if there is it's not to be judged solely on your experience. You are in the minority in finding crits a problem. That tells me there is no clear problem in the rules.Fin-man said:Your milage may vary.
Wulf
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Fin-man said:
Debilitating critical hits do affect the game, but part of the point of this is to adapt your tactics and continue fighting with your other ships. This is first and foremost a fleet game and the loss of one ship should not mean the loss of the battle.
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
You may or may not have had bad experiances from the critical tables before now - I wouldn't even try to dispute that - but that still doesn't change the statistics you were giving from being false.Fin-man said:
Hate to enter the debate late but seems all parties are throwing around some bogus numbers.
Neko doesn't give a list of which crits he considers serious enough to take a ship out of battle, nor is there any reference for which ship is being considered. I know speed crits vary in their effect on a ship's battleworthiness depending on its arcs and original speed. Triple damage weapons hitting several crits can decrew or destroy low priority ships in a shot.
Wulf throws out the fine old bone of not having a fort night to play a game. Somehow I have to hope that is an exaggeration, because if the game takes a fortnight to play with just a reduction in crit effect frequency then the game must really be decided by crits all the time because I've never had a game take more than 4 hours.
And finally lets talk about the accuarcy of internet polls since it's being brought up. We have 50ish votes by an unknown number of people (folks can have multiple accounts with which to vote), representing an unknown number of other folks (my game group has 6-7 folks only 3 of which appear on these boards) representing an unknown amount of experience (some folks feel they 'know' the game after 3 games, others have played a 100+) and an unknown amount of effort being put into analyzing the play (some folks extensively post mortem games to figure out what happened and why, other folks play, shake hands and never think about anything but the exciting bits again.)
For folks coming out of a background of SFB this game can seem too determined by a few good rolls, for folks coming out of BFG this game can seem kinda slow. Just look at what folks are saying in the various threads about what they want to see in the next ed. Burger and his group want an even faster game with even fewer rolls. My group is trying to add more rolls to even the luck out and allow fleets to recover from a unlucky turn easier. Different strokes.
And please keep in mind that between the house rules, bases sizing, three ship lists etc. we hardly all playing exactly the same game. Just as an example since I started pushing 25 mm bases for some drazi games I've discoverd that many ships actaully had an anti-fighter gun that could cover their wing man...imagine my surprise at finding I had an anti-fighter tactic worth spit after playing with the 3 in round bases for so long.
Neko doesn't give a list of which crits he considers serious enough to take a ship out of battle, nor is there any reference for which ship is being considered. I know speed crits vary in their effect on a ship's battleworthiness depending on its arcs and original speed. Triple damage weapons hitting several crits can decrew or destroy low priority ships in a shot.
Wulf throws out the fine old bone of not having a fort night to play a game. Somehow I have to hope that is an exaggeration, because if the game takes a fortnight to play with just a reduction in crit effect frequency then the game must really be decided by crits all the time because I've never had a game take more than 4 hours.
And finally lets talk about the accuarcy of internet polls since it's being brought up. We have 50ish votes by an unknown number of people (folks can have multiple accounts with which to vote), representing an unknown number of other folks (my game group has 6-7 folks only 3 of which appear on these boards) representing an unknown amount of experience (some folks feel they 'know' the game after 3 games, others have played a 100+) and an unknown amount of effort being put into analyzing the play (some folks extensively post mortem games to figure out what happened and why, other folks play, shake hands and never think about anything but the exciting bits again.)
For folks coming out of a background of SFB this game can seem too determined by a few good rolls, for folks coming out of BFG this game can seem kinda slow. Just look at what folks are saying in the various threads about what they want to see in the next ed. Burger and his group want an even faster game with even fewer rolls. My group is trying to add more rolls to even the luck out and allow fleets to recover from a unlucky turn easier. Different strokes.
And please keep in mind that between the house rules, bases sizing, three ship lists etc. we hardly all playing exactly the same game. Just as an example since I started pushing 25 mm bases for some drazi games I've discoverd that many ships actaully had an anti-fighter gun that could cover their wing man...imagine my surprise at finding I had an anti-fighter tactic worth spit after playing with the 3 in round bases for so long.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
No exaggeration, I only get one game a week usually, so if it's not finished in one session, it takes a fortnight...Ripple said:
Wulf
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
For referance, I've been using the following as a basis:
Out of battle: Speed 0 or no weapons fire.
Severe degradation: Speed -4, weapons fire on 4+, or loss of a weapons arc.
More minor degradation: All other effects.
There are some ships to which Speed -4 is minor, or where the loss of a single arc is the loss of all weapons, and therefore takes the ship out of the battle, but overall the above should be a good basis to work with.
Double Damage and Triple Damage are irrelevent issues as it's the effects that are claimed to be overpowered (A TD weapon doesn't turn a Speed -1 into a Speed -3). Under suggestion is replacing criticals with extra damage, which would however make DD/TD more powerful.
It should also probably be noted that not even a ship which is "Out of the battle" is really out of the battle. Most of these effects can be repaired after all.
Out of battle: Speed 0 or no weapons fire.
Severe degradation: Speed -4, weapons fire on 4+, or loss of a weapons arc.
More minor degradation: All other effects.
There are some ships to which Speed -4 is minor, or where the loss of a single arc is the loss of all weapons, and therefore takes the ship out of the battle, but overall the above should be a good basis to work with.
Double Damage and Triple Damage are irrelevent issues as it's the effects that are claimed to be overpowered (A TD weapon doesn't turn a Speed -1 into a Speed -3). Under suggestion is replacing criticals with extra damage, which would however make DD/TD more powerful.
It should also probably be noted that not even a ship which is "Out of the battle" is really out of the battle. Most of these effects can be repaired after all.
Geekybiker
Mongoose
Fin-man said:
Im with you 100% fin-man. Ive seen far too many games end up with the first lucky crit determining outcome. Most often you dont have enough ships to absorb the loss or severe crippling of one of your ships. Larger battles, maybe but not in something like a 5pt raid.
One thing Ive noticed in my time here is that there are alot of folks that I would consider more roleplayers than wargamers. IE more concerned with the favor than absolute balance. Crits far into that catagory, IMHO. Right now they happen alot and add flavor to the game for certain. (Along with the ships going super critical when destroyed) I dont think the crits need much change, Just the minor effects exanded and the serious ones toned down a bit.
Ponkavitch
Mongoose
I too believe that the effects of the criticals play far too much in the out comes of the battles which can be ok if you only one off battle but my gaming group pretty much only play in campaigns where the affect can be even more profound. (i.e. a Bin’Tak being taken out by 2 criticals when playing for an industrial world). That is why I crated my own critical table http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17518 please feel free to comment.
-Ponkavitch
-Ponkavitch
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Ponkavitch said:
How exactly was the Bin'tak taken out?
What priority level was the battle?
What were the remainder of your forces and what was the enemy force?
A lucky critical will can take out a ship (not usually a Bin'tak since it the one if the toughest in the game) but it won't take out a fleet. If you lost the battle because you were using the Bin'tak in a raid-level game, well that's a tactical error. If you lost the battle after fighting hard with your four remaining war-level ships and failed to roll to repair the criticals for the remainder of the game, that's unlucky rolling. Neither, to my mind, are a problem with the game.
The question of lucky vs unlucky is actually part of the issue being debated. How much should luck swing a battle vs tactics. The original poster appears to feel that the crit tables cause a few rolls, lucky or unlucky, swing the entire game and is attempting to limit the effect of those few dice. When you design a game you are deciding how much effect each die will have, so it is a question of how the game is designed/functions. A specific crit can be a huge issue in a game, or a combination of two. Say no damage control engineering crit which I believe is unrepairable followed by a no movement/severe movement reduction. The battle moves away from you and you are helpless to further affect it. Is that just bad dice or is it poor design that, however unlikely, a single 2 die fighter can disable a war ship. They changed the crit tables before because there was a widely held belief that no war ship should be destroyable by a lucky fighter shot. Thus the multiple damage dice in the vitals table rather than just detonation. To claim that one persons point of view on appopriate game effect of crits is wrong or right is a poor arguement since it's a matter of degree that is being argued.
