The great hull debate!

[Reaverman]

If all things were ever equal then obviously higher Hull scores are the way to go. but things are never equal are they :lol:

LBH

Exactly.

Howmany of these high hull ships, have a movement over 10?

Lighter ships provide many other oportunities, the ability to out flank being one example.

 

[Davesaint]

If all things were ever equal then obviously higher Hull scores are the way to go. but things are never equal are they :lol:

LBH

Exactly.

Howmany of these high hull ships, have a movement over 10?

Lighter ships provide many other oportunities, the ability to out flank being one example.

What is your definition of a high hull ship? Is it 5 or 6 for the hull. Until you get to the Storm Falcon, all of the Hull 6 Drazi are faster than 10.

Dave

 

[Reaverman]

If all things were ever equal then obviously higher Hull scores are the way to go. but things are never equal are they :lol:

LBH

Exactly.

Howmany of these high hull ships, have a movement over 10?

Lighter ships provide many other oportunities, the ability to out flank being one example.

What is your definition of a high hull ship? Is it 5 or 6 for the hull. Until you get to the Storm Falcon, all of the Hull 6 Drazi are faster than 10.

Dave

Ok fair point, but not every fleet are like the Drazi. I mean other fleets have weapons that are in more than one arc......well apart from the Vorlons

 

[emperorpenguin]

If all things were ever equal then obviously higher Hull scores are the way to go. but things are never equal are they :lol:

LBH

Exactly.

Howmany of these high hull ships, have a movement over 10?

Lighter ships provide many other oportunities, the ability to out flank being one example.

But those fast ships have low hulls and little damage. Unless you fight someone clueless he'll beam them so that you CAN'T flank him!

 

[Reaverman]

If all things were ever equal then obviously higher Hull scores are the way to go. but things are never equal are they :lol:

LBH

Exactly.

Howmany of these high hull ships, have a movement over 10?

Lighter ships provide many other oportunities, the ability to out flank being one example.

But those fast ships have low hulls and little damage. Unless you fight someone clueless he'll beam them so that you CAN'T flank him!

I think its academic, I also think that picking high hulls works. But I've used low hull vessels in a fleet battle to much effect. Different ships, and different abilities, and they also dont all have high hulls. In SFOS, I love to deploy Laser Boats. These low hulls have a high pay off, since I can use them in squadrons, and use them to some effect. Wether I lose them or not, is irrelavant. They have been used to some effect, taken the hit, and reduced fire off my larger ships.

The same goes for my Narn, I will deploy loads of skirmish vessels, and a couple of large ships. Both Burger, and Hash will tell you. They are a real pain, small ships swarming, supporting a few large ships. Yes, blast my small ships, I dont care. Since whatever you have left after the furball, now has a G'Quan or two to worry about.

The same goes for my Vorlons, loads of transports, supporting a large ship, and clouds of fighters.

In short what I am saying, its not down to the hull (though that helps). Its down to how you balance your fleet, and how you use it.

 

[Tibour]

Personally I like the Olympus and G'karith. A good ship can have one flaw and a hull 4 instead of 5 can be that flaw.

Right on couldn't have said it better. Gotta love the Olympus After all I only have 8 of them 8)

 

[CZuschlag]

No one has, as of yet, addressed the second half of the question: "Would more hull values help the game?" A d10 was suggested.

I'll say, well -- yes. I think it would. But, I'd consider d12, as the probabilities are already known, and there isn't a conversion issue (all 6's become 11's, 5's become 9's....). Of course, to make it isomorphic, beams target numbers would have to go up by 2 per volley and SAP would mean reducing target numbers by 4; making a Battle Laser something like:

Battle Laser F 25" 6AD Beam, Double Damage, AP-4, Staging 2.

It just gives the game designers and balance teams more options. For example, who else feels the Drakh Fast DD, Carrier, and Mothership needs hull 4.5?

 

[Reaverman]

No one has, as of yet, addressed the second half of the question: "Would more hull values help the game?" A d10 was suggested.

I'll say, well -- yes. I think it would. But, I'd consider d12, as the probabilities are already known, and there isn't a conversion issue (all 6's become 11's, 5's become 9's....). Of course, to make it isomorphic, beams target numbers would have to go up by 2 per volley and SAP would mean reducing target numbers by 4; making a Battle Laser something like:

Battle Laser F 25" 6AD Beam, Double Damage, AP-4, Staging 2.

It just gives the game designers and balance teams more options. For example, who else feels the Drakh Fast DD, Carrier, and Mothership needs hull 4.5?

Oh god no, leave the core system alone. Using 'Bigger' dice, just creates larger problems. Remember you like the game for what it is, changing the whole dice system is just creating a whole new game. Its more likely going to alienate exisitng gamers, and would mean recruiting a whole new customer base.

 

[Locutus9956]

I'd have to agree here, lets not go running off on a 'lets change the dice cos that will only be a little change to the way it works'. Changing dice even to something like d12 (which WOULD be the simplest if it was done) would still just change the probabilities. It would require essentially rewritting the target numbers for weapons , special orders etc (ie the ENTIRE FLEET LISTS) and wouldnt actually solve any problems really. A hull 12 ship by that system would still be as proportionally tougher than a hull 8 ship if you put SAP to -4. If anything it would actually make SAP beams WORSE as there are that many more levels it can score hits at before its on '12s to hit'.

Dont change the core rules, theyre fine the only tweaks ACTA needs is a little nip and tuck here and there (the only REAL issue I have with the system at all is stealth, the hull 6 hunter and the skirmish Saggitarius, and fighters The rest are by and large, fine (as of the toruney list anyway))

But anyway back on topic. Hull 6 ships ARE slower in general with a few exceptions but when alls said and done though I prefer the high hull stuff its not the first and only consideration I look at when choosing a fleet.

 

[Slightly Norse John]

I've done a bit of playtesting now with the d10 conversions; some things have turned out to be non- problems, and some to be major problems. Interceptors for instance- they can start at a fairly low value, 2 or 3- perhaps varying depending on the technology- because they have that many more chances to fail, too, and a lower minimum chance of success when they do.
Beams need, if anything, to be less powerful in AP rating to retain balance- that did emerge as a factor. It would fit the fluff, but not the game as it stands- although a Vorlon Lightning Cannon with AP +5 might at last live up to the legend.
I can't get behind a d12 (and I do have some large d12, and Wulf will be along to make a joke about my height any moment soon) because it would be such an easy transposition, I think it would lose the point of moving to a larger scale. 9s instead of 5s, 11s instead of 6s- all that would do is encourage d12 sales. To make it worth doing, and there would be a lot of playtesting to do to make sure it was right, you would need to use that room to differentiate ships' stats. On the d10 system, give a Bin'Tak hull 10, keep the Octurion at hull 9- but on the guns, give the advantage the other way, the Battle Lasers AP+4 against the Heavy Laser's AP+3 (Mag Gun's +4 though.). Bump the Hyperion to hull 8, give the supposedly more fragile Tigara hull 7. And so forth. Lots of testing required, which I for one would be happy to do.
As far as Hull ratings go at the moment, it's probably the single most important number in a ship's profile, but it's not the be all and end all. I pick ships for their total effect, the classic example has to be the Batrado- extremely tough, but guns? What guns?
If anything I admire Mongoose's boldness with the Drakh, not crowding them together at the upper end of the scale, and I would like to see more of the potential of the dice used, more 3's and 4's and 5's about the place- but as far as SFoS goes, it's too late. Look how the Drakh get creamed.

 

[B5freak]

As several other posters have said, the main problem with low hull ships is their performance against beam weapons. Maybe it's just that I play against Centauri a lot, but the plethora of Super AP beam weapons make a hull 4 ship a death trap.

 

[Reaverman]

I've done a bit of playtesting now with the d10 conversions; some things have turned out to be non- problems, and some to be major problems. Interceptors for instance- they can start at a fairly low value, 2 or 3- perhaps varying depending on the technology- because they have that many more chances to fail, too, and a lower minimum chance of success when they do.
Beams need, if anything, to be less powerful in AP rating to retain balance- that did emerge as a factor. It would fit the fluff, but not the game as it stands- although a Vorlon Lightning Cannon with AP +5 might at last live up to the legend.
I can't get behind a d12 (and I do have some large d12, and Wulf will be along to make a joke about my height any moment soon) because it would be such an easy transposition, I think it would lose the point of moving to a larger scale. 9s instead of 5s, 11s instead of 6s- all that would do is encourage d12 sales. To make it worth doing, and there would be a lot of playtesting to do to make sure it was right, you would need to use that room to differentiate ships' stats. On the d10 system, give a Bin'Tak hull 10, keep the Octurion at hull 9- but on the guns, give the advantage the other way, the Battle Lasers AP+4 against the Heavy Laser's AP+3 (Mag Gun's +4 though.). Bump the Hyperion to hull 8, give the supposedly more fragile Tigara hull 7. And so forth. Lots of testing required, which I for one would be happy to do.
As far as Hull ratings go at the moment, it's probably the single most important number in a ship's profile, but it's not the be all and end all. I pick ships for their total effect, the classic example has to be the Batrado- extremely tough, but guns? What guns?
If anything I admire Mongoose's boldness with the Drakh, not crowding them together at the upper end of the scale, and I would like to see more of the potential of the dice used, more 3's and 4's and 5's about the place- but as far as SFoS goes, it's too late. Look how the Drakh get creamed.

Its down to fleet selection really, I have decimated a Minbari fleet using Drakh. I have had a hard time, when using Narn against Drakh. So I dont think the Dice system is at fault, to me it works fine. As mentioned in earlier post, the game just needs minor tweaks. Just because your car has a niggling rattle in the engine, does not mean that you have to replace the entire engine with a bigger one.

 

[Slightly Norse John]

The topic came up, I thought I might as well speak to it. There's nothing desperately wrong with the system as it stands, but I don't think I'd buy into a second edition that didn't justify itself by being a major step forward in some way or other.
Besides, it's an idea. Maybe it'll get taken on board, maybe it won't. Either way, it's an excuse to play lots of ACtA kicking it around. Actually, I did replace my car engine with a bigger one, now you come to mention it- from a 1.3 petrol, admittedly a near indestructible Toyota, to a 1.9 turbo diesel. Not as good for the left reverse, better at hauling LRP kit up and down the country. Whatever works.
As far as the Drakh go, what I mean is that there are possibly too many hull 5s and 6's as there is. Look at the blurb in SFoS for mentions of them; particularly in the Abbai and Minbari sections. It sounds a lot like Adaptive Armour and Self- Repair to me- things not featured on the released version. Presumably Mongoose wanted to do something different, and, well, they did.

 

[Triggy]

I love the Drakh actually and their hull 4 for the most part works spectacularly well at exemplifying their playing style. If you let them get hit hard by beams then you're asking for trouble and as such magnifying their weaknesses. They are an extremely finesse fleet to play with and you need to sacrifice a few to obtain optimal position and get in and amongst the enemy. Then I'd like to see those self same big beam toting ships do anything at all against SAP, precise, beam Drakh goodness.

Drakh are great fun to play but very tricky to use well. Either way, they aren't too weak by any means (either statistically or on the table) and show exactly how lower hulled ships work best and why most people avoid taking low hull ships (because frankly most of the time they don't know how best to use them).

 

[Reaverman]

Well said Trig

 

[Slightly Norse John]

It's a game of two sides; against a worthy adversary who is trying to undermine your strategy and impose his own, that necessary sacrifice can amount to 75% of the fleet.
I reckon that if you let the Drakh get hit, period, you're asking for trouble- but enemies have a bad habit of doing that. Deployment time is the biggest bugbear- carried Raiders' launching and forming up either allows the enemy to take them apart piecemeal as they attack straight away, or take long range potshots while they organise- or for that matter countercharging them and reaming out the carriers.
Getting in and amongst the enemy? The Heavy Raider is speed 10, turn 2/45. Exactly the same as the Salust, and slower than the Targrath. Even then- the middle scenario in the fleet book, Helping Hand, I managed to win that as the Humans, for the loss of one Hermes.
The overwhelming majority of my Dilgar fleet is hull 5, some are hull 4- lots of Jashakar and Rishekur. Them, I can take calculated risks with and win. Not the Drakh.