Those pesky Minbari

[Chernobyl]

I looked through all the rule supplements...no such ruling (stealth/slow-firing) exists there, either way.

Chernobyl

 

[B5freak]

In one game recently I played a war scenario against an opponent, I was EA, he was Minbari. He went with 2 Neshatan, 2 Troligan, 2 Morshin and 3 Tigara. I went with 6 Hyperions, 4 Omega and 4 Olympus.

I wonder how the game would've gone if the Minbari player hadn't handicapped himself in speed, maneuverability, stealth, and firepower?

Sounds harsh I know, and I apologize, but there's no other way to say it.

Try this for 5 War points at the same In Service timeframe:
2 Sharlin, 3 Tinashi, 1 Morshin, and 3 Teshlan

Better Stealth, speed, turns, and firepower without sacrificing total number of fighters on the board by the end of turn 1, total number of ships, or anything else of signifigance. :twisted:

Frankly, it's this kind of fleet that worries me and I think most of the other "it's broken" posters as well.

I will fully concede, right here and now, that the entire Minbari list is NOT broken. I will however argue that you cannot truly test a fleet's balance, any fleet's, unless you build the ugliest, most beardy/cheezy/whatever fleet the rules will allow.

 

[LaranosTZ]

B5 Freak, I think your analysis isn't exactly correct, as I don't see his choices as 'handicapping' himself at all.

Neshatan vs Sharlin = Same guns, 1 pt difference in hull and stealth. Neshatan has a minor amount fewer damage/crew. Same maneuverability, so essentially the same ship.

Troligan vs Tinashi = Troligan has same stealth, 2 less beam weapons, 1.5 : 1 damagee and crew, 1 less turn, 3" less movement. Offensive power takes a hit, but is a much more durable ship, it's a tactical choice. (I still think the volume of ships I had would have countered even the higher movement of the Tinashi, especially since most of mine had 2 turns also.)

Tigara vs Teshlan = Same maneuverability, Teshlan has 2 more inches movement. Tigara has overall more firepower, but at shorter range, otherwise they are identical.


*shrugs* Seems like his list and your list are pretty much porportionate, fewer beam weapons maybe, but more durability and definately more close in firepower, (especially with the additional fighters).

 

[Zee Zee]

As I don't actually play compition games and am unlikely to play in official tournaments,I will stick to our club ruling on stealth and stick with they dont fire if stealth not beat.On the whole it has little effect on the game as most weapons can fire every move.With slow loading weapons particulalry the Victory's there are egnough penalties for firing the thing with out saying 'Oh by the way you failed your strealth beating role so you are now a hulk for a move to no good effect'.[/quote]

 

[Zee Zee]

The stealth debate is actually answered in the TV series,in oneSheridan states that the Minabari Stealth technology stopped earth ships actually getting a target lock which is how he came up with the idea of using mines.

 

[philogara]

The stealth debate is actually answered in the TV series,in oneSheridan states that the Minabari Stealth technology stopped earth ships actually getting a target lock which is how he came up with the idea of using mines.

I'm sure there was a long thread on the "does it fire or not?" question some time ago. FWIW I agree that it is sensible to assume that the captain would not fire if he had no lock BUT, in the heat of battle, MAYBE, he will think "take a best shot", so basically I'm :?

I think this is where B5W stealth was better - it made chances of hitting small, but possible, so you could take that pot shot (and cross those fingers). As I've mentioned elsewhere, this is one of the problems I think with a D6 system.

 

[Queex]

I think part of the problem (potentially) with the way stealth works is that it makes the distribution of hits very much wider than other means. It becomes very much all-or-nothing. Which means that luck is a more important factor than it would otherwise be and de-emphasises playing skill.

If you allowed each AD of the weapon to roll stealth, you might as well just fold it into the Hull score- which would lose flavour. I don't think that the d6 are necessarily too small for the purpose, but the leap from 5+ to 6 is very high. I think lower Stealth scores scross the board would be a good thing, coupled with Hull increases where appropriate.

In particular, a wide distribution favours the underdog more than a narrow one- which de-emphasises the effect of being the current winner of the battle and would seem to go against Minbari thought and fluff.

I haven't played against SFOS Minbari enough to talk about overall balance- but those are my observations.

 

[Tal Hawkins]

Well, let's see if I can run the numbers for you. Let's assume a that a ship has a 4+ Stealth, and a 5+ hull.

For the sake of argument, we're going to fire a 6AD weapon with no special attributes at this ship within 10".

Now, the stealth roll means there is a 50% chance of your shots going off at all, or over the course of a 10 turn game an average of 30 AD will penetrate the stealth of the ship.

Of those 30 AD, they must then penetrate the 5+ hull of the ship. This means that 1/3 of the shots will go through, so 10AD will actually strike the ship.

Since 1 out of 6 will critical, and 1 out of 6 will hull bounce you will get on average 1 critical, 1 hull bounce, and 8 standard damage against that Stealth 4, Hull 5 ship.


---------------------------------------------------------------

Firing a 6AD weapon at a 6 hull ship over 10 turns has the following results.

60 AD against a hull of 6 means that 1/6th of the shots hit the ship, again causing 10 hits.

Since we just looked at ten hits, over the course of a game a hull 6 ship will suffer 1 crit, 1 hull bounce, and 8 standard damage.

----------------------------------------------------------------

With the above example, we can conclude that a stealth of 4+ makes a 5+ hull value ship the equivilant of a 6+ hull ship as long as the ships are using standard weapons, and are within 10".


We should take this example further though and look at one of the most popular long range weapons out there, the laser cannon. For the sake of this argument we will assume the laser is again 6 AD, Super AP, Double Damage, Beam. In order to make this a bit more balanced, we will also assume that for the first 3 turns, the two ships are outside 10", then after that they are trading punches at close range. We are using the same Stealth 4+, Hull 5+ Minbari ship, and the same Hull six opposing ship.

------------------------------------------------------------------

First firing at the minbari:

For the first two turns the ship has an effective stealth of 5+, this is a bit harder to 'guage', but over the first three turn we can assume 1/3 of the shots will go through. So from 18 dice it becomes 6.

For the next 7 turns the effective stealth of the ship is 4+, so over that length of time you will get either 24 or 18 AD, (since there are an odd number of turns, one turn is in question, but we will look at both results.)

This means over 10 turns either 30, or 24 dice will have the chance to fire at the ship, (overall this is a loss of one barrage from the 3 turns of 5+ stealth.)

This is where it gets complex. Since we are using a Super AP Beam weapon the effective hull from the initial hits of the weapon is a 3+.

30 Becomes: 20

24 Becomes: 16

Then 4+

20 Becomes : 10

16 Becomes: 8

Then 5+

10 Becomes : 3

8 Become : 2

Then 6+

Both become Zero.

So either 33 or 26 will do damage to the ship. This means that in this case the beam means you're doing more damage then hits.

Again, 1 in 6 bounce off the hull (but still cause damage) and 1 out of 6 will cause a critical. Again, we're using a double damage weapon.

So: 33 Becomes 5 Bounces 5 Criticals, 1 up in the air and 22 standard damage for an overall 59 damage, 54 crew, 1 unknown, and 5 unresolved criticals.

26 Becomes 4 bounces, 4 criticals, 1 up in the air, 15 standard damage. Overall causing 42 damage 38 crew and 4 unresolved criticals.


Whew! Now that that is over, let's look at the hull 6+ Ship

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This one is easy:

60 AD over 10 turns using Super AP. There is no question of stealth, so all have the chance to strike the ship.

60 target 4+ = 30 hit

30 target 5+ = 10 hit

10 Target 6+ = 2 hit

2 Target 6+ = 0 Hits

Against a hull 6 ship, 42 double damage weapons will strike the target, this means that on average 7 will bounce, 7 will crit, and 28 will cause standard damage.

Using a double damage weapons this means the hull 6 vessel will take 77 damage, 70 crew and will have 7 unresolved criticals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this case we see that the stealthed vessel has an obvious advantage over the hull 6 vessel in damage potential using the above example. This obviously doesn't encapsulate all potentials, and our first example does assume that the ships start within 10". If they did not you would again see that the stealthed vessel takes less damage then the hull 6 vessel.


The Minbari have approximately 1/3 less damage/crew then similar ships of the same priority of other races. Given our above numbers, I draw the conclusion that it means that overall the Minbari are now balanced compared to the other races. I'd like to hear other opinions on the issue as well, again given the above numbers.



Also please note that when decimal points were involved I rounded to the nearest standard number unless it was impossible to round, (ie, exactly 50/50 or 1/3 1/3 1/3.)

Now we just need all Minbari ships to start battle at 10" or less and have their stealth values reduced to 4+.

Since neither of these is the case I fail to see how you have proven anything.

 

[Queex]

The analysis is not really hard. All Stealth does is change the distribution of hits. If you work with point estimates, you can see the sort of benefit Stealth gives.

Stealth always increases the durability of the ship by at least 20%- even reduced by as much as you can.

At range with no reduction, even Stealth 2+ increases the defence of a ship by 50%. For the Stealth 5+ ships, they are six times as durable as their damage and hull would suggest atlong range. Even with full reduction and under 10", it's still 1.5 times more durable. If you allow that a typical average stealth reduction is 1/2, including both sources of reduction and the possibility of range, the benefit stealth gives is as follows:

Stealth 2+: 1.26 (Not as good as +1 hull)
Stealth 3+: 1.41 (more or less +1 hull)
Stealth 4+: 1.71 (better than +1 hull)
Stealth 5+: 2.4 (more or less +2 hull!)

 

[LoneStranger]

Thank you for agreeing with me that the Minbari should have a one point reduction in Stealth at least. The group I was gaming with (before I moved) for the most part thought that even that tiny gesture would bring those ships in line with everyone else.

 

[lastbesthope]

Was it not sheridan who said he destroyed two Minbary dreadnoutghs by flying true them and only the paint of his hyperon was scratcht?
That sound for me that Minabarys shoud have less damage then the others.

The only Minbari vessel I know that Sheridan ever destroyed was the one we see him nuke in ITB, nothing about ramming.

Sinclair set his foighter to ram a Minbari ship at the Line but they tractored him before he hit.

LBH

 

[B5freak]

Neshatan vs Sharlin = Same guns, 1 pt difference in hull and stealth. Neshatan has a minor amount fewer damage/crew. Same maneuverability, so essentially the same ship.

Troligan vs Tinashi = Troligan has same stealth, 2 less beam weapons, 1.5 : 1 damagee and crew, 1 less turn, 3" less movement. Offensive power takes a hit, but is a much more durable ship, it's a tactical choice. (I still think the volume of ships I had would have countered even the higher movement of the Tinashi, especially since most of mine had 2 turns also.)

Tigara vs Teshlan = Same maneuverability, Teshlan has 2 more inches movement. Tigara has overall more firepower, but at shorter range, otherwise they are identical.

Laranos,

Good points, but let me see if I can explain my thought process.

Sharlin vs Neshatan
Maneuver - Same speed, but Sharlin has 1 extra turn, which gives it the same turning radius as many other races' Raid level ships.
Offense - Same Beam, but Sharlin has 20% more Fusion AD.
Defense - On a shot-for-shot basis, the odds of doing a point of damage to the Sharlin or Neshatan are virtually identical. This holds up inside 10", outside 10", and with basic, AP, and Super AP weapons.
Damage - The Sharlin has 7% more damage and 6% more crew

On all counts except defense (in which it ties), the Sharlin has better stats.

Troligan vs Tinashi
Maneuver - Tinashi has increased Speed and 1 more turn.
Offense - Tinashi has 100% more beams, but at 5" lower range. Troligan has 8% more Fusion AD.
Defense - The ships have identical Hull and Stealth
Damage - The Troligan has 45% more Dam and 52% more Crew

As you said, a tactical choice of Firepower vs Resilience. Consider this for a moment however, by the numbers, a Tinashi on CF! will do 7.5 hits against a Hyperion, with a third of those being Crits. Again assuming an average Dam/Crew of 2 per Crit (I ran the numbers the other day), that's around 18 points of Damage and Crew. With only average rolling, the Tinashi has just crippled (or likely destroyed) 1/15th of your fleet before it could do anything. By contrast, the Troligan could only do 3.7 hits, yielding roughly half the damage and allowing your Hyperion to survive long enough to likely bring it's own guns to bear. Replacing both Troligans and a Morshin (which couldn't do any damage at this range) with Tinashi, average rolling will allow you to destroy 1/5th of the EA fleet before those ships even have a chance to fire.

Tigara vs Teshlan
Maneuver - Teshlan has 2" more speed.
Offense - Teshlan has 2 Beam to the Tigara's 0. They have equal Fusion AD. Tigara has Molecular Disruptors and an Anti-Matter converter. Overall Tigara has more AD, but Teshlan has better stand-off firepower.
Defense - The ships are identical. It must be noted however that the Teshlan's greater stand-off range means that it will benefit from the +1 to its Stealth for more turns and is therefore more survivable.
Damage - Identical.

Again, a choice of tactics here. Do the Minbari use weapons which force them to lose Stealth's distance advantage, force them to enter the EA's secondary weapon engagement range, and allow EA to use their own defensive systems (Interceptors), or do the Minbari pound EA from outside EA's range, with weapons that the EA can't intercept, and gaining +1 Stealth?

Fighters (totals)
Troligan - 2 Tinashi - 0
Neshatan - 0 Sharlin - 8
Morshin - 16 Morshin - 8
Tigara - 3 Teshlan - 3
Total - 21 Total - 19
Turn 1 Deploy - 17 Turn 1 Deploy - 13

Admittedly, we're short a few fighters. If I remember correctly, your EA fleet could only field 14 by the end of turn 1, so we're not sacrificing much in the way of defensive capability.

Sooo.....lets look at Turn 1.
Lets assume that we're starting 36" apart, nobody's in Hyperspace, and EA has decided to close the distance since trying to win a ranged battle against Minbari isn't a good idea. Considering Minbari Initiative, EA has been forced to set up its fleet first and since I know I'm outnumbered, I'll go ahead and squadron the Teshlan.

Given our movement and yours, every Minbari ship except the Morshin should be in range. Because we got to set up after you, we also were able to position our fleet to ensure that we're faced off against the ships we want to kill this turn.

I decide to ignore everything except the Hyperions. The Tinashi, Sharlin, and the squadron of Teshlan each go on CF! and take a different Hyperion. Given the numbers above, I've either crippled or destroyed 2/5ths of your fleet. Is it possible that you've taken out one of my ships before it could fire? Sure, anything's possible, but only 1/3rd or less (depending on your targeting selection and luck) of your ships have a chance of hitting. Given that the only ships in range at that point would be the Olympus (missiles) and the Omegas (Heavy Lasers), the only ships you could probably destroy outright would be the Teshlan.

Against the original Minbari fleet, the only ships in range in Turn 1 would be the Neshatan and the Troligan, which only have about half the long-range AD as the above fleet.

 

[LaranosTZ]

Actually B5, the Sharlin has had it's second turn removed in SfoS. Now is has no maneuverability advantage; otherwise I would take a Sharlin over a Neshatan every time. They are both 8" 1 turn at 45. This is why it's a coin flip for me on those two ships...especially since the Neshatan does have the same AD in fusion cannons in the front, though I agree the more surrounding fire can be an advantage.

I do appreciate your arguments though, and yes, you can always make a really broken fleet, but then what's the point in playing?

 

[B5freak]

whooops! Missed that turn. I'll have to update my stat sheets.

and yes, you can always make a really broken fleet, but then what's the point in playing?

Now I think you're beginning to see why some of us are concerned about the Minbari. If I knew that the only people I'd ever play against were my close group of friends, and we all agreed on certain fleet restrictions, then there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, when you bring tournaments and conventions into the mix, all of that goes out the window.

Power gamers are out there, and the only way to keep them under control is to ensure that army/fleet lists don't allow you to build broken armies/fleets. That is a sad fact of life which it seems our brothers in the U.K. sometimes have a hard time understanding. Time and again I've seen posts for cross-atlantic games where the U.K. designers stared in shock and horror at the way we yanks abused their game systems.

The conversation usually goes like this:
U.K. - "Why would anyone ever build such a beardy, broken army/fleet?"
U.S. - "Because I could."

 

[Dywnarc]

Yeah I agree, nt the first gaming system where that has been scene.

Look at GW fantasy battles were the designers build certain units to serve a "fluffy" role in a certain army list, only to have the tourney powergamers discouver the "great buy" and max the army arround the "broken" unit.

Did I here someone whisper "ratling guns"

I agree, a group of friens can "self regulate".

We and my friends have been playing this game, not by taking the "best buy ships" but by bulding fleets that seem like a reasonble representabtion of force. But it can be irratating to play poutside your game group and find you are not competive because you are not abusing the lists.

That being said I am not confinenced that the game is unbalanced yet.

Instead of lowering stealth values like some want to, I would suggest leaving the numbers as in and calling that the regulart stealth number, and you get a +1 bonus if the ship is within 10. That would make the Sharlin a 5+ at long range and a 4+ at closer range.

 

[C.H.A.D.]

Yup, fantasy battle is the worst. I went to this tournament in Oregon once where this guy from Canada had both a high sorceress on a manticore and a war hydra.

Anyway all games where you get to build your force have this problem, however I think this is one of the better designed ones. There are a few ships that outright suck but for the most part I've found any ship can be effective if used right.

For example I think the Teshlan is better than the Tigara in most cases, however opening a jump gate and pouncing on one of those stupid Narn E-mine hurling ships isn't one of them.

 

[Chernobyl]

yeah, the brits have had that problem for a while now...

Redcoat : "Why would anyone snipe from behind trees when they can fight on this great open field?"
Colonial : "Because we could."

:lol:

Chern

 

[B5freak]

At this point I have to agree that I don't think the Stealth is at the heart of the problem. I think it's more a problem of their offensive power combined with their defense.

If you pull the Tinashi completely out of the Minbari fleet list, the resultant fleet options, though still powerful, seem a lot more managable. Yes the Sharlins are still going to blow away a Raid ship a turn, possibly a Battle, but you're also going to be drasticly outnumbered. If you take Troligans, you'll have a decent balance of offense and defense, with the offense being just weak enough to keep overall balance. If you go with Teshlan, you've got the offensive power, but the ship itself is pretty fragile and has to get within 20".

 

[Tredrick]

yeah, the brits have had that problem for a while now...

Redcoat : "Why would anyone snipe from behind trees when they can fight on this great open field?"
Colonial : "Because we could."

:lol:

Chern

I have the original letter from Cornwallis to Washington complaining that the siege force was "a beard full of cheese" and demanding a rematch.

 

[LaranosTZ]

Well, remember the 'original' conflict that pitted English 'gentlemanly conduct' vs American 'anything to get the job done'. The revolutionary war. Back then the English actually lodged a formal complaint with the generalcy of the revolution army that all their officers were being shot because they all wore gaudy clothes. Originally the officers were given gaudy clothes so they would be blatantly obvious that they were officers, and wouldn't be shot per the rules of war as it was considered 'unfair'.