Greg Smith
Mongoose
janolen said:
That was posted on October 5th. It hasn't been three weeks yet. :roll:
Those pesky Minbari
- Thread starter Karlopopoli
- Start date
That was posted on October 5th. It hasn't been three weeks yet. :roll:
I played against the Minbari a LOT in early playtesting. I'll put in my two credits.
First, they are beatable. In action after action, in various scenarios and size levels, I was able to pull off victories. Usually they were very narrow victories after using every trick and tactic that I could find. Not once did I manage a 'decisive' defeat of a Minbari force.
That said, I never thought that the problem was with the Minbari. In my opinion, the problem was with some of the other fleets. The Brakhiri fleet seemed to do well against the Minbari in playtesting; as did the Shadows. ISA could scrap with them on even terms. Centauri have a lot of options and can at least hold their own. The Vorlons, EA, and Narn seemed to need a little help to get them 'evened up' with the Minbari. (I did not play Abbai, Drazi, or Vree at all, I have no data for them).
I don't think the answer to balancing the Minbari is reducing their stealth or messing with their technology. Yes, two Sharlins and a Tigara is awful - try fighting ANY two War level ships from any fleet (OK, the League sometimes lack good War choices, but you get the point) and you'll have something that does rapid execution of enemy ships. (Two Shadows, anyone?)
I think some of the other races are a tad weak. I think that crippling fighters really hurt the EA (made carriers into a nonviable choice, IMO) and that the Narn, despite their damage upgrade, could've used just a skosh more firepower. Vorlons - as is covered in another good thread - just aren't strong enough for First Ones. I'm sure some of the other League races might need a tad of help as well; I can't speak to that yet. This is the solution I'd suggest to remedying any Minbari 'problems'.
*If* Matt and the lads at Mongoose enterain any Minbari changes at all, I'd reiterate something I mentioned a while back - reintroduce design weaknesses to some Minbari vessels. Some of the ACtA Minbari had light anti-fighter protection on the flanks or rear; the Torotha for example still has no side weapons. Those are the kind of things that I exploited under the ACtA rules when fighting the Minbari; fly the fighters into the lightest AF arc, try to get behind them, etc. It was tough, 'cause they were so fast, but it gave me a tactical option to work towards.
First, they are beatable. In action after action, in various scenarios and size levels, I was able to pull off victories. Usually they were very narrow victories after using every trick and tactic that I could find. Not once did I manage a 'decisive' defeat of a Minbari force.
That said, I never thought that the problem was with the Minbari. In my opinion, the problem was with some of the other fleets. The Brakhiri fleet seemed to do well against the Minbari in playtesting; as did the Shadows. ISA could scrap with them on even terms. Centauri have a lot of options and can at least hold their own. The Vorlons, EA, and Narn seemed to need a little help to get them 'evened up' with the Minbari. (I did not play Abbai, Drazi, or Vree at all, I have no data for them).
I don't think the answer to balancing the Minbari is reducing their stealth or messing with their technology. Yes, two Sharlins and a Tigara is awful - try fighting ANY two War level ships from any fleet (OK, the League sometimes lack good War choices, but you get the point) and you'll have something that does rapid execution of enemy ships. (Two Shadows, anyone?)
I think some of the other races are a tad weak. I think that crippling fighters really hurt the EA (made carriers into a nonviable choice, IMO) and that the Narn, despite their damage upgrade, could've used just a skosh more firepower. Vorlons - as is covered in another good thread - just aren't strong enough for First Ones. I'm sure some of the other League races might need a tad of help as well; I can't speak to that yet. This is the solution I'd suggest to remedying any Minbari 'problems'.
*If* Matt and the lads at Mongoose enterain any Minbari changes at all, I'd reiterate something I mentioned a while back - reintroduce design weaknesses to some Minbari vessels. Some of the ACtA Minbari had light anti-fighter protection on the flanks or rear; the Torotha for example still has no side weapons. Those are the kind of things that I exploited under the ACtA rules when fighting the Minbari; fly the fighters into the lightest AF arc, try to get behind them, etc. It was tough, 'cause they were so fast, but it gave me a tactical option to work towards.
Wolfgod,
Thanks so much for the post. This is the kind of feedback I've been hoping to see, and my own observations have run along similar lines. I've seen Centauri go toe to toe with Minbari. Given the ISA's ability to take scouts from the League (Vaarl?) and the possibility of Shadows phasing in, I can see how those would be a close but even match.
Side note, did you see the thread about Shadow fighters using Scanners to Full? Can they actually do that or does the Shadow fleet's restriction to certain special actions prevent it?
Back to the subject....
I can't speak to the Brakiri, but I'll take your word on it.
The concern is that, as you've stated, certain fleets just aren't up to it. I honestly don't care how the problem is fixed. I just want to be able to run a tournament without having to worry about certain matchups being a foregone conclusion.
I've tried two Shadow Cruisers......Vree make Shadows go *squish* :twisted:
Thanks so much for the post. This is the kind of feedback I've been hoping to see, and my own observations have run along similar lines. I've seen Centauri go toe to toe with Minbari. Given the ISA's ability to take scouts from the League (Vaarl?) and the possibility of Shadows phasing in, I can see how those would be a close but even match.
Side note, did you see the thread about Shadow fighters using Scanners to Full? Can they actually do that or does the Shadow fleet's restriction to certain special actions prevent it?
Back to the subject....
I can't speak to the Brakiri, but I'll take your word on it.
The concern is that, as you've stated, certain fleets just aren't up to it. I honestly don't care how the problem is fixed. I just want to be able to run a tournament without having to worry about certain matchups being a foregone conclusion.
I've tried two Shadow Cruisers......Vree make Shadows go *squish* :twisted:
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
This may, of course, explain why the Shadow Dancing fleet included two Xill and 4 Avioki...Wolfgod said:
Wulf
brakiri are a good fleet kind of changed in SFOS but as I see them played more and play them they are very viable. They match suprising well against the big three. I think the mine cruiser for the brakiri would give them a war class weapon that should make most races including minbari shudder, Takata's are tough as nails with fast loading E-mines (G-mines) it is a bombardment cruiser that is a tactical problem (the Narn wish they had it). Combine this with the aviokis and their good raid level choices, they'll make a tough fleet because brakiri tend to have extrodinarily hardy ships with good gun arcs. They are a boresight race but they have interesting wrinkles. I often see them as very much like EA but they get grav weapons and mines instead of missiles.
Scimitar
Mongoose
OK, radical thought. Since so many people feel stealth is too powerful, treat stealth like dodge. i.e. roll a die for every hit and if it is too low, it was spoofed and missed the target. Statistically you'll get the same results, it just won't be feast or famine.
It will still be different from dodge as it will not save ships from asteroids or explosions and can be lessened by scouts & fighter Scanners to Full actions.
Does this sound reasonable? I know it is not the rules but we seem to have a quiet revolt and, as I said above, statistically, this should make no difference.
It will still be different from dodge as it will not save ships from asteroids or explosions and can be lessened by scouts & fighter Scanners to Full actions.
Does this sound reasonable? I know it is not the rules but we seem to have a quiet revolt and, as I said above, statistically, this should make no difference.
Yes, I noticed that myself when I took Abbai against Vorlons.
Scimitar,
My gut reaction is that would be a LOT of additional dice rolling, and more dice rolling = bad. I'd also say that it wouldn't help with the fundamental problem of Minbari firepower against the weaker fleets and would make the Minbari too weak against those fleets already capable of taking them on.
On the one hand I'd say lets think about toning down the Minbari and Centauri firepower while leaving everything else the same, but on the other Wolf's solution of boosting the EA and Narn might work out better. In either case, I think Stealth is the wrong target.
What would happen if we dropped every EA and Narn ship above Skirmish by one PL? If EA and Narn really are underpowered, then dropping the PL in a few test games should reveal the truth pretty quickly.
I would take this approach as well instead of changing the minbari until more playtests or tweaks. It might be needed to maybe boost up a few things. maybe make EA fighters a little better maybe more dice or better dogfight slightly. I don't find EA underpwoered against Narn or Brakiri so we'd have to be careful but I'd be in faovr of boosting other races to match thinks rather than toning things down. A few more dice or farther range for certain weapons could help.
B5freak said:
Scimitar
Mongoose
Well, let me know how it goes. I would suggest some additional adjustments b/c G'Kariths, Ka'Tocs and Thentii (Thentuses? thuffering thukitash! -Sylverster the Cat) will not be taken if they are alternatives to Rongoths, T'Loths and Dag'Kars.
:idea: Mayhap, these ships only cost as skirmish ships but are only available if the scenario PL is raid?
I may see if my wife is up to attacking my Centauri with a Minbari force and try both rules. Our Narn/Centauri battles have not shown any great Narn weakness. They need to work as formation (much as EA, and far more than Centauri or Minbari) but can be highly effective when so used.
:idea: Mayhap, these ships only cost as skirmish ships but are only available if the scenario PL is raid?
I may see if my wife is up to attacking my Centauri with a Minbari force and try both rules. Our Narn/Centauri battles have not shown any great Narn weakness. They need to work as formation (much as EA, and far more than Centauri or Minbari) but can be highly effective when so used.
homerun said:
Good call - that is exactly how we pictured them. What the EA would be if run by aliens. . .
Queex said:
Actually, your expected number of hits goes up too. After the first game where they can't make 9 out of 10 Stealth rolls, you'll lose opponents. By increasing the number of Stealth rolls in a game, you delay the point where this happens, and therefore increase the number of hits you take (and games you play).
Scimitar's change does involve lots more dice rolling, and makes Stealth very similar to Dodge, but I don't think either of these is a fatal flaw. As things currently stand, why not just roll 10 dice when starting a game against the Minbari. If at least 3 don't beat the Stealth of their biggest ship, count the game as a loss; if 6 or more do then count it as a win. Fun, eh?
Queex
Mongoose
Xorrandor said:
<statistician>
With normal stealth:
X ~ Bernoulli(p)
E(X) = pAD
With individual stealth:
Y ~ Bi(AD,p)
E(Y) = pAD
Which is the expected number of AD that get to make a to-hit roll, and as the chance each dice makes the hit roll is the same for both, hence the expected number of hits is the same.</statistician>
Which isn't the same as the expected number of lock-ons (becuse you roll more), or the probability you get at least one hit...
The trouble with individual stealth is that it's statistically equivalent to Dodge (apart from effects that by-pass them) For it to feel different, it has to operate a different way. I'd be keen to test it when each weapon system has a separate roll, and they become easier with each weapon system on the firing ship. This means that long-range is still difficult, but close up you can waste your low power weapons nailing the target down. You wouldn't need the long range rule for Stealth any more, and you could let Stealth go up by 1.
That's an interesting idea. Statistically speaking, what happens if you switch Stealth to be per Weapons system rather than per ship? A Warlock at close range would get 5 rolls instead of 1 for example.
Many people already do this by splitting their fire over multiple targets with a single weapon, but this could provide an alternative that doesn't completely throw things out of balance.
Queex
Mongoose
Without decaying Stealth, it has the same expected number of hits as the other two- but the variance is somewhere between them.
With decaying Stealth, it's not so simple to analyse- and it might have unintended consequences because the ships weren't designed with this in mind. It might also mean that bigger ships are the only way forward against Stealth.
If I was desgining the game from the ground up, I'd define Stealth on a per-attacking ship basis and have it decay after each attacker has fired. It could start as high as 6 or 7, but multiple attackers will bring it down. It would mean that mobbing ships is the best way- and fighters would be very difficult to stop with Stealth.
On the other hand, root-and-branch changes are not really practical. I think some slight massaging of the weapons and/or damage and crew points is all that's needed.
I've also thought that having some special firing mode or special action that reduces Stealth would be handy. Say you have the option of halving the AD on any weapon with at least 4AD (rounding up) to reduce Stealth by 2. It gives the players a nice option to not go all or nothing against stealth, and means 6+ Stealth isn't quite so harsh.
With decaying Stealth, it's not so simple to analyse- and it might have unintended consequences because the ships weren't designed with this in mind. It might also mean that bigger ships are the only way forward against Stealth.
If I was desgining the game from the ground up, I'd define Stealth on a per-attacking ship basis and have it decay after each attacker has fired. It could start as high as 6 or 7, but multiple attackers will bring it down. It would mean that mobbing ships is the best way- and fighters would be very difficult to stop with Stealth.
On the other hand, root-and-branch changes are not really practical. I think some slight massaging of the weapons and/or damage and crew points is all that's needed.
I've also thought that having some special firing mode or special action that reduces Stealth would be handy. Say you have the option of halving the AD on any weapon with at least 4AD (rounding up) to reduce Stealth by 2. It gives the players a nice option to not go all or nothing against stealth, and means 6+ Stealth isn't quite so harsh.
Queex
Mongoose
Obsidian said:
Similar- although because it's by ship rather than by hit it behaves differently. Also, its decay is more predictable (whether or not that's a good thing).
Another approach would be to say the ship makes rolls by weapon system (without decay), but once one system has locked-on all the others do so automatically.
With so many ideas flying, it may be handy to summarize.
Queex suggests a Stealth roll that gets easier the more ships fire at it.
---> I find this intruiging, but perhaps a bit fiddly. I already have trouble remembering how many Interceptor dice I have left and at what level.
Wolfgod (IIRC) suggest upping EA and Narn power levels. B5Freak adds that maybe just adjust all levels for those fleets higher than Skirmish down by one.
---> Perhaps its just the Centauri in me, but Narn at least seem a match for everybody else already. I don't see it as really solving the issue - its like trying to prevent rapes by giving all the women chastity belts.
The other problem being that more overall firepower means ships get scrapped that much faster, which means the game is more fragile overall. Those early volleys define the whole thing, and maneuver and fleet tactics go out the window. Not good.
B5Freak has also suggested reducing Tinashi and Sharlin (plus variants) Firepower by about 2AD each.
---> Under some of the logic above, I like this, but I still think the big firepower is "fluffy" for them. And tweaking AD is quite tricky, when you look at what that does in relation to other ship choices. The Tinashi and Sharlin should remain the preferred choice, not be supplanted by masses of Troligans or Neshatans.
I forget who above mentioned playing with Stealth mods going the other direction - the Stealth Number is the flat roll, +1 for under 10" and +1 for Scouts and Fighter scanning as usual.
---> I REALLY like this idea. Needing a 6+ to even try to hit the enemy flagship at full engagment range, before he's going to fry you for sure, is a ridiculous proposition for any Admiral. Bringing those odds back into the realm of possible makes the game more plausible and fun, and less dependent on "Oh, today I rolled a 6, so I won. Yesterday, I didn't so I lost" A simplification, I know, but MANY games vs Minbari have truly honestly bogged down to this.
And of course there's those who think all is just hunky dory.
---> I've got a Balvarin Carrier to sell you then...
SO...to summarize my preferences
(1) Leave AD and Pri Levels alone.
(2) Change Stealth to either "decay", to a Flat 4+, or to have the mods go the other way - Base Number holds, +1 for under 10" and so on.
-D
Queex suggests a Stealth roll that gets easier the more ships fire at it.
---> I find this intruiging, but perhaps a bit fiddly. I already have trouble remembering how many Interceptor dice I have left and at what level.
Wolfgod (IIRC) suggest upping EA and Narn power levels. B5Freak adds that maybe just adjust all levels for those fleets higher than Skirmish down by one.
---> Perhaps its just the Centauri in me, but Narn at least seem a match for everybody else already. I don't see it as really solving the issue - its like trying to prevent rapes by giving all the women chastity belts.
The other problem being that more overall firepower means ships get scrapped that much faster, which means the game is more fragile overall. Those early volleys define the whole thing, and maneuver and fleet tactics go out the window. Not good.
B5Freak has also suggested reducing Tinashi and Sharlin (plus variants) Firepower by about 2AD each.
---> Under some of the logic above, I like this, but I still think the big firepower is "fluffy" for them. And tweaking AD is quite tricky, when you look at what that does in relation to other ship choices. The Tinashi and Sharlin should remain the preferred choice, not be supplanted by masses of Troligans or Neshatans.
I forget who above mentioned playing with Stealth mods going the other direction - the Stealth Number is the flat roll, +1 for under 10" and +1 for Scouts and Fighter scanning as usual.
---> I REALLY like this idea. Needing a 6+ to even try to hit the enemy flagship at full engagment range, before he's going to fry you for sure, is a ridiculous proposition for any Admiral. Bringing those odds back into the realm of possible makes the game more plausible and fun, and less dependent on "Oh, today I rolled a 6, so I won. Yesterday, I didn't so I lost" A simplification, I know, but MANY games vs Minbari have truly honestly bogged down to this.
And of course there's those who think all is just hunky dory.
---> I've got a Balvarin Carrier to sell you then...
SO...to summarize my preferences
(1) Leave AD and Pri Levels alone.
(2) Change Stealth to either "decay", to a Flat 4+, or to have the mods go the other way - Base Number holds, +1 for under 10" and so on.
-D
