Thoughts on 2e... Game favors fleets of smaller ships. Why?

[Burger]

the larger the game, the better high PL ships become.

Definitions of "swarms" and "large ships" are relative to the PL of the scenario. When playing at War level, 10 Omegas are a swarm, whereas an Ancient is a "big ship". The same balance issues re-surface.

 

[Triggy]

the larger the game, the better high PL ships become.

Definitions of "swarms" and "large ships" are relative to the PL of the scenario. When playing at War level, 10 Omegas are a swarm, whereas an Ancient is a "big ship". The same balance issues re-surface.

Actually you misunderstand me. I wasn't talking about higher PL games with this comment - more FAPs being spent is what I was referring to. In these larger games, high PL ships (relative to the PL of the scenario) still become better value.

 

[Ripple]

Our experience hasn't matched that so far Triggy.

We have been finding that the player who bought above the level of the scenario loses. Generally we have been playing 8 to 10 points of Raid or higher lately as well. Any more than one ship above the level of the fight has been almost a quarantee of loss (Drazi fleet that got smoked, mostly due to bore sight issues and not being able to use close blast doors like the opponent).

I guess we're still seeing more AD on the table always beats more damage/crew. Just like you say for in the small vs large debate, its about removing AD from turn to turn, and large ships vanish real easy

Ripple

 

[Hans Olo]

the larger the game, the better high PL ships become.

Definitions of "swarms" and "large ships" are relative to the PL of the scenario. When playing at War level, 10 Omegas are a swarm, whereas an Ancient is a "big ship". The same balance issues re-surface.

Actually you misunderstand me. I wasn't talking about higher PL games with this comment - more FAPs being spent is what I was referring to. In these larger games, high PL ships (relative to the PL of the scenario) still become better value.

I'm afraid you have to explain that to me since let's say playing 20 Raid gives me 5 War or 10 Battle or any mix of any priority level. Or you can have 40 Skirmish ships (maybe 40 Sagittarius, or 40 Olympus Gunships or anything like that).
How do Bigger Ships become better value in this way?

 

[Triggy]

It very much depends on the fleet. Drakh and EA get better with more FAPs and the ability to mix the odd larger ship in whereas Drazi and Narn tend to stay at their best by taking many ships. Others may vary...

 

[Hans Olo]

It very much depends on the fleet. Drakh and EA get better with more FAPs and the ability to mix the odd larger ship in whereas Drazi and Narn tend to stay at their best by taking many ships. Others may vary...

Ok Drak really get better, but that's only because their large ships are carrying a Swarm of smaller ones for free. So Drakh do not come with 10 Battle (lets look at 10 Drakh Carriers) but with 10 Battle in Battle choices (or at least 5 Points Battle in Carriers if we do not count Carriers as full battle choice because of their Weapons load) and + 10 Points Battle in Skirmish choices (40!! extra Raiders).
I admit that playing with 15 Battle while your opponent only has 10 greatly increases the performance of your Fleet.

 

[Triggy]

It very much depends on the fleet. Drakh and EA get better with more FAPs and the ability to mix the odd larger ship in whereas Drazi and Narn tend to stay at their best by taking many ships. Others may vary...

Ok Drak really get better, but that's only because their large ships are carrying a Swarm of smaller ones for free. So Drakh do not come with 10 Battle (lets look at 10 Drakh Carriers) but with 10 Battle in Battle choices (or at least 5 Points Battle in Carriers if we do not count Carriers as full battle choice because of their Weapons load) and + 10 Points Battle in Skirmish choices (40!! extra Raiders).
I admit that playing with 15 Battle while your opponent only has 10 greatly increases the performance of your Fleet.

I was actually thinking of the Strike Cruiser and Cruiser rather than the Carrier and Mothership. The Cruiser/Strike Cruiser are just great ships that at higher FAP games they can have enough ships supporting them.

One of the ways larger ships are more worth it in higher FAP games is that they have more guns that can be brought to bear due to the wealth of targets. Add to this the command and fleet carrier abilities and a couple of large ships is not so unappealing.

[I still think smaller ships are in general better but they aren't the be all and end all of the game]

 

[animus]

I think a house rule for redundancy/bulk would do a lot to help the big ships; it just needs to be fine tuned.

If it would allow critical damage but not critical effects, that's one thing. If it would turn a critical into a solid hit, that's another. Either way, a few tick boxes on a sheet could go a long way to make big ships viable.

Frankly, beyond mandating some kind of limits as to fleet choice, this is the best idea I've seen. Of course, I see ACTA moving toward the mandating of ship choices a little: note the Gaim requiring a queen ship and new trait "unique." Of course making mandates on choices would require each fleet to be looked at and play tested and that's a big deal. The Redundancy/bulk rating ratings would be easier and I think unobtrusive.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I agree. Redundancy as a trait that allows X number of critical effects (but not additional damage) to be ignored during a game would make large ships more viable. It'd also provide a way to reflect tough ships like the Abbai and Narn units, giving them higher ratings than less defensive/bulk-minded races.

 

[No. 1 Bear]

I agree. Redundancy as a trait that allows X number of critical effects (but not additional damage) to be ignored during a game would make large ships more viable. It'd also provide a way to reflect tough ships like the Abbai and Narn units, giving them higher ratings than less defensive/bulk-minded races.

Making abbai and narn have higher redundencies would be good. As they are supposed to be tough brawlers. I feel they should be able to take a shedload of pain before finally going down.

Oh yeh i think redundencies will work. Just a question though, how will this effect Mimbari as they need the crits.

 

[animus]

The more crits you get on a target the faster the redundancy/bulk will decline. One good attack could take out a bunch of redundancy/bulk boxes and so forth. The balance remains the same, it just buys time for the bigger ships.

 

[No. 1 Bear]

right i was just wondering. How would self repair work on redundancy. Would you be able to repair a redundancy for example.

 

[Centauri_Admiral]

Now having played with 2e for a while, I have to wonder what the developers were thinking. The system now even more rewards fleets of lots of smaller priority ships.

It used the be that big ships frequently had lots of SAP big beams. But beams are now less effective against smaller ships, and MORE effective against bigger ones. Why?

Consider this math from a friend of mine:
“Change in beam rules reduced firepower of large ships with super-AP beams vs. armor 4 ships by 48%, 55% when you consider beams can no longer lock on the first round.

These changes disproportionately impacted fleets weighted with beam weapons and large capital ships with heavy beams as their main weaponry”.

In almost every fleet, the system rewards you to "trade down". You get more hull, more total weapons and more initiative sinks when you trade a G'Quann for four Ka'Tan destroyers. Or a Primus for four Demos.

The new, most scary weapon in the game isn’t the beam anymore - its the precise, long range torpedo which can be locked on and fired en-mass.

Pity, because that doesn’t match the show at all.

I like the bigger ships - They make the table look cool, and speed up play since there is less to be moving around on the table.

Other than maximizing sales by encouraging players to buy more, smaller ships, I don't get the reason for Mongoose encouraging players to trade down the priority levels

Yes but bear in mind that while you may get more AD and extra ISinks out of 4 skirmish level ships, the likely of 4 skirmish level ships surviving where 1 battle might is slim. Case in point. My 6 demos last week dealt out a sickening amount of firepower, but due to their fragile hulls didn't last past the second round of shooting. The primus, although slightly out of position, lasted the end of the game, and while I did indeed notice that its beam weapons were less powerful, I was criticalling my opponent to death, and then smashing his face in with the less than subtle weight of Ion cannon AD.

The more I play 2e, the more I find that its actually been balanced quite nicely, just my opinion though chappy.

 

[DrSeltsam]

right i was just wondering. How would self repair work on redundancy. Would you be able to repair a redundancy for example.

I would suggest that self repair only works on the damage / critical not the redundancy itself.

We are currently working with a redundancy system in our actual campaign and so far it looks like it is a solid way to improve high PL ship.

 

[DrSeltsam]

The more crits you get on a target the faster the redundancy/bulk will decline. One good attack could take out a bunch of redundancy/bulk boxes and so forth. The balance remains the same, it just buys time for the bigger ships.

Yep , but isn't that what bigger ships need right now ?

At the moment the fleet with more AD ( preferably with Precise and/or a damage multiplier ) will rock. With a redundancy system bigger ships will get a chance to be used more a few more turns before they go BOOM :wink:

A nail in the coffin of bigger ships is the initiative system + squadron. With this a swarm fleet can rule the initiative for movement and use more firepower at one initiative point.

In the example of the 5 War or 10 Battle against 40 Skirmish ... the swarm player can easily built 2 or 3 squadrons and still own the intiative / movement phase but get the combined firepower of the squadron.

 

[Gunnvaldr]

If it would allow critical damage but not critical effects, that's one thing. If it would turn a critical into a solid hit, that's another. Either way, a few tick boxes on a sheet could go a long way to make big ships viable.

I suggest you treat capital ships as if they're like Space stations, were only a roll of 6+1 (from percise) would achieve a crit.

 

[Methos5000]

If it would allow critical damage but not critical effects, that's one thing. If it would turn a critical into a solid hit, that's another. Either way, a few tick boxes on a sheet could go a long way to make big ships viable.

I suggest you treat capital ships as if they're like Space stations, were only a roll of 6+1 (from percise) would achieve a crit.

This makes Dilgar Masters of Destruction useless as they have no precise weapons.

 

[Burger]

If it would allow critical damage but not critical effects, that's one thing. If it would turn a critical into a solid hit, that's another. Either way, a few tick boxes on a sheet could go a long way to make big ships viable.

I suggest you treat capital ships as if they're like Space stations, were only a roll of 6+1 (from percise) would achieve a crit.

This makes Dilgar Masters of Destruction useless as they have no precise weapons.

It also makes Brakiri useless since they have no precise weapons either.
And Drazi, and Gaim!

 

[Gunnvaldr]

I suggest you treat capital ships as if they're like Space stations, were only a roll of 6+1 (from percise) would achieve a crit.

This makes Dilgar Masters of Destruction useless as they have no precise weapons.

It also makes Brakiri useless since they have no precise weapons either.
And Drazi, and Gaim!

Funny, I thought part of the argue 'solution' was to lessen the impact of crits vs. capitals.

you made the case in point for me. Increasing the redundancy would only have the similar result as my suggestion.

And honestly, my suggestion just made SAP Peirce even more powerful when I look at it.

Basically if you want to make house rules, the focus should be placing limitation or a form of a orgaizational chart for the fleets beyond the standard priority level. This is aimed to control the numbers and perhaps tyeps of ships fielded.

a simplist aexample of this, which was already mention in this thread that in tornaments, is to limited the fleet list the max number of X amount.

Alternatively you can make players form squads and must set 1 as a lead ship, raising it 1 up a priority leve, perhaps balance it out by giving it a refit or so.

either way thats my shot of ideas

 

[Burger]

You suggestion does indeed make crits harder to achieve... but not universally across the board. It makes them impossible for certain races to achieve. That is not a fair way of doing it.