Tomorrow's Game - what to take, what to take?

[starbreaker]

Well, I wouldn't tackle a destroyer with rockets if I had a horde of frigates, I'd board it. Destroyers may have thick hulls but they don't have overwhelming crews, another reason why tying so many points up in single models is dangerous.

I'd take a 3:1 frigs:destroyers ratio any day over a 1:1.

??? Of course you would - three frigates cost 300 points to a destroyer's 180. You'll win that every time unless you're hideously unlucky, even if you shoot rather than board.

Try running equal point values of frigates versus destroyers - that extra 20 points the destroyers get for every pair of your frigates that you buy will pay for troop upgrades that make the frigates' greater number of troops much less threatening. Only Hazat has the raw numbers to make for good odds, and they sacrifice a bit of firepower to get them. You can upgrade the troops on the frigates, but that just increases their relative costs.

 

[starbreaker]

Marauders are 5 points, for +2 to hit and 2 damage.

Elites are 2 points for +1 to hit.

Cyber & heavy armour are 2 points for 2 damage.

So elite troops with heavy armour are 4 points, for +1 and 2 damage.

If points are to balance out, cyber & heavy armour can't be more than 2 points.

That presumes that the point values assesed in the S&P article are correct, which I question. +1 to attack is worth noticeably less, IMO, than 2-hit status, and it's certainly worse than hitting on 5+ with a reroll (as Vorox get for the same 2 points). At the same time, I don't think 2-hit by itself is worth a full three, especially with Ukari around. If Cyber and Heavy Armor rounded their losses up rather than down the way Marauders do, that would be closer to a 2 cost upgrade - the odd "extra" casualty and much greater vulnerability to losses from criticals would help compensate for the lower base cost (of Cybers in particular).

 

[Stormrider]

??? Of course you would - three frigates cost 300 points to a destroyer's 180. You'll win that every time unless you're hideously unlucky, even if you shoot rather than board.

I meant in my own fleet, for every destroyer I'd take at least 3 frigates to support it. I'd be offended if I thought you were inferring I'd need a superior points cost fleet to win a battle, winning battles is what I do old boy

 

[Greg Smith]

+1 to attack is worth noticeably less, IMO, than 2-hit status, and it's certainly worse than hitting on 5+ with a reroll (as Vorox get for the same 2 points).

Elites hit 50% of the time.
Vorox hit 55% of the time. The difference is small.

I agree that the two hit may be worth more. But if you increase the cost, of heavy armour/cyber then marauders become the cheapest and no-one ever buys elites with armour.

Is a 5-point spread of upgrades too small to cost troops in a balanced fashion?

 

[starbreaker]

I agree that the two hit may be worth more. But if you increase the cost, of heavy armour/cyber then marauders become the cheapest and no-one ever buys elites with armour.

At the moment, only Hazat can buy both elites and marauders. That might change, but anyone who can is already spoiled for choice - they can upgrade cheaply for offense (elites) or defense (cybers), specialize in defense (elites with blur suits and heavy armor), or get marauders who do both fairly well. They don't really need the heavy armor-only elite option to be cost efficient, leave that to Li Halan who don't have a marauder option anyway. I do think they get too much for the point cost with cybers, as everyone does. The real problem is that elites are too weak for 2 points but have locked up the whole system already. If they were 1 point apiece, or +2 to hit at 2 points, the costs for attack and defense could be more reasonably balanced, with 2-hit assigned a nominal cost of 3.

5-point spread of upgrades too small to cost troops in a balanced fashion?

Possibly - the best you can do is try to make it roughly fit a statistical basis, and even there you have lots of inobvious stuff to take into account, not least of which are oportunity costs. Cybers probably don't thrill most factions, for example - but poor Al Malik had no upgrades at all before they came along, and neither the ukari nor gannock are nearly as helpful for boarding defense, which is what they need most. As an Al Malik player I'd happily pay 3 points for Cybers - at 2 points, I feel like I'm exploiting a flaw. Most other factions would probably prefer to buy marauders, or specialized elites, depending on how offensive they feel about boarding.

I meant in my own fleet, for every destroyer I'd take at least 3 frigates to support it.

Whatever works for you - frigates are certainly more versatile than galliots or raiders are, since they can both shoot and board reasonably well for their cost. Destroyers shade more toward shooting, but are tough enough to make troop upgrade investments more reasonable, which can also let them launch (or defend against) boarding actions as well.

Should be interesting to try cruisers and dreads - I'm tempted to simply proxy rather than wait.

 

[Stormrider]

Should be interesting to try cruisers and dreads - I'm tempted to simply proxy rather than wait.

Certainly will considering the look on Rick's face when I took a Decados Destroyer against his Hawkwood.

It will vary heavily from House to House though as some seem to favour smaller ships and others the larger. Decados are certainly deadly at frigate level from shooting and Hazat seem very potent at frigate/galliot from a boarding view and as you say, Al Malik will struggle against larger ships.