Variant Hulls and Availability

[The Legend]

I've been playing ACTA for a couple of years now though I have had a break from it for a period!

I've played various versions of Babylon 5 space combat games including the Babylon Projects Full Trust mod and of course the Babylon 5 Wars series.

Pretty much all the ships in ACTA we're covered in B5 wars and Fleet Action and AOG had a really simple way of limiting the number of Varient hulls by using the Common, Limited and Rare traits.

I was just wondering if they are going to try and limit the number of Rarer hulls in the 2nd edition fleet lists as I think this is a trick that is missed out on with the current edition.

 

[Burger]

"Unique" has been mentioned (for example the Excalibur is a unique EA Victory), but none of the other rarity factors.

 

[The Legend]

I think that would add to the games balance quite a bit. I've faced some.... unreasonable forces in some games and I think that the unique trait sounds good I hope they add more aspects like this.

 

[Da Boss]

I got the impression Unique was just for a couple of specific ships in the show / or "shudder" films rather than a limiting factor in general - I agree with the idea of "rare" ships - some are described as exactly that in the fluff and yet can apear in numbers.

seems an easy thing to put in and another way, shoudl it be needed, of balancing ships..............

 

[animus]

I think this would help the game a lot too. This kind of thing would have stopped the Sagitarrius horror and would help balance out the Narn bat squad.

 

[Burger]

Rarity factor wouldn't balance ships at all. It just hides the fact that they are broken, by mixing them in with other, less broken ships.

Although it would stop broken fleets from being fielded.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Rarity factor wouldn't balance ships at all. It just hides the fact that they are broken, by mixing them in with other, less broken ships.

Although it would stop broken fleets from being fielded.

completely in agreement.

 

[The Legend]

Rarity factor wouldn't balance ships at all. It just hides the fact that they are broken, by mixing them in with other, less broken ships.

Although it would stop broken fleets from being fielded.

completely in agreement.

Exactly what I was thinking. I've faced some horrible combinations and I sometimes just look at the fleet I'm up against and go Hmmm.... I guess that comes from not being a particularly good Power player!

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Don't feel bad about that. Power gamers are the minions of the Great Enemy... :wink:

I find it slightly sad, actually, that people are wanting a game mechanic to force players to pick reasonable armies/fleets in wargames. If players can't be relied on to play like sportsmen what does that say about our hobby?

I'll certainly be penalising players at the Golden Throne tournament this year for "ungentlemanly conduct."

 

[emperorpenguin]

I find it slightly sad, actually, that people are wanting a game mechanic to force players to pick reasonable armies/fleets in wargames. If players can't be relied on to play like sportsmen what does that say about our hobby?."

True, and powergamers will always find a way.....

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Agreed. I expect an opponent to give 100% in a game, but combing the army lists for the beardiest, cheesiest unit combinations just to win every time, is beyond the pale.

Pick a realistic, balanced list and do your best with tactics. You win some, you lose some, but your regular opponents will still be there for re-matches. The beardy power gamers are just asking to be booted out of gaming groups.

 

[Burger]

I consider fleet selection to be a part of the strategy of the game. It should be a challenge and take skill to find a winning combination of ships. It is like the bidding in a game of Bridge. You bid the contract, then play it, and also have luck on your side. I would like everyone to try their hardest to find the best fleet they possibly can, and not to "hold back" because a particular ship is overpowered or whatever. That would make the game better, for me.

Unfortunately that isn't really the reality of what we have. A couple of ships (old Sag, Prefect for example) are just so far ahead of the rest, that finding the "best fleet" is really a no-brainer.

 

[Reaverman]

I consider fleet selection to be a part of the strategy of the game. It should be a challenge and take skill to find a winning combination of ships. It is like the bidding in a game of Bridge. You bid the contract, then play it, and also have luck on your side. I would like everyone to try their hardest to find the best fleet they possibly can, and not to "hold back" because a particular ship is overpowered or whatever. That would make the game better, for me.

Unfortunately that isn't really the reality of what we have. A couple of ships (old Sag, Prefect for example) are just so far ahead of the rest, that finding the "best fleet" is really a no-brainer.

Exactly!

 

[Johnny D]

There are very few skirmish ships that I'd say are broken if taken in sensible numbers. The Ka'tans and sagitarius are scary, but if limited in number they just become a target and die, as long as you're playing someone who understand how to prioritise targetting they just tend to explode before they do much. It's only when fielded in overwhelming numbers that they become broken.
In a balanced fleet they are threats, but they are so easily damaged that they can be neutralised, hopefully having done enough damage or bought enough time/absorbed enough firepower to make them worth including in your fleet.
My Narn fleet has 2 ka’tans and they are rarely stunningly effective or alive passed turn 2. They are a great part of the fleet because of the threat they pose and work well to absorb hits while the rest of the fleet closes with them, but they are no more effective than anything else and regularly do a lot less.
I understand that they are a better ship than others in a one on one , but by limiting the numbers you can take you massively limit their effectiveness. It’s a problem of allowing people to take fleets that are never likely to be encountered in the B5 universe for example when would you ever get a solitary fleet of 10 sagitarius? By limiting the number of times certain ships can be taken you can encourage balanced fleets without having to nerf or beef up existing models.
Having played GW games where a units abilities often dramatically change between editions, I’d rather have limits applied to the numbers of existing models I can use rather than have them modified into something drastically better or worse than the version I was used to.

 

[Hash]

From Burger's point - I do find it interesting in a game with so many ships...you tend to find the same fleet compositions for each race to be very, very, common in tournaments. I'd like to see more thought necessary for fleet selection too.

To me, ACTA V2 will go down very well if it can address this issue and make a variety of different fleet combinations viable and still highly competitive. The only way to do that is to balance ships (and let the fleets sort themselves out) and allow different ships in the fleet to complement each other to allow the different strengths of the individual fleet to be exploited to best effect...which should be in keeping with the spirit of the show. A tall order indeed! I wish you brave Mongoose designers and playtesters the best of luck - you certainly have a superb core rule set to base things on IMO!

 

[Tzarevitch]

I think this would help the game a lot too. This kind of thing would have stopped the Sagitarrius horror and would help balance out the Narn bat squad.

It wouldn't prevent the Bat Squad because those are common ships. It would merely force the KaToc version to be more common than the KaTan as the KaToc is standard-model Narn destroyer. The KaTan is actually a less-common variant.

Tzarevitch

 

[Na-Po]

It might prevent a player from playing 10 times the same ship.
But I agree it shouldn't have to.

I only re-play with players understanding the word "fair play".
One guy has been kicked due to his never ending 'oh and if I open a jump point right in the mddle of your fleet" ...
Nobody wants to play with him anymore.

That might might fall under "Gentleman Agreement", it's a game and it's nice to win but the fun is in playing not winning.

 

[Celisasu]

Of course hull limiting has a different problem. It favors fleets with a variety of decent ships while hitting those who have one or two different hulls. For example you can just see a Centauri player. "Only two of any hull? Okay. 2 Tertius, 2 Prefect, 2 Corvan, 2 Maximus, 2 Sullust, 2 Primus." Then you go to the Narn player. "2 Ka'Toc, 2 Ka'Tan, 2.....Oh shit"

As mentioned, all you're doing is hiding broken ships among less capable hulls. It doesn't change the problem that some ships are just a lot better.

 

[Tzarevitch]

You limit by percentage of the force not by number. You simply decide that common ships have unilmited deployment and rare ships can comprise no more than 20% of the points spent to purchase the force (but you may always have up to 1 rare regardless of the percentage). So the the 10-ship bat squad for example could have 8 Ka'Tocs (common) with no more than 2 Ka'Tans (rare).

Tzarevitch

 

[CZuschlag]

Burger is spot on here.

There are some ships that could conceiveably use such a rule, but they'd have to leverage a weapon that doesn't exist yet. Something that nonlinearly boost the rest of the fleets effectiveness in a STACKABLE way. Not like scouts, where 2 scout lock-ons are almost as good as just 1.

But say, something decided a "Beacon" weapon would be cool. You'd shoot a target, and for the rest of the turn, if you hit, you did no damage, but up to 3 other ships would get a +1 on their to-hit rolls for the rest of the turn. A ship mounts exactly 1 AD of such a thing. It'd have some pulse weaponry, too. Powerful, but not over the top by itself, right?

Now think about 3-6 of these things supporting a single beam ship. The damage could get obscene.

And that's an example where fleet rarity would do some good. You use fleet rarity to mitigate nonlinear/scaling balance issues.

If the unit itself is broken --- you're just hiding the flaw. And that's the wrong solution, taking an easy way out. I'll paraphrase H.L. Mencken -- "For every problem, there is solution that is fast, cheap ... and invariably wrong".