Ways to fight stealth
- Thread starter madpax
- Start date
Locutus9956
Mongoose
WhoawhoaWHOA guys! Just once can we not let a thread turn into a slagging off match!? Some of burgers replies may come off as a little snarky at times but I certainly didnt take offence at any point and I seriously doubt Hiff did either!
I personally agree that pure statisitical analysis is not the answer but Burgers welcome to his oppinion. I happen to think stealth SHOULD make slow loading weapons fire.
And here we go again: For the last time, the whole fracking point is that stealth a failed stealth roll does not merely represent failing to lock on/see the enemy it represents your sensors being 'spoofed' by the stealth systems. In other words as far as the firing ship is concerned it thinks it DOES have a lock on. The lock on data is simply WRONG so the weapons hit a nice big chunk of space that they think contains a Sharlin when in fac the acutal ship is over there.... Burger can quote stats all he likes though, I just happen to think he's wrong in this case and its a fair offset to stealth which is a seriously powerful and potentially very frsutrating mechanic anyway. But just because I disagree with him is not cause to go insulting people and hurling abuse! You see THIS sort of outburst is why I remembered the 'centauri crowd' being overly harsh in the Sulust thread (incorrectly in that case as it turns out)...
Come on play nice guys, we all like the game as much as we may disagree at times so for the love of smeg can we not have a civilsied argument about game rules without resorting to insults?
I personally agree that pure statisitical analysis is not the answer but Burgers welcome to his oppinion. I happen to think stealth SHOULD make slow loading weapons fire.
And here we go again: For the last time, the whole fracking point is that stealth a failed stealth roll does not merely represent failing to lock on/see the enemy it represents your sensors being 'spoofed' by the stealth systems. In other words as far as the firing ship is concerned it thinks it DOES have a lock on. The lock on data is simply WRONG so the weapons hit a nice big chunk of space that they think contains a Sharlin when in fac the acutal ship is over there.... Burger can quote stats all he likes though, I just happen to think he's wrong in this case and its a fair offset to stealth which is a seriously powerful and potentially very frsutrating mechanic anyway. But just because I disagree with him is not cause to go insulting people and hurling abuse! You see THIS sort of outburst is why I remembered the 'centauri crowd' being overly harsh in the Sulust thread (incorrectly in that case as it turns out)...
Come on play nice guys, we all like the game as much as we may disagree at times so for the love of smeg can we not have a civilsied argument about game rules without resorting to insults?
Locutus9956
Mongoose
hehehe... ah grenades. So many memories.....
Actually in most cases it's about 150% of their non-slow loading equivalents. This was clearly seen in one case where the Brakiri beams were hauled back a touch after finding they were amazingly effective.Burger said:
This is because a Slow Loading weapon can fire all its AD in one go then reload and although all of the AD numbers are equal, the damage has been done much earlier, therefore leading to crippled and otherwise damaged ships before they can fire back. Also, ships with SL weapons can use Close Blast Doors more effectively and make strafing attack runs (shoot, fly past the enemy whilst reloading, shoot, ad nauseum).
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
This has probably been answered time and time again but my finding skills seem to have completely left me. Is a roll of 1 on a stealth check a failure? Weapons fire is 6 = Auto-Hit, 1=Auto-FAIL, but I can't find if the same applies to Stealth.Burger said:
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
I'm not sure that slow loading weapons are really all that good for breaking stealth. Whereas it's true that...
"In 2e that 12 AD weapon will break stealth once every three turns... fail, pass, loading, fail, pass, loading..."
... the slow loading system doesn't even get a chance to break stealth on the turn that it is loading while normal weapon systems get to try every turn. This seems like an important balancing factor. Also, slow loading weapons seem, to me, to be somewhat under twice as powerful as their faster firing counterparts (though if someone has the math to back up that statement I'd love to see it...)
ShopKeepJon
"In 2e that 12 AD weapon will break stealth once every three turns... fail, pass, loading, fail, pass, loading..."
... the slow loading system doesn't even get a chance to break stealth on the turn that it is loading while normal weapon systems get to try every turn. This seems like an important balancing factor. Also, slow loading weapons seem, to me, to be somewhat under twice as powerful as their faster firing counterparts (though if someone has the math to back up that statement I'd love to see it...)
ShopKeepJon
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
In 2E though, that SL weapon won't count as fired when it doesn't break stealth. So it would be a Check=Fail, Check=Fail, Check=Succeed, Load, Check=Fail, Check=Succeed, Load... Something on that order.
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
This statement...
"For the last time, the whole fracking point is that stealth a failed stealth roll does not merely represent failing to lock on/see the enemy it represents your sensors being 'spoofed' by the stealth systems. In other words as far as the firing ship is concerned it thinks it DOES have a lock on. The lock on data is simply WRONG so the weapons hit a nice big chunk of space that they think contains a Sharlin when in fac the acutal ship is over there...."
... is not supported by the series at all. As of 2259 Earth Alliance couldn't get any kind of a weapons lock on Minbari ships. I don't remember the name of the episode, but a Minbari ship was "attacking" Babylon 5 and the station crew had a good weapons lock on the ship. It was stated unequivocally that the Earth Alliance had never, up that point, been able to achieve any kind of a lock on the Minbari. Since the weapons lock should have been impossible, it clued the captain in on the fact that something was not right...
It was made very clear that no lock at all was achievable...
Mind you, being completely unable to ever lock onto the Minbari would make for a pretty boring game, so I'm not advocating it...
Also, this doesn't help with the question of whether a slow loading weapon should be considered to have fired if it doesn't break stealth. I personally think that most ships, given the choice of firing without much hope of hitting or just letting the enemy kill them without firing a single shot back, would choose to fire anyway and hope for the best...
ShopKeepJon
"For the last time, the whole fracking point is that stealth a failed stealth roll does not merely represent failing to lock on/see the enemy it represents your sensors being 'spoofed' by the stealth systems. In other words as far as the firing ship is concerned it thinks it DOES have a lock on. The lock on data is simply WRONG so the weapons hit a nice big chunk of space that they think contains a Sharlin when in fac the acutal ship is over there...."
... is not supported by the series at all. As of 2259 Earth Alliance couldn't get any kind of a weapons lock on Minbari ships. I don't remember the name of the episode, but a Minbari ship was "attacking" Babylon 5 and the station crew had a good weapons lock on the ship. It was stated unequivocally that the Earth Alliance had never, up that point, been able to achieve any kind of a lock on the Minbari. Since the weapons lock should have been impossible, it clued the captain in on the fact that something was not right...
It was made very clear that no lock at all was achievable...
Mind you, being completely unable to ever lock onto the Minbari would make for a pretty boring game, so I'm not advocating it...
Also, this doesn't help with the question of whether a slow loading weapon should be considered to have fired if it doesn't break stealth. I personally think that most ships, given the choice of firing without much hope of hitting or just letting the enemy kill them without firing a single shot back, would choose to fire anyway and hope for the best...
ShopKeepJon
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
Sulfurdown said:
This somewhat supports my argument. In your example, the weapon has fired twice in seven turns and was unable to check (and thus help other ships break stealth) in two of those seven turns. Not very overwhelming...
ShopKeepJon
An "average" set of rolls against Stealth 5+, reduced to 4+ through various means, would be:ShopKeepJon said:
Hit, load, miss, miss, hit, load, hit, load, hit, load, miss, miss
That's four hits out of twelve and in the reloading turns you don't have to worry about lining up the shot so can Close Blast Doors or equivalent. Compare this to "normal" firing where you'd have six hits against the same Stealthy ship. That's a 33% drop in firepower rather than the "expected" 50% drop in firepower.
LaranosTZ
Mongoose
Also supporting the 'will not lock' argument is that in the movie 'In The Beginning' the Earth ships were not able to get a lock, yet once they got close enough they were still able to fire and hit the Sharlin. Also note, they were not able to get a lock, yet they were still able to use basic sensors to get a sillouhette and determine the Sharlin's gun ports were open. This seems to me that they could detect them just fine, but without computer assistance they were unable to compensate for trajectory and movement paths.
Basically, stealth seems to reflect that the ship doesn't have any 'computer' assistance when targeting another ship, and let's face it, when you're dealing with those relative distances 'eyeballing' it isn't going to be very accurate.
Basically, stealth seems to reflect that the ship doesn't have any 'computer' assistance when targeting another ship, and let's face it, when you're dealing with those relative distances 'eyeballing' it isn't going to be very accurate.
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
Greg Smith said:I have found fighters effective, although you have something of a dilema with 2" range fighters.
Example:
Thunderbolts stand off at 4", outside of AF range, so they must roll to beat stealth. However a handful of T/Bolts will likely get one past stealth, so reducing stealth.
Starfuries must get within AF range, but if one gets through, you've beaten the stealth automatically and so reduced the stealth. Generally do this with more Starfuries than the target has AF dice, and only do it when you absolutely have to reduce stealth on that particular target, ie you have a lot of guns lined up on it.
This point is moot, if one brings enough Nials...
Regards,
----
No, stealth is rolled before firing. You don't fire your e-mine and then roll for stealth.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
ShopKeepJon said:
No I know its not supported by the show which is why I have time and time again begged for the stealth mechanic to be changed.
BUT the rule as it states currently is quite clear. It even SAYS so (though its certainly possible they changed the wording in 2nd ed as I dont have my book with me), (again I dont have the exact wording to hand but its something along the lines of...)
Now as you say a a game where you cant hit the opponent ever would be pretty dull which is why Ive always been in favour of a stealth mechanic closer to how B5Wars did it, namely that stealth ALWAYS worked but basically meant you always took the double range penalty for not having locked a target with your sensors.
Now obviously ACTA is a very different game and doesnt deal with sensors seperately and theres no 'range penalty' either (and the movement system is such that using range as a factor is frankly very difficult to implement well (if at all possible) but Id personally like to see it as a flat penalty to hit Minbari ships .
Again dont get me wrong, the current stealth mechanic as modified in 2nd ed, DOES actually work quite well now I must admit now Ive played with and against it a bit, but Id still favour something like this more:
Now for this rule to work would of course require Minbari ships to be made signifigantly tougher in terms of actual hit points and crew and thresholds but I think it could work well. Oh and their actual HULL values would probably need dropping somewhat so that without their stealth theyre very easy to hit.
Also of note it is possible for the stealth rating once modifiers are applied to EXCEED 6, thus making the ship impossible to hit. For example, if we gave a Sharlin stealth 6, then at long range or mid range on silent running it would be immune to enemy fire (basically undetectable) but even at long range on silent running, if it was scout locked and another (closer) ship had alreay hit it, you would cancel out the +2 bonus with your -2 effect and thus still hit it on 6s....
Similarly, that same Sharlin, with stealth 6, at short range, scout locked, and having already been hit, shot at by shadows would be hit on a 2+.....
Thinking about it I would say that if the stealth target number is lower than the number you would need to hit if the stealth wasnt there then you use the hull number to target (for example if we gave that sharlin hull 4 then a normal weapon or a beam would still need to roll a 4 to hit even if the stealth rating was reduced to 2 or 3. But an SAP weapon would only need a 2 if stealth was reduced to 2. Basically you only roll against the stealth rating if it makes the shot HARDER, otherwise you are deemed to have effectively defeated the stealth system and are simply firing at the ship.
The exact wording is:Locutus9956 said:
"If not, the attack is wasted as the fire-power is uselessly expended into empty space (note that Slow-Loading and One-Shot weapons will not count as having been fi red if this roll is failed)."
Well it always did work in Armageddon too, it was pretty balanced. But the problem as I'm sure everyone is sick of me saying, is that it just is not FUN! Balanced and fair, yes. Realistic simulation of the series, yes. Makes you frustrated just like the people in the series, yes. Fun, no.Locutus9956 said:
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Burger said:
Yeah thats what I mean Burger, the small changes to it now Ive found so far actually DO make it more fun to play with and against (I never found it UNBALANCED). Believe me, no one was more surpised than me! I still dont REALLY like the mechanic, its still a bit too luck dependant but it is nonetheless, 'not that bad' now I have to begrudginly admit....
But anyway, the more I think about my idea above the more I think it might be possible to implement it WITHOUT massive changes to the fleet. Weapons would be unchanged, and it MIGHT even work with simple adjustments to the stealth and hull ratings.... In fact the more I think about it the more Im tempted to try it and tweak minbari accordingly....
eldiablito
Mongoose
ShopKeepJon said:
Only to support your point. That was in the first season, when the (bad acting) commander, Sinclair, did all the thinking and ordering not to fire. In other words, although it would seem to me that if we were to, more closely follow the show, then a failed stealth roll would waste a slow-loading shot.
That said, the show does not necessarily create a good game and Mongoose is trying to balance certain races a little better. So, although stealth seems to work most of the time, the designers had to make some allowances in order to make up for the obvious lack of fun that someone would experience if they could not make a stealth roll to save their lives. For example, and this is diverging even more from the original post, the White stars in the game ROCK! The White Stars in the show ROCK! Yet, if the White Stars became bore sighting weapons like we see in the show, then I seriously doubt that they would be so amazing.
