why have the Kizinti been neutered?
- Thread starter Steelwhip
- Start date
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Basically being able to pay points for options such at the drones from a given ship requiring twice as many hits to take down.
Keeper Nilbog
Mongoose
Double hit drones :?: , and us poor plasma users are nerfed again. 
Keeper Nilbog said:Double hit drones :?: , and us poor plasma users are nerfed again.
The problem with implementing those heavy drones is they are supposed to take up twice as much space and half the number of drones in the rack.
Since ACTA handwaves the whole launch timing/launch rate/control rate/travel time etc to a direct fire type model a lot of the differences have been eliminated between drone types - eg Type IIs which have the same range as the standard Type Is in the SFU but just run faster for a shorter speed seem to me to be irrelevant (especially with the medium and fast drone negines around in the period of play).
So of the 6 core drones in SFB (and no I dont know which FC have ignored already, it would be good to know).
Type I - the standard standard drone
Type II - same size, faster run shorter endurance - eliminated by the drone fring abstractions of ACTA in my view
Type III - long long range drone - could be introduced as a special drone type. Longer range more cost.
Type IV - double size drone, one and a half as many damge points as much to kill, twice as much damage - now this might be a candidate for taking two hits as Phaser 3s cannot take them down in one shot but Phaser Is and IIs stand a good chance of shooting them down (not quite as good as their hit chance while including kill zone but close enough). Either way these things take twice as much space so could easily be simulated by making it take two hits to kill an AD, multihit 2D6 and Reload to simulate ammo limits. Equally they could make it normal damage and assume actually its not a type IV but an Armoured drone.
Type V - the Type II equivalent for Type IVs - so again eliminated by abstraction.
Type VI - dogfight drones can be safely ignored until fighers appear.
Other special types could be ECM, Spearfish, Swordfish and armoured that I can think of off hand.
A lot of these limited things that could be translated over are pretty limited in SFB at least. Its worthconsidering that these should not be ship by ship upgrades but a concept of Fleet Upgrades be introduced - so each fleet my have one vessel with special drones for X points etc etc.
Another way is limit these upgrades to specialist drone ships - D6D etc - that has the problem that it may spawn an over use of such beasties.
Always the question is - does this add anything to the game - and as people have pointed out plasma should get its specials when or before the special drones appear.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
And here we go again. :roll:
After long weeks and hundreds of posts trying to get some sort of balance, crude as it was, we are now back to buffing drones because people are complaining they cannot wipe out the entire enemy fleet in one go. Yes I know that’s not what the OP said and no insult to him but there were a few people who wanted just that the first time round.
Giving Drones longer range makes them strategic. Any ship that is on the map doesn’t need more than 36” so unless you are doing a Base attack where you have Drones incoming from off world.
Making drones tougher. Well the double sized drones from SFB were tougher but also did double damage. So are these new drones going to do 2AD instead of one? Also twice the damage to destroy, that is two Phaser hits at point blank, but what about ADDs. Does the ADD still kill it in one hit. Does an ADD need two hits, how does that work. Do you need to use Labs to identify a double sized drone, how does that work if a ship fires three drones from 4 racks, do you need to fire two Phasers at every Drone because one takes two hits to kill but you do not know which or is the Drone identified on launch (The rules would support the later but that may not be fixed).
If ADDs kill them in one shot then the Plasma races are back to being the underdogs again forcing any plasma fleet to either field numbers of escorts or stay cloaked.
There is no race, Kzinti included, that only uses Drones. The Kzinti can fight with Phasers and Disrupters, what happens when Drones are too powerful is that they don’t bother firing them. Why would they when they can kill a few enemy cruisers outside of return fire range.
The “to hit” at longer ranges was to prevent death by Drone from turn one. The ship limit was intended to stop the 20 drones on that target and move on which gave a ship no chance of survival from outside of most heavy weapon range.
Even as it stands Drones remain a threat. The Feds have dual use racks but they run out of ammo, the Klinks have ADDs with limited ammo. Everyone has Phasers which are then not being used to shoot the enemy. A Kzinti fleet runs everyone else out of ADDs, ties up Phasers shooting at drones and reduces them to Disruptors, Photons or Plasmas only. And that is with a secondary weapon!
Please, please, can we not start this all over again. The Drone rules are not perfect, they can be loopholed to field crushing drone fleets forcing everyone else to use escorts or die. But making changes throws this all out again.
A scout using its sensor to add to a three ship group, a Drone ship with 6 Drones and a sensor joining another drone ship and two ships with drone 4. That is 20 drones from 4 cruisers. In larger games with DNs and BBs it just gets worse. A Kzinti drone/scout ship joining three dirt cheap 4 Drone ships still allows you 16 drones against a single target. Plus those ships still have enough disruptors and Phasers to take on an enemy cruiser at short range while killing one at longer range with Drones.
Before Kzinti players or any Drone players ask for Drones to be more powerful I would ask them to play games using a plasma fleet or ADD weak Klink or Fed fleet against a Drone heavy fleet. Being forced to spend an entire game hiding behind cover or dying is not fun.
As a final point.
This is NOT SFB, this is NOT FC. This is ACTA set in the starfleet verse. It follows the flavour, it should not sacrifice fun, playability or simplicity to slavishly follow any other rule set based in the same verse.
After long weeks and hundreds of posts trying to get some sort of balance, crude as it was, we are now back to buffing drones because people are complaining they cannot wipe out the entire enemy fleet in one go. Yes I know that’s not what the OP said and no insult to him but there were a few people who wanted just that the first time round.
Giving Drones longer range makes them strategic. Any ship that is on the map doesn’t need more than 36” so unless you are doing a Base attack where you have Drones incoming from off world.
Making drones tougher. Well the double sized drones from SFB were tougher but also did double damage. So are these new drones going to do 2AD instead of one? Also twice the damage to destroy, that is two Phaser hits at point blank, but what about ADDs. Does the ADD still kill it in one hit. Does an ADD need two hits, how does that work. Do you need to use Labs to identify a double sized drone, how does that work if a ship fires three drones from 4 racks, do you need to fire two Phasers at every Drone because one takes two hits to kill but you do not know which or is the Drone identified on launch (The rules would support the later but that may not be fixed).
If ADDs kill them in one shot then the Plasma races are back to being the underdogs again forcing any plasma fleet to either field numbers of escorts or stay cloaked.
There is no race, Kzinti included, that only uses Drones. The Kzinti can fight with Phasers and Disrupters, what happens when Drones are too powerful is that they don’t bother firing them. Why would they when they can kill a few enemy cruisers outside of return fire range.
The “to hit” at longer ranges was to prevent death by Drone from turn one. The ship limit was intended to stop the 20 drones on that target and move on which gave a ship no chance of survival from outside of most heavy weapon range.
Even as it stands Drones remain a threat. The Feds have dual use racks but they run out of ammo, the Klinks have ADDs with limited ammo. Everyone has Phasers which are then not being used to shoot the enemy. A Kzinti fleet runs everyone else out of ADDs, ties up Phasers shooting at drones and reduces them to Disruptors, Photons or Plasmas only. And that is with a secondary weapon!
Please, please, can we not start this all over again. The Drone rules are not perfect, they can be loopholed to field crushing drone fleets forcing everyone else to use escorts or die. But making changes throws this all out again.
A scout using its sensor to add to a three ship group, a Drone ship with 6 Drones and a sensor joining another drone ship and two ships with drone 4. That is 20 drones from 4 cruisers. In larger games with DNs and BBs it just gets worse. A Kzinti drone/scout ship joining three dirt cheap 4 Drone ships still allows you 16 drones against a single target. Plus those ships still have enough disruptors and Phasers to take on an enemy cruiser at short range while killing one at longer range with Drones.
Before Kzinti players or any Drone players ask for Drones to be more powerful I would ask them to play games using a plasma fleet or ADD weak Klink or Fed fleet against a Drone heavy fleet. Being forced to spend an entire game hiding behind cover or dying is not fun.
As a final point.
This is NOT SFB, this is NOT FC. This is ACTA set in the starfleet verse. It follows the flavour, it should not sacrifice fun, playability or simplicity to slavishly follow any other rule set based in the same verse.
We haven't played in a while. But every one who has played locally commented, all during their first game, how the game revolved around drones. Either whacking someone with them or trying to defend against them. We've hardly even used Kzinti either, people thought drones were the dominant system just from using Feds and Klinks (and orions).
Drones were badly overpowered to start with. I do think the current 3 ship limit is daft conceptually, but it helps mitigate the overpowering drones. The long range hit roll makes sense (given the whole seekers are more like direct fire weapons mechanics), indeed they should probably have a hit roll of some sort at closer range as well, or reduce the auto hit range. Firing drones from beyond most other weapons range never really guaranteed a hit.
The last thing ACTA needs is more potent drones. What the OP seems to be missing is that drones are vastly more potent in ACTA than SFB/FC as they always hit under half range (and the OP might note, only disrupters can outrange the drone auto hit range), and they hit immediately from any range. Those are huge buffs compared to the source game. Not only that, but it is pretty hard to provide mutual protection like it is in SFB/FC, and when you do it is at a cost of not doing some other special action, which again is a huge buff to drones.
From what I'm seeing so far, I am concerned the Hydrans (who are pretty drone resistant in FC) are going to be one of the worst empires for handling drones, not much better than Gorns. If you have a clear limit to how many drones you can stop a turn, and that limit is less than what can be thrown at you then you are in trouble. Drones feel as though they have been balanced around the ADD to some extent, ie. a system that is made very potent to accomodate the fact that they can do very little for a turn or 2 against ADD. But that means anyone without the ability to possibly kill all drones in a turn (like ADD) is in trouble. Hydran cruisers with 2 ph1, 4 ph2s, a gatling, and 4 tractors (the other gatling is usually going to be blind side to the drones) will average 9-10 drones a turn, that is less than what Kzinti or orions can dump on them with even 3 ships. It doesn't take much of a poor roll to seriously increase the damage they are taking. I hope the stingers will allow for extra drone defense.
Drones were badly overpowered to start with. I do think the current 3 ship limit is daft conceptually, but it helps mitigate the overpowering drones. The long range hit roll makes sense (given the whole seekers are more like direct fire weapons mechanics), indeed they should probably have a hit roll of some sort at closer range as well, or reduce the auto hit range. Firing drones from beyond most other weapons range never really guaranteed a hit.
The last thing ACTA needs is more potent drones. What the OP seems to be missing is that drones are vastly more potent in ACTA than SFB/FC as they always hit under half range (and the OP might note, only disrupters can outrange the drone auto hit range), and they hit immediately from any range. Those are huge buffs compared to the source game. Not only that, but it is pretty hard to provide mutual protection like it is in SFB/FC, and when you do it is at a cost of not doing some other special action, which again is a huge buff to drones.
From what I'm seeing so far, I am concerned the Hydrans (who are pretty drone resistant in FC) are going to be one of the worst empires for handling drones, not much better than Gorns. If you have a clear limit to how many drones you can stop a turn, and that limit is less than what can be thrown at you then you are in trouble. Drones feel as though they have been balanced around the ADD to some extent, ie. a system that is made very potent to accomodate the fact that they can do very little for a turn or 2 against ADD. But that means anyone without the ability to possibly kill all drones in a turn (like ADD) is in trouble. Hydran cruisers with 2 ph1, 4 ph2s, a gatling, and 4 tractors (the other gatling is usually going to be blind side to the drones) will average 9-10 drones a turn, that is less than what Kzinti or orions can dump on them with even 3 ships. It doesn't take much of a poor roll to seriously increase the damage they are taking. I hope the stingers will allow for extra drone defense.
I have seen the first draft of Drone Strike, but haven't posted as I weasn't sure how widely it was distributed.
I will now offer up a few comments:
I am currently working with Matthew and ADB on Fleet Update #2... no idea what the projected release date is, so don't ask! :lol:
Yesterday, I received a couple of emails that redirected my efforts into a direction that I think will have more wide-spread appeal (and is less controversial). Does this mean Drone Strike is Kaput? I doubt it, but I do think [note the word think - I am not in charge of the schedule] that Matthew has read the postings and taken them to heart.
If Drone Strike is released, I think it will only come out after much thought has been given to it and hopefully concurrently with some enhancements for the Plasma guys. [Again - my summation only - I do not work for Mongosoe and I am not privy to Matthew's schedule.]
On to Drone Strike:
It does contain prototype rules for Type-I through Type VI drones, but for every advantage, there is a corresponding disadvantage that serves to balance the various types.
Let's look at the just the Type-IV, two-space drones:
If they are loaded, you half the number of AD in the rack, so a Kirov with Type IVs has only 2 AD of drones.
They do not require two separate weapon mounts to take them out, but for each hit... you must reroll and score a second successful hit to destroy the drone.
They do not do Multihit 2d6 damage, they remain at Multihit d6 damage, but you may choose to reroll the Multihit die - although you must keep the re-roll (page 16 of the rulebook), even if its less than the orignal roll.
And you pay an upgrade cost per AD of drones, not per weapon system. And all drones in a mount must be upgraded - so you cannot have a Kirov with 1 AD of Type IVs and 2 AD of Type-Is.
And again, this is still playtest. The final version may well be much different; or it may be determined to be so overpowering that the whole idea is dropped.
I will now offer up a few comments:
I am currently working with Matthew and ADB on Fleet Update #2... no idea what the projected release date is, so don't ask! :lol:
Yesterday, I received a couple of emails that redirected my efforts into a direction that I think will have more wide-spread appeal (and is less controversial). Does this mean Drone Strike is Kaput? I doubt it, but I do think [note the word think - I am not in charge of the schedule] that Matthew has read the postings and taken them to heart.
If Drone Strike is released, I think it will only come out after much thought has been given to it and hopefully concurrently with some enhancements for the Plasma guys. [Again - my summation only - I do not work for Mongosoe and I am not privy to Matthew's schedule.]
On to Drone Strike:
It does contain prototype rules for Type-I through Type VI drones, but for every advantage, there is a corresponding disadvantage that serves to balance the various types.
Let's look at the just the Type-IV, two-space drones:
If they are loaded, you half the number of AD in the rack, so a Kirov with Type IVs has only 2 AD of drones.
They do not require two separate weapon mounts to take them out, but for each hit... you must reroll and score a second successful hit to destroy the drone.
They do not do Multihit 2d6 damage, they remain at Multihit d6 damage, but you may choose to reroll the Multihit die - although you must keep the re-roll (page 16 of the rulebook), even if its less than the orignal roll.
And you pay an upgrade cost per AD of drones, not per weapon system. And all drones in a mount must be upgraded - so you cannot have a Kirov with 1 AD of Type IVs and 2 AD of Type-Is.
And again, this is still playtest. The final version may well be much different; or it may be determined to be so overpowering that the whole idea is dropped.
for comparison's sake, Federation Commander has only one type of drone warhead (and carriage); the only difference from one drone type to another is in terms of speed. "Standard" Main Era Drones move at speed 24, Middle Years Drones (as detailed in FC: Briefing #2) go at Speed 16, while late drones (available as upgrades in scenarios set after 2580/Y180) can go at Speed 32.
(That's not counting drone use in the playtest rules for the Early Years, but I kind of forgot those.)
In the longer run, I would be wary of seeing pre-existing weapons get more and more features. Personally, I would much sooner see the game expanded by adding in new weapons for new fleets instead. (Not that I'd be shy about rummaging through any options we do get for ideas, mind you.)
But then, even that runs into a logistical bottleneck. Since Mongoose want each new ship to have a corresponding mini, no "official" playtest rules can appear in print or PDF form (and made available for those not already part of the development process "behind the curtain") until they are supported in Starline 2500; and since there are only so many models that can go into any given wave of releases, the best one can hope for there is to have one new wave of "base hulls" per year. And yet, with PDF files and Captain's Log issues coming in on a more regular basis, there is the issue of how much time to take up with "mission variants" while waiting for the next miniature wave to get up and running.
I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of mission variants that could still be worth exploring between each wave of new minis. But in so doing, I'd be worried about the temptation to start digging into the SFB Master Rulebook to find options which might push things a little too far in the wrong direction.
(That's not counting drone use in the playtest rules for the Early Years, but I kind of forgot those.)
In the longer run, I would be wary of seeing pre-existing weapons get more and more features. Personally, I would much sooner see the game expanded by adding in new weapons for new fleets instead. (Not that I'd be shy about rummaging through any options we do get for ideas, mind you.)
But then, even that runs into a logistical bottleneck. Since Mongoose want each new ship to have a corresponding mini, no "official" playtest rules can appear in print or PDF form (and made available for those not already part of the development process "behind the curtain") until they are supported in Starline 2500; and since there are only so many models that can go into any given wave of releases, the best one can hope for there is to have one new wave of "base hulls" per year. And yet, with PDF files and Captain's Log issues coming in on a more regular basis, there is the issue of how much time to take up with "mission variants" while waiting for the next miniature wave to get up and running.
I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of mission variants that could still be worth exploring between each wave of new minis. But in so doing, I'd be worried about the temptation to start digging into the SFB Master Rulebook to find options which might push things a little too far in the wrong direction.
Unfortunately given that every new Federation or Klingon ship that appears in ACTA appears to have more and more drones I am less and less interested in it.
Escorts seem to be mass drone carriers themselves and adding in the new Battleships with guess what - masses of drones - is killing any remaining interest in the game for me.
Escorts seem to be mass drone carriers themselves and adding in the new Battleships with guess what - masses of drones - is killing any remaining interest in the game for me.
For me at least. I was attracted to ACTA:SF because I really like the SFU but really really dislike the complications and mind numbing detail of SFB and while FC is an improvement, it still is way too detailed for a fast and fun FLEET game.
As others have said, this isn't SFB or FC and I would hope Mongoose is very careful in adding chrome that slows the game and clogs the rulebook with such useless detail as a zillion different drones and a zillion different drone counter-balances. The changes instituted to keep drones reasonable work, please do not unfix it adding some trivia from SFB that even FC eschews.
If it works, don't fix it.
As others have said, this isn't SFB or FC and I would hope Mongoose is very careful in adding chrome that slows the game and clogs the rulebook with such useless detail as a zillion different drones and a zillion different drone counter-balances. The changes instituted to keep drones reasonable work, please do not unfix it adding some trivia from SFB that even FC eschews.
If it works, don't fix it.
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
Ok, as someone who watched the series when it was in first run (in the 60's) and had the tech manual etc. all this talk about "drones" annoys me.
Even the 'fanboys' who argue every little other detail don't speak up - that there were no drones in ST:TOS. They had probes, they had photon torpedoes.. and in "The Undiscovered Country" they modified a torpedo to home in on the exhaust of an impulse engine
Personally I think all this worrying over "balancing out" of something that isn't even from the series/movie is just insane trying to get something out of a rock.
Even the 'fanboys' who argue every little other detail don't speak up - that there were no drones in ST:TOS. They had probes, they had photon torpedoes.. and in "The Undiscovered Country" they modified a torpedo to home in on the exhaust of an impulse engine
Personally I think all this worrying over "balancing out" of something that isn't even from the series/movie is just insane trying to get something out of a rock.
From what I recall, the drone concept orginally came from a set of Klingon blueprints done up in the 70s (the McMaster prints, possibly?) which included a reference to them. (They hadn't been used on screen, but were supposedly there nonetheless.) The deckplans seemed to show the Klingon ships with a lot of aft-firing phasers, so it was presumed (for SFU purposes) that they were being used to shoot at similar drones being launched at them by someone else.
And of course, that "someone else" would be the Kzintis. (Since the portrayal of the Kzinti/s in the SFU was required to be different from the Kzin/ti as seen in TAS, their ships had to be done up from scratch; and, as with the Gorns, they were created to operate weapons which had already been statted up at the time.)
Actually, if you want to get closer to the "TV era" in terms of starship design, the Middle Years topic might be worth considering; the ships in that time period had yet to be refitted to General War standards, so had less of the features which seem to cause such issues in the Main Era. (In the Middle Years, most Fed ships have no drone racks, and the drones that are in service would equate to having only two-thirds of the range as the default General War types, at least based on the rules precedent in FC Briefing #2.)
And of course, that "someone else" would be the Kzintis. (Since the portrayal of the Kzinti/s in the SFU was required to be different from the Kzin/ti as seen in TAS, their ships had to be done up from scratch; and, as with the Gorns, they were created to operate weapons which had already been statted up at the time.)
Actually, if you want to get closer to the "TV era" in terms of starship design, the Middle Years topic might be worth considering; the ships in that time period had yet to be refitted to General War standards, so had less of the features which seem to cause such issues in the Main Era. (In the Middle Years, most Fed ships have no drone racks, and the drones that are in service would equate to having only two-thirds of the range as the default General War types, at least based on the rules precedent in FC Briefing #2.)
GamerDude said:
And you just hit one of the major snags that ACTASF is going to face repeatedly. This is not ST:TOS the license with Paramount is very specific on that point.
We can use elements form the series but this is the Star Fleet Univers. And yes Paramount was specific on the Star Fleet being two words not one. The SFU uses concepts that Special Effects back in the 60's and early 70s were not up to. The first offical, or cannon if that makes you feel better, Klingon Deckplans by McMaster did inded have Drone Conveyers and Storage on them so SFU Klingons have Drones. Since they had Drones like Nerroth said obviouly they fought someone that used drones and that became the Kzinti.
Now people can debate all day were they Anti Ship Missiles, Targe Drones, or Planetary Bombardment Missiles. The SFU uses them as a secondary Anti Ship Weapon System on the Klingons and Kzinti Ships. As the Power cocept evovled and Attack Fighters made their appearance Drones became more and more a front line weapon systems and that is just the way things are in the SFU.
Frankly, I am content with the way that drones work right now, and do not want to see any significant changes. The game is still taking too long in convention games I run, and I generally have to delete drones, combined drone racks, and ADDs to speed up the game so it can stay in the required time slot.
This obviously cannot be done with the Kzinti, so I increased the length of the time slot.
In introductory demo games, I plan to also ignore drones, etc, in the interest of speeding up the game. For sure, I do not want to see more drone types, etc, to clog up the game system. Or if you do introduce them, make them an optional rule requiring both players to agree to use them. PLEASE.
This obviously cannot be done with the Kzinti, so I increased the length of the time slot.
In introductory demo games, I plan to also ignore drones, etc, in the interest of speeding up the game. For sure, I do not want to see more drone types, etc, to clog up the game system. Or if you do introduce them, make them an optional rule requiring both players to agree to use them. PLEASE.
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Personally, I see the drone variants as a nice option as it allows you to alter the cost of the ship somewhat, and use up those spare points. The main option I looked at was the armoured drone, so that's the one I'll use as an example.
For either a ship or a weapon system (I can't remember which off the top of my head), you can upgrade the drones to armoured at a cost of 5pts per AD of drones. Armoured drones require 2 hits to destroy, but have no other effect. You could upgrade the 9AD of drones on a Mars battleship, but it would cause a significant increase of +45pts to the cost of the ship. Kzinti would have similar problems across most of their fleet. Basically, you'll be paying for these upgrades in the form of less ships on the table.
On the flip side, if you're just using up spare points, you'll end up with maybe a couple of Constitutions getting the bonus. You don't sacrifice any ships (as they were points you couldn't otherwise spend anyway), but only get a minor boost.
Now, if something similar can be done for other weapons such as photons and plasma, I'll be happy
Edit: That said, I'd also have no problems with these options being part of a 2-tier system. For demo games, or if you just want a quick game, use the Quick system, and these options would be part of the Advanced system. Actually, don't we already have the more complex stuff residing in an Advanced section already?
For either a ship or a weapon system (I can't remember which off the top of my head), you can upgrade the drones to armoured at a cost of 5pts per AD of drones. Armoured drones require 2 hits to destroy, but have no other effect. You could upgrade the 9AD of drones on a Mars battleship, but it would cause a significant increase of +45pts to the cost of the ship. Kzinti would have similar problems across most of their fleet. Basically, you'll be paying for these upgrades in the form of less ships on the table.
On the flip side, if you're just using up spare points, you'll end up with maybe a couple of Constitutions getting the bonus. You don't sacrifice any ships (as they were points you couldn't otherwise spend anyway), but only get a minor boost.
Now, if something similar can be done for other weapons such as photons and plasma, I'll be happy
Edit: That said, I'd also have no problems with these options being part of a 2-tier system. For demo games, or if you just want a quick game, use the Quick system, and these options would be part of the Advanced system. Actually, don't we already have the more complex stuff residing in an Advanced section already?
Skullduggery
Mongoose
As a Kzinti player I like the drone rules as they are. There is a fine line to walk here. Mess with them too much and they are either too powerful or powerless.
This is supposed to be a more streamlined faster playing star fleet game. Additional options would just bog it down.
This is supposed to be a more streamlined faster playing star fleet game. Additional options would just bog it down.
Just to add to this discussion, today we did a small 420pt game to kill an hour after the big game (battletech fwiw) the Federation had two burke and a Kirov vs Kzinti CL, FF, DW.
There was a turn during which the Fed player had no ships on defensive fire, and the Kzinti scored 6 hits with drones that turn (against a Burke) - the ship ran out of anti-drones, fired all its phasers (at drones) and then was still destroyed.
At the end of the turn Kirov had not fired and managed to use her drones (4) to hit the Kzinti CL, which shot down two but still took a beating.
Now it may be that the size of the forces means that a failed die roll for DF has more impact - but this is a LOT of drones hitting, many more than you would expect in FC.
The kicker is, that they are instant impact so if you know a target cannot defend itself they are basically instant hits for d6 damage with no way to stop them.
In the whole game (3 turns) with 36 kzinti and ~8 federation drones fired we saw 11 hits.
There was a turn during which the Fed player had no ships on defensive fire, and the Kzinti scored 6 hits with drones that turn (against a Burke) - the ship ran out of anti-drones, fired all its phasers (at drones) and then was still destroyed.
At the end of the turn Kirov had not fired and managed to use her drones (4) to hit the Kzinti CL, which shot down two but still took a beating.
Now it may be that the size of the forces means that a failed die roll for DF has more impact - but this is a LOT of drones hitting, many more than you would expect in FC.
The kicker is, that they are instant impact so if you know a target cannot defend itself they are basically instant hits for d6 damage with no way to stop them.
In the whole game (3 turns) with 36 kzinti and ~8 federation drones fired we saw 11 hits.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Stu-- said:
Which is sort of the problem. Plasma and Drones have similar mechanics in terms of being shootable but the Drones have huge advantages in terms of range and not needing to reload whereas the plasmas are not affected by ADD.
Drones are, even now, hovering on overpowered. That the simple presence of Drones forces a fleet to use its one SA per ship on IDF with only a 50/50 chance of working makes them hugely powerful even without doing anything else. Reload and die or no heavy weapons but a chance of IDF is not a nice choice. With Plasma enemies you can manoeuvre to try and keep the range open, with Drones its run for the terrain and hide.
My concern is that anything which makes Drones even slightly more powerful is going to push them right over the edge and back into full blown overpowered. I can counter that by having multiple escorts and try to get in killing blows with heavy Plasma salvos before all my escorts are dead (they are target of choice for any Drone firing enemy) but once the escorts are dead or the ADDs are empty I am often toast.
With the Feds once they are out of ADDs they are also out of Drones. The Klinks have limited ADDs. The Tholians have webs but only in the side arcs which will lead to some interesting tactics. The Hydrans have PhaserGs. Fed escorts have PhaserGs but will be first target whereas most Hyrdans have PhaserG as standard.
However once you have run out of everything except Phasers the Drones still keep firing.
Plus this is not the only weapon the Drone races have. While you are using SAs on IDF, emptying your ADDs and firing your Phasers to keep your ships alive the enemy are free to fire Disruptors at you along with all the Phasers they have available. Plasma races can lock down enemy Phasers by sacrificing Plasmas but then what, if your Plasmas are using up the enemy Phasers and Your Phasers are trying to stop Drones you have nothing left. They still have Disruptors with a good range and no need to reload, the damage isn’t high but with good arcs and lots of them they are to be feared in a fleet action.
For a campaign you should know who the enemy is but for conventions or tournaments can we submit two fleet lists, one for general use and one for fighting the Kzinti or does every fleet take two escorts just in case.
The furballs have not been neutered, they remain one of the more powerful races even after all the changes to weaken Drones. This shows how overpowered they were to start with. Drones are the source of the overpowering and remain very potent weapons. Even a small improvement in Drones will leave every other fleet underpowered. :roll:
I was a Kzin player in SFB many years ago. After seeing the way ACTA handles drones I was kinda disappointed. The current drone rules really change the flavor of the game IMO.
Let me see if I can describe why some old Kzin players are disappointed;
In SFB typically the Kzin player would flush all drone racks at the very beginning of the game and then follow the resulting cloud of drones in as close as the speed of the ships and drones allowed. Meanwhile the opposing player would be feverishly maneuvering and trying to figure out the best way to shoot down the drones. If done right the Kzin would be launching a second wave of drones right before coming into close range, optimally it created a double sized cloud of drones. It became a mad flurry of anti-drone fire and main weapon fire. It would literally become a "furrball" of frigates and drones with cruisers(and heavier ships) circling and shooting into the fray.
ACTA changes that style of play, pretty much gets rid of it. So, for me at least, it's not really about declawing the Kzin, it's that by simplifying drone rules, making them some kind of direct fire weapon, the style/feel of the game has changed.
Let me see if I can describe why some old Kzin players are disappointed;
In SFB typically the Kzin player would flush all drone racks at the very beginning of the game and then follow the resulting cloud of drones in as close as the speed of the ships and drones allowed. Meanwhile the opposing player would be feverishly maneuvering and trying to figure out the best way to shoot down the drones. If done right the Kzin would be launching a second wave of drones right before coming into close range, optimally it created a double sized cloud of drones. It became a mad flurry of anti-drone fire and main weapon fire. It would literally become a "furrball" of frigates and drones with cruisers(and heavier ships) circling and shooting into the fray.
ACTA changes that style of play, pretty much gets rid of it. So, for me at least, it's not really about declawing the Kzin, it's that by simplifying drone rules, making them some kind of direct fire weapon, the style/feel of the game has changed.
I agree the style is different.. but I cannot myself think of a better way to represent this other than by having and tracking drone counters as FC/SFB does - and that's not a quick play option. My vague comments are that there are two issues in comparison to FC/SFB:
#1
Attacking with more drones than the enemy has guns & tractors means they will take hits, and because of the way initiative works, you can 'ambush' ships later in the turn who cannot defend themselves because they have fired. So the enemy either chooses to hold back weapons on every ship to defend himself (doing less damage than he should by far) or shoots and then gets clobbered.
In fact the majority of the issue is because of the initiative system and the fact that drones are direct fire instant hit weapons which can cherry pick a target as they see fit.
Possible ways to stop this?
(a) IDF is automatic but still costs your special action
or
(b) IDF is automatic and implicit - ie: everyone, regardless what they are doing is always on IDF for free. - Note that this is how FC & SFB work.
Also bear in mind the above would reduce the effect of drones by a good deal - hardly any would hit, most likely. But your opponent wouldn't be shooting at you with as much and that is exactly what they were for in the source games.
The other thing to bear in mind is that doing this increases the complexity of your opponents game (not yours) because he now needs to track phasers fired more closely. Personally I don't see this as an issue but some might (maybe a d6 with the # fired phasers in front of a ship).
#2
You still wouldn't get the 'cloud of drones' effect which is exactly what the Kzinti did.
Maybe a special rule for Kzinti?
or else assume that this is a wash due to not having to track drone ammo.
#1
Attacking with more drones than the enemy has guns & tractors means they will take hits, and because of the way initiative works, you can 'ambush' ships later in the turn who cannot defend themselves because they have fired. So the enemy either chooses to hold back weapons on every ship to defend himself (doing less damage than he should by far) or shoots and then gets clobbered.
In fact the majority of the issue is because of the initiative system and the fact that drones are direct fire instant hit weapons which can cherry pick a target as they see fit.
Possible ways to stop this?
(a) IDF is automatic but still costs your special action
or
(b) IDF is automatic and implicit - ie: everyone, regardless what they are doing is always on IDF for free. - Note that this is how FC & SFB work.
Also bear in mind the above would reduce the effect of drones by a good deal - hardly any would hit, most likely. But your opponent wouldn't be shooting at you with as much and that is exactly what they were for in the source games.
The other thing to bear in mind is that doing this increases the complexity of your opponents game (not yours) because he now needs to track phasers fired more closely. Personally I don't see this as an issue but some might (maybe a d6 with the # fired phasers in front of a ship).
#2
You still wouldn't get the 'cloud of drones' effect which is exactly what the Kzinti did.
Maybe a special rule for Kzinti?
or else assume that this is a wash due to not having to track drone ammo.
