Jump to content

DanSG-19

Member
  • Content Count

    904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by DanSG-19

  1. Pok hits the nail on the head here. We have currently two different systems that do pretty much the same thing (Targeted Strikes and Boarding), with the caveat that Targeted Strikes can also cause Critical Hit results to appear and Boarding may occasionally result in a capture (currently). Simple solution to reduce the page count while keeping the base mechanic? Roll Targeted Strike and Boarding together, or just eliminate Boarding. Removing the ability to capture ships also makes a lot of sense to me. As for SRS and PD Mountain, the more I see and hear about it, the more I think it would be best to just get rid of Interceptors altogether. Keep Fighters as the Jack of all Trades, remove the PD from Bombers, ditch Assault Shuttles and keep Support Shuttles as is. Simples.
  2. That's some good news. The Patrol Fleet boxes are fairly good for newbies and even for players with fleets already, keeping those boxes is a very good idea.
  3. Wait a minute... The Patrol Fleet boxes are going?!? Like, discontinued?
  4. After reading that blog post, I'm going to shift my view from "meh" to "I'll keep an eye on it". Other than that, not much else to say.
  5. Okay, I'll bite: - Keep Reactor Breach. It isn't game breaking at all. No more so than deleting ships with double and triple critical hits (and I think I'm the only one who's brought up double and triple crits as a potential problem, because it is far more common statistically and in reality than Reactor Breach is). If Reactor Breach is removed, then I would like to see Double and Triple Critical Hits removed too. Because balance. - Do something to resolve the Interceptor PD Mountain Crisis. SRS can only assist a squadron they are assigned to (as per ideas like Combat Air Patrol) or attack as normal. That sort of thing. - Remove (or vastly improve) Targeted Strikes, they serve no purpose whatsoever right now. Might as well just go for a critical hit or spam Cyberwarfare as things stand. - Under no circumstances should Spartan turn FSA into FS-Taskforce or HFB. The Helix fleet building idea is interesting, but that's the only idea from that game I'd use, and only then as an optional fleet building rule. Relaxing weapon arcs and movement rules would be a big no-no. Movement and positioning is pretty much the most important and most tactical part of the game, messing around with that would be messing around with sixty percent or so of the entire game. That's pretty much it. And I'll end with some "wisdom" from The Dude by saying that's just like, my opinion man...
  6. Dreadnoughts are by no means mandatory, and in some situations, they are a liability to a fleet. Using the Hulaka as a Battle-Carrier/Dreadnought Hybrid has helped out my Terran fleet a couple of times (mainly from insane interceptor coverage to help block ART and Raptor Torpedo Spam), but I wouldn't use that dreadnought to face down another dreadnought. If I face a dreadnought, my usual solution is battle cruisers and even light cruisers. The dreadnought is one ship. One powerful ship, but still one ship, and it can be overwhelmed in a battle against numerous opponents. Then there is points cost to consider. Dreadnoughts are expensive to run in a fleet, the Hulaka easily reaches 400pts for the Battle-Carrier/Dreadnought Hybrid build, others are a bit cheaper, but in the main they are costly. That many points in one ship can really hinder a fleet that is already outnumbered in ships and activations. In general, I favour more ships/activations over bigger, tougher but more expensive ships. The only dreadnought that I have really considered using or have used is the Hulaka, mainly because it does its job well despite the prohibitive points cost. Sometimes I need to run a big tanky ship that can also run interceptor and possibly support shuttle cover for the rest of the fleet, while also giving out decent gunnery to deter enemy squadrons. Other dreadnoughts such as the Titan, the Medusa/Kraken and even the Retribution I see as superfluous in most fleets.
  7. I would say that you lose Cyclic Shielding if your shields go offline. That makes the most sense given that Cyclic Shielding requires an active shield system to play.
  8. My objection to changing Fore Fixed to Fore Arc comes from playing Halo Fleet Battles for a short time. That game has the 45o pivot system and Fore Arc railguns (that's what a UNSC MAC is apparently) already, and I can safely say that it feels wrong. Movement and manoeuvre in HFB in general seems to be just about getting as much firepower into range as possible and letting rip. The only planning that is required is how long it'll take to get into range. In FSA, I'm often thinking about where my squadrons have to be up to three turns ahead, especially for factions with Fore Fixed and strangely enough, Turrets. That is missing from HFB, which I have to say (though it'll inevitably sound harsh, glad I still have that B Rating warning in my sig...) feels like it has been dumbed down. Now to answer the question of "is it a knee-jerk reaction or not?", I tested out what happens when a Xelocian Hulaka Dreadnought goes from Fore Fixed and Broadsides to Fore Arc and Broadsides with no AD drop or price hike. Being able to land a Crit on a cruiser at about 30o to port, and then Crit another cruiser in the same squadron with the port broadside... Yeah, lets not...
  9. Split Fire Turrets makes much more sense than Split Fire Broadsides. I do wonder how giving the broadsides Split Fire came about, as I can't really think of a situation where an Apollo broadside battery would be better off splitting fire at two targets. Also, that Razorthorn upgrade looks fairly reasonable, I'll have to test it out some time. It would fit in as a no thrills Terran or alternate Hawker battleship, a good all round gun boat.
  10. If Fore Fixed changes to the essentially Fore Arc like the UNSC MACs get in HFB, you can bet that either the Dindrenzi, Tarakians and Xelocians will have to be nerfed into the ground, or those factions will become auto-wins over night. Firestorm is NOT Halo Fleet Battles. If Firestorm becomes anything like Halo Fleet Battles, then I'll be ditching my fleets. Simple as that.
  11. So these days the Razorthorn would be a little outclassed by the Apollo and the Tyrant, unless it got a beam weapon upgrade or hard point option somewhere, simply because the Apollo and the Tyrant can get or have beam weapons. That extra range on beams can sometimes make all the difference.
  12. Light Battleships/Heavy Battle Cruisers would be Tier 1, regardless of stats and fleet size I think. Battle Cruisers are already a Tier 1 in a patrol fleet, with a cap of one BC (with up to two frigates or something like that) in the squadron, so the "Light Battleship" will be a Tier 1 in all likelihood. I would be surprised if it was a Tier 1 in patrol fleet games, and a Tier 2 in battle fleets or larger, as is done for Hauberks. As for the Razorthorn's old stats, was that with beams, or just primaries that had the same range bands as every other gun back in V1?
  13. If Indomitable is indeed a Battle Carrier of some description, then it'll likely be in the 250 to 280pts range before escorts. Battle Carriers also can't be taken in Patrol Fleets for most factions (some factions have a work around because their only Tier 1s are Battle Carriers and Dreadnoughts, others have to rely on Carriers). It stands to reason that Tyrant and Apollo class Battleships will still have a place, at least at the patrol fleet level, and probably into battle and grand fleet levels as cheaper options than running Battle Carriers. That said, Tyrant with Wayfarers is an exception, being 280pts or so for a Tyrant (with upgrades and hard points) and a pair of Wayfarers.
  14. There are options in the Xelocian fleet itself for SRS support. The Kindartu can get +3 wings, which is enough for a small bomber strike, or interceptors and support shuttles. The Hulaka Dreadnought should probably be reclassified as a Dreadnought Carrier, it can get +4 wings, which is enough for a full strike SRS token or a wall of interceptors, or a mix of interceptors and support shuttles. The Hulaka is very expensive though, same cost as a tooled up Shautrai +2 Hokita Battle Carrier squadron at 405pts. I've found that a Hulaka running +1SH, +1MV, +4 Wings, Corrosive/Split Fire Beams, 6 Fighters and 2 Interceptors is a decent line breaker and all round tank of a ship. Certainly helps my Terrans out in the occasional Grand Fleet sized game.
  15. Durable, to a point. The Titan is a tough ship, but it is not invulnerable. If the enemy focuses their firepower on your Dreadnought Flagship, then it will likely die. It may well die quickly depending on what is shooting at it (Dindrenzi cruisers, battle cruisers, battleships and the dreadnought are surefire bets at cracking through a Titan, as are quite a few heavy cruiser and large capital squadrons in other fleets). Titan also has a fairly low Damage Rating of 6. It can be plinked down by multiple, smaller attacks. Of course, if the Titan is drawing the majority of fire from the enemy, then it may well be the case that the rest of the fleet is left alone to do their own thing. It depends on how target fixated the enemy player is.
  16. Out of interest, how would you change the Reactor Breach Effect? My personal opinion on Reactor Breach/Magazine Detonation/Insert Other Suitably Explosive Demise Here is that it should stay in the game. The amount of damage is already variable (2HP to 6HP loss, which may or may not kill a ship) and it is one of the rarer results on the Critical Hit Effect Chart. That, and there should be a small chance of a lucky shot that blasts the reactor stacks or magazines and tears the ship in half, or just punches a rather large hole in the side.
  17. I've tried it with the Marshal Battle Cruisers, which also get Decimator Spook Torpedoes. It can work, that said, it can be countered with combat spacing if your opponent knows that nukes may be incoming. Harpoons would be a cheaper way to get Decimator Spook Torpedoes, but they lack the Countermeasures MAR which the Marshals enjoy.
  18. I did have to ask, back in the day when the Perseus first showed up why it had Reinforced Fore instead of Reinforced P/S, considering the bulk of the firepower is on the sides. The answer I got was that Reinforced Fore is there to protect the Perseus on the way into a fight in the early game. It's actually quite noticeable having the Reinforced Fore, as RB3 and RB4 attacks from just about anything won't Double Crit the Perseus most of the time. Same can't be said for my Teutons. They've gone pop from frigates throwing 6AD at them and getting a Double Crit before. After that happened multiple times, I went from +1SH Hardpoints to +1HP Hard Points on nearly every cruiser in the fleet. From my experience with using the Perseus and the Teuton, point for point, the Perseus is the better cruiser, unless you give the Teuton the extra hull point. Then it's just about even.
  19. That is actually a rather neat idea. I'm not usually a fan of the shield vane thingies on the Hawker ships, but the Regent looks a lot better with them than without.
  20. It is sometimes done, especially for carriers that lack Quick Launch. Bombers also bump PD like Interceptors do, though with less dice overall and less AoE. Means they have utility outside of bombing stuff back into the stone age.
  21. I remember trying to find Firestorm Armada 2.0 battle reports and the like on Youtube, and aside from a couple of ancient videos and Die Grune Horde's videos, there's next to nothing aside from 1.0 and 1.5. We've got a few blogs and vlogs as well, but there isn't much else out there. Hence the rants from years ago still getting trawled up even now. Could be a problem that the community can fix, get battle reports and videos out there. Who knows, could help to get people playing.
  22. FSA 3.0 is coming. It's so obvious now that Eddard bloody Stark should be saying it. This means that some things in the rules and how the mechanics of the game work will change. It's not a new concept, we've all seen editions come and go in various game systems (and probably lamented it, gotten angry and walked off in the case of Wallethammer 40 Battlemallets...). That said, we all have different ideas for what needs updating, changing and tweaking. The thing is, this is Firestorm Armada. Not Star Wars Armada, or Halo Fleet Battles, or Battle Fleet Gothic, or Drop Fleet. It would be a bad thing for Firestorm Armada as a game, and the existing player base I think, if FSA 3.0 makes this game an imitation of something else. Sacrificing the identity of the game just for popularity's sake is really not the way Spartan should go, otherwise, what's the bloody point? @ Commodore Jones: I use fighters too! Yes, I get odd looks for not using bomber spam or interceptor spam all over the place, but fighters are cool. Good for bullying frigates, corvettes and threatening cruisers, blocking enemy bomber strikes... I like the plucky little underdogs!
  23. The Perseus is actually more durable than the Teuton, having Reinforced Fore means it takes 14 successes to Double Crit a Perseus from the front, instead of 12 for the Teuton (side note, it's why I run +1HP Teutons, instead of +1SH Teutons. My shield rolls are 90% fails pretty much 100% of the time...). Yes, from the front our CL is tougher than our CA unless you give the CA an extra Hull Point... As for the cost of Weapon Shielding, I usually find the 15pts spare by taking Nuclear Torpedoes off the Teutons. In my experience Nuclear Torpedoes only really work on ships that also have Torpedo Spook (so Harpoon and Marshal then...). So 15pts spent on making my Perseus hit harder for longer is a better buy in my opinion than 15pts of firecrackers.
  24. To reply to the OP: - Linked Fire must stay. If Firestorm Armada switches to Combined Fire for all weapons and attacks, then Attack Dice values across the board must be lowered, or ships made vastly tougher than they are now. We already have squadrons that can routinely push 20+ AD in one salvo. I don't think people will be too happy with Marshals rolling up a 32AD Combined Fire Beam Weapon attack in RB1 that re-rolls 1s to hit, or Cataphracts with an RB2 36AD attack. Or Harpoons rolling a 21AD Nuclear/Torpedo Spook torpedo barrage from the other side of the table... - Removing successes due to damage is something I first came across in HFB. It's a mechanic that I don't get along with. It sort of works in HFB because all ships effectively have three HP, their three Damage Tracks, so at most they lose two successes. More than that and they're too busy being dead to worry about losing successes due to damage. In FSA, that would be more of a headache than it's worth unless you make ships have Damage Tracks instead of Hull Points (I'm also not a fan of that mechanic either). The current system works fine, doesn't need changing. - Range Band simplification idea is interesting, taking it down to Short, Medium and Long Ranges. Beyond the Gates of Antares does something similar with Effective, Long and Extreme Ranges, but instead of altering Attack Dice values, that modifies the to hit value required on a D10 based on distance to target. It could work, though Attack Dice values across the board would have to be modded to cope with losing a range band. - Linked to the above on Range Band simplification, making all weapons the same range bands (Primaries and Kinetics having the same range bands, for instance) would make things simpler. That said, stat cards, apps and PDFs can help with learning the range bands. It would also radically alter how fleets play. - Indirect Weapons not losing AD due to crew/HP loss is an odd one. It makes sense game play wise to have something that can finish off a damaged ship, or still do some damage, late in the game. That, and the Tarakians would be royally screwed if Indirect Weapons suddenly lost AD from HP/CP loss. - Isn't that the damage system we already have, or am I missing something? - Fixed Fore is necessary I feel. Again, going back to playing HFB and having UNSC Marathons and Paris frigates firing MACs around corners effectively is a little weird. You would radically alter how the Dindrenzi and Tarakians play if their Kinetics and Grav could suddenly fire in a Fore Arc, instead of Fore Fixed. And probably make them completely OP and everyone would be crying for a nerf. Best to leave weapon arcs alone I think. - I personally think the movement template we have now is fine, but that's just me. Movement mechanics should be left alone I think, manoeuvre is a big part of the tactical side of the game and making movement too simple would be a bad thing. See Halo Fleet Battles for details. - Frigates going up to TL1 would be a big change. Perhaps too big? I personally don't see a problem with frigates and corvettes keeping their TL0 (aside from the Thraex which is TL1, because Dindrenzi). - Moving SRS activation into the Boarding Phase does make sense. Right now we can board stuff with Assault Shuttles and then board stuff in the Boarding Phase, it's kind of disjointed. - I like Fighters for bullying frigates and possibly cruisers and the larger threat range. But yes, Fighters currently are rarely used it seems because Bombers and Interceptors are so much more effective. Something to help Fighters out would be good. - Moving Mines to the shooting phase would solve the Drive-By Mining Issue completely I think. It also does make sense that a weapon system (mines) would be deployed in the same part of an activation as the other weapon systems. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the points brought up.
  25. Weapon Shielding is a good buy on the Perseus. Yes, it makes them more expensive, but if you're running turrets it's essential for avoiding double degradation issues. My standard Perseus squadron build has three ships with Turrets and Weapon Shielding. They are deadly, hated and feared by my opponents. Yes, they are feared by my opponents. The reason why is psychology. Perseus in a Battle Fleet or larger games is worth the same amount of Battle Log points as a squadron of Armsmen. Ergo, if you want to win on points, there are probably bigger fish to fry. Until the three Perseus light cruisers get into range and start dealing 12AD salvos at RB3, then 14AD salvos at RB2. Then they start putting critical hits on cruisers, destroyers, heavy cruisers, gunships, shunt cruisers or dreadnoughts. All of a sudden, 135pts of light cruiser shoots up the priority chain to the top. They will either be ignored, or focused down and eliminated. And a Perseus with Weapon Shielding and Turrets has to be eliminated. It's no good just throwing a HP here, or a critical hit there. I don't care, 1HP doesn't matter because I have Weapon Shielding. 2HP doesn't matter, because I have Weapon Shielding and I've lost just 1AD from my direct fire weapons.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.