Jump to content

Justice and Rule

Member
  • Content Count

    452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Justice and Rule last won the day on June 21 2014

Justice and Rule had the most liked content!

About Justice and Rule

  • Rank
    Altcap

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

604 profile views
  1. It depends on what you gain and what you lose by taking that part out. Sometimes limiting units or taking an ability away actually expands the differences between units and opens up new ways to look at units. To give some benefits for the removal of Split Fire: It streamlines the rules, rather than creating a whole new page of errata for them. To give the best example, the FSA and the Ottomans have a great deal of Sustained Fire passed out among their forces. If they used Split Fire, would they get to use those rerolls on both attacks, or only one? If only one, why? If they do, then the Enterprise can doll out 6 6AD attacks with 3 rerolls each.It is these sorts of problems which also saw the demise of a great deal of Combined Fire attacks outside of a few circumstances. For Combined Fire, it was hard to balance having a weapon be effective while not being overpowered when it could either be halved and added, or simply added to the lead firer. With Split Fire, you are taking the AD values and using them in a way they aren't really balanced for, and it interacts very poorly with some MARs. Rather than go through a lot of rigorous balancing for one tactic, sometimes it's better to just cut the Gordian Knot and remove that tactic. Having more turrets actually has a clear advantage when it comes to engaging more targets, rather than a slight one. One of the biggest complaints that came up a bunch in the days of 1.0 (And still persisted a bit in 1.1) was that having multiple turrets was demonstrably worse than having one turret in most cases. You lost AD faster, you lost AD while linking, and while you had a bit more AD to engage other targets with than the single high AD gun, it wasn't nearly enough to offset the others.By taking it away, you actually give an advantage to multi-turret ships without using AD, as well as limiting high-AD ships from dominating the game in all facets. It pushes ships into new roles and actually expands upon strategy rather than limiting it: now ships that have a lot of attacks better at clearing up squadrons than ships with a few high-AD attacks. It also means having two of the same attacks in the same arc with the same weapon also actually has value, rather than just muddying things up (EoBS Support Crusier, FSA Airship and Dread). It helps control usage to allow for better and more varied design. I've already mentioned how Sustained Fire would provide a whole bunch of problems for testing. The same can be said for the amount of Piercing weapons with the British (Imagine torpedoes being split into multiple volleys per ship to further get around CC, or higher AD weapons having the chance to cause multiple critical effects due to splitting its fire on the same ship), or Speerschluders with the Prussians. It makes it easier to balance high AD weapons because you don't have to worry about the different fractions it could be split into. It makes it easier to put more effects on it as well as give it higher AD without worrying that it is becoming a street sweeper. To me, those outweigh any of the possible benefits of keeping Split Fire. Similarly, there's just no benefit to keeping around some of the older Marks given their new designs: The AUF-A would be a notable downgrade, given what has already been said about Speerschluders. And as has been noted, there's no reason to need a new model as the different system might not actually change the look of the model; it might well just be a new type of ammunition rather than a full weapon refit. Why keep around a second statbox that isn't going to be used? The Mk1 Fresnel as it was is never coming back as it was, and never should. The Energy Amplification Generator was hideously unbalanced and the game is better for removing it. Perhaps it will come back in the future with a different effect, but it's going to lose Directed Fire no matter what. But by doing that, the Fresnel is now much more balanced and a great choice overall; two Fresnels can toss more firepower at RB4 than my dreadnought, and Energy Weapons are Redoubtable now. It fits into a niche, rather than dominating stuff that it shouldn't. Sometimes less is more, and I thoroughly believe that to be the case here.
  2. It got a late squadron boost, but that's about it. In all honesty, I think the Orlov is pretty okay: it costs more, but it has a little more firepower and some better stats in meaningful areas (AA 4, DR5) and a good MAR (Die-Hard Attitude). Maybe it could come down 5 points or so, but I'm alright with it having a little less HP than the Tambov for the DR boost.
  3. The Independence was pitched as an aggressive battlewagon to the Liberty's superior fire support. I would use both in the same fashion and see if they function too similarly. If the Liberty is just better at what the Independence does, then that gives creedance to the idea that one may need to change. Run both with Kinetics and see if the Independence is the better rusher. If it isn't, then it needs more separation. I think this is something that you can prove well enough, and it probably helps that the Independence's broadsides are of the Volley Gun variety compared to the Liberty and Annapolis' oversized broadside guns. I feel like your argument (or at least an argument for change) is made either way, and I think they'd be more inclined to do something with the Lexington rather than the Georgetown. But that's just me.
  4. I think that Bunnahabhain (Man, I got the spelling almost memorized now!) was being a bit more generous than you are making him out to be: He was really talking about the rather extreme resdesign we were talking about giving the Agincourt, which we did get a bit carried away with. But I think most of the changes you are talking about aren't things to be dismissed out of hand. I'm not sure about wholly changing the turrets (I don't really think that's necessary and I think we lose a bit out when it comes to firepower, but c'est la vie), but the Volley Gun broadside idea is a much easier change that fully fits within the FSA style while still giving the ship a different character. Similarly, the Lexington's front guns are something that are much easier to put on given the establishment of the guns on the Georgetown (ironically enough, one of the times where models being close might actually help your argument). Lowering the price of the Washington and giving it Combat Coordinator is the biggest one that I've seen, but I think that fits very much with the role it used to have and I think it's worth a pitch. Overall, I don't think you guys should give up. I think, for the most part, these ideas are fairly mundane and worth a shot. What needs to happen is what needs to happen in the Tribal thread: battle reports, contextualized data on the subject, and then testing of your new stats. Just don't get carried away and try to reinvent the paddlewheel in the process.
  5. I dunno if that much statistical data is necessary or necessarily helpful. The biggest point is getting the context of the whole battle, so that there's an understanding of how it was used as well as what happened when it was used.
  6. Be cool, people, be cool! No need to shoot up the place! If I'm being honest, I think Energy Turrets don't really need the High Angle MAR: Redoubtable and their current AD means that after a few hits they'll actually be better at 3-4 and close at RB2. I mean, I think if you are expecting to take a pounding (especially early on from range) I think Energy Turrets are a good choice because you'll be retaining long-range fire power for longer and likely match the firepower you would have had late-game with the regular turrets. To give an example: With the Aristotle, one hit will make the E-Turrets a better 3-4 option immediately, while making RB1-2 relatively close (Don't forget Primary penalties at RB1). At three hits, the E-Turrets are basically better at all RBs but RB1, where a combined salvo basically gets one extra hit. Now obviously you have Sturginium Rounds on your primaries, but there are plenty of fleets that that means nothing too (Russian, Chinese, a lot of Japanese stuff), while Redoubtable is always functioning.
  7. One turn a day? Man, that's a big game. But I feel like you're getting to why I don't want to give Tribals Piercing and would look to other ways to boost it: Piercing gives you a lot of world-beater power which allows you to punch above your weight level. I think we could do well to pull back to the Agincourt to something a bit less overpowered and push the Tribal a little bit to make it more worth the points.
  8. Guys, we kind of have the mandate here: Test first, report what you find (Some of which has already occurred, but the more you do, the more likely you convince the devs) and use small changes to fix things. While ideas are appreciated (and the idea of using them kind of like the Italian limited turrets or Dindrenzi Gunracks is definitely kind of cool), let's get the games to convince Spartan of the changes.
  9. Weirdly enough, I don't think that's the case. Judging from the maps we've already seen there hasn't really been been a "Rush for Africa". France, Prussia and Belgium are very much stuck at home, and the map in the Commodore's edition only shows a very small amount of the coastline being occupied by the British/Portuguese. If I were to make a guess, the fact that Europe is so damn on edge for the last century that most powers haven't spent much time colonizing anything beyond what they've held for a long time. There's just too much to risk to spend the resources colonizing when the French are ready to skim across the Channel and burn London. Right now there is definitely some room for an African confederacy or two to rise up, particularly if think the war might move south to their resource-rich lands. The Covenant is always looking for friends, right? Or heck, something Neil mentioned on Element 270 stuck out to me: there are other Vaults. What happens if an African nation discovered one? Bribery, money, and infrastructure support from a half dozen different nations in exchange for a slow doling out of new technology.
  10. Actually... yes, they can. I never actually considered it, but given that Skimmers no longer have any real protection against torps (Apparently nations have already adapted to such things) they are just as vulnerable. Obviously you have the choice to go down to that level and it's really ideal to hide behind islands or even your own ships. Edit: You could also launch torpedoes, turn over an island and drop down behind it to avoid return fire. It's obviously a bit situational, but the rule is build for that sort of pop-up/hunker-down attack.
  11. 65? It'd still have a good fore torps attack and a good turret with good durability. But it'd be pretty limited beyond directly charging a target. It'd still be better than the Lexington with a Shield Generator, and that's 60.
  12. To an extent, yes, though I don't think everything said is completely without merit. Through discussion we think there is a problem; we've got a more unified hypothesis compared to what we had before, where I don't think we agreed whether the Tribal was bad or the Agincourt was just that much better. At this point we can move forward to test said hypothesis like you mentioned some pages back. Eh... each unit should be able to stand up on its own. Certainly it's nice to have a group of a Princeton and 3 Guilfords, but those units need to work on their own as well.
  13. Eh, 270 turrets make swinging around a pretty easy prospect overall. It's not like having a 180 (where you really have to worry about overshooting or anything), with a 45 degree turn you should be able to get out of any turret's rear 90 without too much problem. And you can make adjustments to your speed to always have both turrets, you aren't required to use your full move, just the (now larger) minimum move. I don't use the Kinetic very often, but I've never found it problematic in getting the arcs lined up. Open Call to All: How do you want to differentiate this one if you had to?
  14. Well, we are at least closer to something to test the complaints against and we aren't yelling at each other. Progress is progress.
  15. Well, if you have Scotsmen then it should definitely have a Sonic Generator instead.
×
×
  • 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.