Jump to content

fracas

Member
  • Content Count

    1,818
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

fracas last won the day on February 5 2018

fracas had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About fracas

  • Rank
    Sircan

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    Array

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Interests
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,553 profile views
  1. As reported by @Ruckdog here: http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2018/02/23/the-spartan-game-engine/ the spartan games engine was the same in both DW and FsA (as well as Pf and US) so unless WC plans differently, the activation mechanic will be the same in 3.0 for both FsA and DW. Hence my suggestion to get some input from WC. doesnt mean there couldn’t be a rule set by the community but rules by committee or by consensus have obvious drawbacks.
  2. Shouldn’t we wait for input from WC?
  3. A squadron will always activate, just a matter of when, in a turn. the Spartan Game engine is fine as is.
  4. Command Roll: how about the first of you activation is automatic. You can then try to immediately activate a second squadron with a dice roll. If successful you may then try to activate another squadron on a more difficult roll. Maximum number of sequential activations based on some faction value but I would cap it at 3 or 4. If you fail to activate an additional squadron initiative automatically passes to the other player who then get to do the above. When you regain initiative you must start with the last squadron you tried to activate but failed to do so. can be combined with a resource model where you can spend a resource point to reroll a failed activation roll, or force the opposing player to reroll a successful activation roll.
  5. Topside of paddle/water treads?
  6. How would you realign to three alliances?
  7. destroyers in B5 was larger than cruiser, emphasizing the name as a tactical destroyer of other ships, not just torpedo boats. I initially didn’t like it but came to appreciate the class emphasis was tactical. Torpedo boats have largely lost it’s tactical role. in FsA destroyer function similar to submarines regardless of armaments. Not a great name match but better than submarine. Maybe stealth cruisers would be better.
  8. My comment was in direct response to the last paragraph of your previous post. a cruiser and a destroyer with the same weapon load makes the cruiser obsolete, as most cruisers have become. The smallest hull capable of that tactical role will like retain production and deployment. hull size is a mean, not an end. armament is also a mean, not an end in itself. Why classify based on the mean rather than the tactical end? battle cruiser as a class make sense. Missile battle cruiser class and beam battle cruiser class on the other hand do not make sense. I think you are thinking more like an engineer than a commander. I think we aren’t that far apart but are laboring to make the difference larger than necessary. you may have the last word.
  9. My comment was in direct response to the last paragraph of your previous post. a cruiser and a destroyer with the same weapon load makes the cruiser obsolete, as most cruisers have become. The smallest hull capable of that tactical role will like retain production and deployment. hull size is a mean, not an end. armament is also a mean, not an end in itself. Why classify based on the mean rather than the tactical end? battle cruiser as a class make sense. Missile battle cruiser class and beam battle cruiser class on the other hand do not make sense.
  10. What do you do when ships have two different tactical roles but armed with similar primary weapons? Still classify them by their armament? Armament & tactical role?
  11. Armament is a mean to a tactical end ship classification should be based on their tactical role rather than having rail gun class cruisers separate from beam cruisers or such.
  12. Does it matter that the AD comes from missiles or rail guns or beams?
  13. Frequently but not inevitably: long range attack vs close range attack ships for instance; or assault ships or carriers that could be built for support or attack.
  14. Ship classes should be more on their tactical role rather than armaments and be housed in the smallest hull possible for that tactical role
×
×
  • 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.