Jump to content

Diadochi

Member
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Diadochi last won the day on March 13 2016

Diadochi had the most liked content!

About Diadochi

  • Rank
    Neophyte

Recent Profile Visitors

415 profile views
  1. Players: Diadochi / Barry A. (not on forums) Point Value: 665 Scenario: 1 - Border Clash Factions: Sorylians vs Aquans Battle Log Score: 1 vs 7 (Marginal Success) First turn reactor overload decimated one of the Sorylian Reaper squadrons. Over the following turns the Sorylians continued to lose more frigates to Aquan beams. Around turn four the Sorylian's Falcata squadron pulled things back when they suicidally charged into a nest of Aquan mine fields which decimated much of the nearby Aquan fleet. The Sorylian cruisers only took light damage and with the aid of the Falx battleship managed to finish off much of the Aquan fleet. Turn six the Aquan's Poseidon battleship destroyed the Falx, resulting in a win (Marginal Success) for the Aquans. Excellent game, great come back for the Sorylians despite eventually losing.
  2. I'm unsure what to say. There are many responses but so many seem either not tackle the subject directly or would come across as very rude. I don;t know how this will come across, so apologies in advance for any offence caused. If someone finds movement too difficult or tricky then I'm sorry, but the game shouldn't be changed just to suit one person or a small group of people who want a game with easy-sloppy-movement. To me at least the movement simulates the difficulty of manoeuvring the particularly cumbersome battleship sized vessels. I understand there are difficulties in moving squadrons of ships. To this I say the difficulty of manoeuvre, aiming board-sides, FF and such is supposed to be there, it's part of the game. Another consideration is the rules as written show the true distinctions between fixed fire, arc fire and turrets. Wishing FF to be easy, is a bit like wanting to keep your cake and eat it, it erodes away detail. Maybe more energy needs to be put in by the player into speeding up their play with practice, or players need to accept they cannot get things perfect every time within a reasonable window of time and just get on with it - imperfections and all. I personally are not a fan of chess clocks, but maybe as a voluntarily measure that might help. Rather than change the game, change the style and outlook of play. In the end I suppose it depends on your outlook, either the game of manoeuvre is a desired/important feature of the game as a whole, or it is not. Some like a big battle simulation, others favour a faster tactical style game (like X-Wing or Star Trek Attack Wing). Regarding house rules and other agreements between players I am definitely in favour of players allowing each other to speed up/bypass pieces of play that are deems unimportant, such as allowing the rest of the squadron to follow the lead vessel, I do the same. But the key here is it should be voluntarily, not part of the standing rules. Finally, I don't want FSA to become only about firepower and AD, thus why I see as important manoeuvre and the granularity between FF, arcs, turrets, weapon ranges, weapon types, all those details that get in the way of the cult of speed.
  3. Free-hand pivoting is going to be less accurate than using a tool. We've all played many war-games and seen how fuzzy pivoting and turning can get. For me the hopefully crisp movement and careful gun position is half the game in FSA. Absolutely, or packaged with the more-new FSA patrol fleets..
  4. I've read this entire thread and can't claim to have digested it all, it's simply too much, but from a new player's perspective two thoughts have stayed with me... i.torpedoes are too vulnerable to SRS adding to defensive PD, the torpedo vs. ship PD balance seems fairly delicate, and thus interceptors etc. need to be heavily nerfed (or removed?) from PD defensive fire. At least Linking instead of Combining. ii.leveling out the potential damage values seems an idea worth exploring more, especially making fighters and bombers (particularly in low wing sizes) viable. It might also allow interceptor wings to be freed from the 2..12 PD straight-jacket. I'd rather keep the current design, but not if it's crippling SRS re-balance, assuming any replacement turns out to be better of course.
  5. I apologise if this comment seems a bit out of the blue, or appears against suggested rules changes. My desire is not to offend any one, nor is not against anyone's specific rules change, but seeks to caution against rules changes that are not adequantly tested. However I am biased in that I'm concerned that the game might lose something of itself in the demand for a speedier game (the reason I understand for the creation of Firestorm Taskforce). Now, if you accept that approximately half the game is movement and the other half is shooting then changing how movement works is a momentous modification to the Firestorm Armada. Changing Fore Fixed to Fore Arcs is also a significant change, both a decent chunk of the shooting phase and closely-related to how movement works. My hope is all changes will be tested by many hundreds of battles before they replace any standing rules. Theory can only go so far, with so many variables there could be many unforeseen effects, in the end any changes should be defended by extensive trials.
  6. Linked Fire calculations and weapon degradation I suggest if players have trouble remember how many AD each ship can add to the pool (affected by degradation and range), they assemble the dice for each ship, and then physically half the dice (rounding-down as usual) of the supporting ships/weapons systems. Shields Changing the way shields work seems very inelegant and would put the shield rules out of touch with the whole rule-set. If shields are a bigger problem than they should be, maybe their strengths or the points-values of their ships should be re-visited.
  7. Definitely, the icons could do with an improvement, they need to be as clear as possible to every player as to what they mean. Task Force has tokens too but apart from seeming a little big they appear to be clearer and more informative.
  8. The little bases for tier 3 ships is the one idea I'd consider taking from TF for FSA 3.0
  9. I am against the idea of physical printed stat cards, especially if they are used to mark damage and effects. I believe tokens/markers placed next to the affected ships are a more elegant solution than book-keeping with dozens or scores of cards. 1. Stat cards take up space on the battlefield which should be free for the space battle. 2. They invite mistakes and errors to creep in as it is very easy to mark the damage or critical effect on the wrong card. 2. They cannot be amended, I much more prefer online living documents that can be updated and tweaked for balance as and when needed. 3. It allows us to have our stats in whatever medium we prefer, either physically on a sheet of paper or electronically on a tablet or smart phone.
  10. I feel we players want different things and have different priorities, which is right and reasonable. Regarding movement both sides have made their thoughts known. Neither side is likely to convert the other. Play testing will likely resolve many of these arguments anyway. What looks good or bad in theory may not be the case in game-play. I hope 3.0 retains the essence of Firestorm Armada but is a better rules set, more robust, clear and elegant without losing any essential FSA-ness..
  11. I've not experienced any problem with the movement template or dice pools, but everyone is different. I don't believe the FSA rules need revolutionary changes. I do wonder how rigorous/accurate/fair a replacement pivoting system would be? There is a vocal argument for pivoting but pivoting has not been tested to the extent of the movement template. I am not convinced that switching from template to eyeballing is a good idea. Also I feel the issue of "snaking" has been overstated. If the movement template is abandoned. Would any alternative be tested to destruction? How will the tactical precision and feel of FSA movement be preserved? Will it be as accurate or as fair? How will pivots be measured, what is there to stop mistakes or reduce unsportsmanlike play? Will it adversely affect targeting, particularly but not exclusively in-regard to Fixed weapon systems? Will it screw up the balance, role, and feel versus different ships and factions? I don't want movement to be a joyless chore, but nor do I want to become so fudged, that players might as well just pick up their ships and place them where ever they like. If the tactics/rigour of manoeuvre is reduced, FSA then becomes an exercise in list-building.
  12. Here is how I see it. If you pivot by eyeballing it there is room to accidentally (or on-purpose: i.e. cheat) pivot more than 45%, and thus fudge your ship turning, allowing a less agile faction to manoeuvre like the more agile factions, thus making the factions more similar. My feeling is while a template doesn't stop such fudging of turning, it does make it less likely to happen.
  13. I believe that eyeballing or other loose pivot rules will lead to others problems, such as movement becoming fudged, and making the game un-FSA-like.
  14. Better to fix "snaking" by other means than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Pivot moving would lead to FSA movement becoming spongy, vulnerable to cheating, while losing the feel of the momentum mechanic. Keeping some sort of template helps to keep movement solid, fair and keeps true the differences between the different factions and their ships.
  15. I've received the Oroshan Patrol Fleet and Dreadnought Fleet, but I was wondering how I can duplicate the colour scheme in the box artwork. I can make out some sort of grey, light blue, pink, purple, and white paints. But any more precise suggestions as to what colours might of been used or could be used and any suggested techniques would be very welcome.
×
×
  • 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.