Jump to content
Hive

V3 Wishlists

Recommended Posts

I've seen a bunch of people talking about what they want from V3, and you know what? As a respected member of this community, I think my wisdom and insight dumb opinion deserves to be probably shouldn't be shared. (but I'm going to share it anyways) There doesn't seem to be a real solid "wishlisting" thread either, but a bunch of threads arguing points about specific topics, so feel free to follow suit here.

 

  • Let models touch, but don't let them overlap. The no-touch rule is tedious and pedantic, but we don't need strategically altered flight pegs becoming a thing. 

 

  • Package starter sets with a better tool. I would be alright with slight changes to movement (I've seen the suggestions for tools for each TL value, that's cool, whatever, in the end if they can end up in approximately the same place that's fine) but the fat A3 punchout is a bad idea- when the majority of your playerbase is using something else, you need to look at what they're using and take some inspiration from it. In this case, players universally go for thinner tools. Take note and take action.

 

  • A single entry on the crit table. Double ones is too much, pretty much. Neither of the effects are too much on their own, but as of now a single double-one crit can end a game... I've heard a complaint that the Crit table removes too much crew. Remove one of the Hazard results, move the Corrosive there, take the "if it dies it goes boom" effect and make it its own thing. THE REASON I suggest this is because there is already a runnaway damage mechanic through exploding dice and double crits. I don't see the value of having multiple "randomly I did more than I was statistically supposed to" rules, while I do see the value of having at least one. For the purposes of Targetted Strikes, I would also suggest taking the 2D3 damage and turning it into 2 damage with D3 more written into its effect- Ergo, you are guaranteed more than the normal amount of damage, but the total is reigned in a bit- also, a whole column of the Crit Table can now nicely be removed, as they all do 2 damage.

 

  • Targeted strikes. Right now the risk/reward doesn't match. I'd keep the current penalty, make Targeted Strikes that Damage roll on the Crit table and only apply the effect (Now the "extra damage crit" having that +d3 effect makes more sense for Targeted Strikes) and Targeted Strikes that Crit get to choose which Crit they scored. That seems more in line with potentially missing out on damage at all.

 

  • SRS; personally, I'd rather the game stay focused on big ships slugging it out than dogfights or whatever, so while I'll miss some of the quirkier SRS choices, it may be best to emulate Taskforce on this one item. My own suggestions for how to improve SRS without simplifying them probably belong elswewhere.

 

  • Mines need a more consistent method of placement; look at how players place them. In practice, you rarely see mine tokens being placed for each ship as it moves, you see them done at the end of movement, all at once, being placed in a spot both players agree was probably valid.  They may as well be a rear-arc indirect shooting weapon with a single 6-inch Range Band. I also think the suggestion that mines deployed on a given turn arm in the cleanup steps of that game turn rather than immediately makes sense for reducing the impact of Mine-Bys.

 

  • One of the few things I think Taskforce might (Might, not did) have gotten right before abruptly not expanding on it was fleet construction. I would look to that other game that ruined that other other game's fanbase for this, as well; Whilst you may have gripes with the game as a whole, opening up force construction while providing bonuses for specific choices is more rewarding than strict force org. I don't know if Armada would work with such a design philosophy- I'd imagine Armada helixes would have pretty intense lists of restrictions, with the freedom coming from being able to take a bunch of helixes. This is another one I'll have to sit down and write out some examples for; I've got a pretty strong idea of how this should work.

 

So there we have it. My genius should now be clear to you all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, so I'm sick and had time, so here's the writup of Helix-Based fleet construction idea whatevers.

 

 

Quote

 

This is a quick and dirty breakdown of the core idea. I’ll likely not be using “academic” language in places, though for a non-edited draft I will attempt to write it to look like rules.

 

Fleet construction

Once both players have agreed on a mission and MFV, it is time to build your fleet.

Pick faction

First and foremost, you must choose a main faction for your fleet. As will be discussed later, the main faction will make up the majority of your fleet. Every faction has access to allies in their respective Alliance, be it Zenian or Kurak. Some factions may have restrictions not listed here; please reference individual Fleet Manuals for details. The main faction chosen, as well as what allies are taken, will determine access to specific Helixes and TACs.

Choose helix

Every selection you make in fleet building belongs to a Helix. A Helix is a battlegroup with specific tasks and training; every Helix has benefits and restrictions that must be followed to gain those benefits. A Helix is made up of several parts; most important is the Roster, which lists how many squads may be taken, of what tier those squads must belong, and any additional restrictions for ships belonging to a given Roster entry. The Helix will also include general restrictions applied to the Helix as a whole, as well as bonuses for squads filling entries in that Helix’s Roster.

Every Helix belongs to a faction; most of the time, this will be the fleet’s main faction, but not necessarily. Filling a Helix is as simple as choosing squads of ships that belong to the Helix’s faction and match the description of a single entry in the Helix’s roster and paying the appropriate points cost for them and any desired upgrades. As long as you can fill all of the Required entries for all Helixes used, you may include any number of Helixes in your fleet. All squads fill only a single roster entry; ergo, a single squad of ships may not belong to multiple Helixes, fill multiple Required entries, ect. Note that accompaniment options, notably where Escorts are concerned, may allow ships from another Faction to be part of a Helix. Natural Allies will also allow for this, as detailed later.

Rules for Allied Helixes

Any Helix in your fleet can be an Allied Helix. An Allied Helix contains squad selections from one faction from the same alliance as the fleet’s main faction. Any number of Helixes may be Allied Helixes, but the total MFV of allied ships (including allied accompaniments for ships belonging to your main faction) may not exceed that of your main faction. Some factions have Natural Allies- a Helix belonging to a faction with Natural Allies may take squads from their Natural Allies to fill non-Required Roster entries. Natural Allies in a main faction Helix will still count towards the MFV of allied ships for the purposes of fleet building.

Command Elements

Every Helix has a Command Element. As long as the Command Element of a Helix is on the table, squads from that Helix gain an additional d6 for Command Checks.

Place admiral; list Admiral’s benefits

One ship in your fleet will be the Admiral’s vessel. The Admiral’s vessel must be chosen from non-Accompaniment ships belonging to the Command Element of any Helix in your fleet. The Admiral’s Vessel must belong to the fleet’s main faction. The Admiral’s vessel gives access to TACs and will count as a Command Element to any squad within 20” belonging to a Helix which has lost its Command Element.

 

 

EXAMPLE HELIX- PATROL FLEET

 

COMMAND ELEMENT, REQUIRED, TIER 1, excluding Dreadnoughts and Battlestations

TIER 1, excluding Battleships, Battle Carriers, Dreadnoughts, and Battlestations

REQUIRED, TIER 2, excluding Defense Platforms

TIER 2

REQUIRED, TIER 3

TIER 3

TIER 3

 

All Squads in a Patrol Fleet benefit from the additional d6 during Command Checks even if the Command Element is not on the table, assuming ships from the Helix of a higher Tier remain. If the Admiral’s Vessel is chosen from the Command Element of a Patrol Fleet, the Admiral may take 1 additional TAC.

 

 

EXAMPLE HELIX – INVASION DETATCHMENT

 

REQUIRED, ANY TIER

TIER 2 or 3

TIER 2 or 3

 

All non-Accompaniment ships in the Helix must have the Planetfall MAR. Squads may fill Required entries in a Planetfall Division’s roster even if they have the

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't base it on anything Taskforce. V2.0 is good, very good, it just needs a few tweaks. Work with what's there and DO NOT just import over rules from another game.  Did that with V1.5 and look what that did, killed Firestorm in several markets, filled the official forums with almost nothing but arguments over what/who's house rule set was better because anything was better than the craptastic core rules at that point.  I get this niggling feeling 3.0 is going to be like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Pathogen said:

I nominate HIve for head Spartan game designer esquire. Please continue with our new 3.0 rules, cool pictures of ships would be a bonus.

That reminds me that I haven't posted pics of anything I've painted for a while...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Let players remove models from the flight stands.
- Change snake-eyes to... something, and move Corrosion?
- Resolve Targeted Strikes by...?
- I don't know how SRS work in Taskforce.
- Drop Mines during shooting phase, 6" range (I'd hold off on adding 'arming' mechanics)

As for Helix fleet building rules, the important part is:

- Core Helix (with lots of options)
- Support Squadron categories, each with two major options, and two sub-options; pick up to two

Patrol Fleet and Planetfall boxes should serve as Core Helix options.  I would suggest using Small, Medium, and Large boxes as other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DanSG-19 said:

- 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.

Only if they give us something else to counter bomber tokens. Every ship having to roll PD against them individually makes them almost impossible to drive off without interceptors, because only 6s do something. At least the "hit but not destroyed" results should pile up over the whole activation or for every "hit but not destroyed result" one wing should not be able to attack this activation (without being destroyed of course) because they are busy evading PD fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DanSG-19 said:

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. 

That's pretty much it. And I'll end with some "wisdom" from The Dude by saying that's just like, my opinion man... 

See, the problem I have is that both rules exist. In the sense that Exploding Dice being the source of double/triple crits, and Exploding Dice having nice effects in terms of making attacking worthwhile even with low-AD firing solutions, I'd be more interested in changing Reactor Breach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DanSG-19 said:

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.

I completely disagree. First, I have seen many games completely changed by a Reactor Breach. Second, I have never seen a game substantially altered by a double critical hit, even when it deletes a Cruiser in one shot.

One of these is unbalancing; the other is not.

Some quick stats:

16 AD landing 12+ successes: 50%

14+ successes: 33%

16+ successes: 18%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about a good turn template like made out of plastic about 1/2" wide and about 4" to 5" long clear on color. with all the resin models you make Spartan I would think it would be nothing to put a good functional plastic or resin turn template as part of your box sets and available for sale to us your loyal Admirals.   the over wide cardboard crud you put into the game systems are lacking and that is being very  nice.

Edited by murphy'slawofcombat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DanSG-19 said:

- 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. 

This is not a logical statement.  

Double and Triple Critical Hits occur in specific percentage of times based on the AD of the attack, the targets defenses, and the CR of the target.  You rarely get these by tossing a couple of dice at a target.  You normally need to send overwhelming firepower and get lucky at the same time.

Reactor Breach is a 1 in 36 chance for any critical hit.  You never need to roll higher than enough successes to get a Critical Hit to get this 1 in 36 chance.  You essentially do not earn a Reactor Breach, it is just handed to you by chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SRS Bombers can easily be neutered/nerfed by applying any 'driven off' results immediately. Bombers that are driven off are not destroyed but take no part in the current bombing run. It would make taking out PD networks more of a tactical decision, requiring targeted strikes to become more of a thing. Any yes, I agree that targeted strikes need looking at.

Example: 6 bombers make a run and are hit by a 7PD roll of 6,5,5,2,2,1,1. One Bomber is destroyed, 2 are driven off and 3 remain to press their attack for 9AD. After the run is complete, the token RTB's with 5 wings.

Interceptor PD mountain is a problem that definitely needs solving. My personal solution would be this (and likely to be wildly unpopular):-

- SRS have new stats, one stat (DF) is common to all types, but some have a second stat is specific to each SRS type.

- The common stat is (DF), dogfighting. This is the number of AD used when dogfighting with other SRS. Fighters and Interceptors: 3, Bombers and Assault Craft: 1. Each result of 5 or more destroys 1 wing.

- Bombers have (AC), Attack Capital - works the same as AD currently, and is only used when making a bombing run against non SRS ships

- Interceptors have (PD) as before, but only 1 each. No other SRS type can add PD. They retain their ability to move to intercept incoming bombers and assault boats. They can move to intercept fighters too, but fighters have their own special rule (see below).

- Fighters do not get a second stat, but they are able to initiate a fighter sweep against other SRS (and will be the only SRS type that can initiate dogfights), and when they do they apply the results of their roll BEFORE the defending player counts up their attack dice. This would work the same as an attack run with a range of 18" but specifically to target SRS tokens. Like a surprise attack mechanic and creates a definite role for fighters that isn't currently present in the game.

- Assault Craft second stat is AP as before, but with no PD.

- Support shuttles are removed from the game and their repair function is replaced by escorts, making escorts a more attractive option. Escorts will retain their ability to add PD to the ship they are supporting.

All theory-craft, in no way backed up by hard play testing and very probably would benefit from streamlining/number balancing.

 

Edit: Actually, I would probably give Fighters (AC)1, so they can be used to strike T3's in late game emergencies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I dislike pushing this tangent sub-topic, I'm going to push into it again anyway.  The prime problem with Short Range Spacecraft Point Defense coverage is the cost effective nature of the benefits.  Escorts have a problem in that they are an expensive sink that does not provide nearly the same ratio of PD coverage value to cost for what you are buying.  By that I mean that Escorts do not provide the same combined bonus outside of their squadron, consist of multiple models with separated and nominal fields of coverage, and are surprisingly vulnerable on the table for the price point.

Escorts are poor choices for PD coverage to fleet points spent due to the high price for the PD gains made, the difficulty in utilizing, and keeping that coverage on the board.  Using other models to provide cross squadron coverage is technically more expensive, but those models will provide much more significant fleet benefits as well.  Escorts are narrowly focused in benefits to effectively a single squadron and can be vulnerable to enemy sniping from the start of the match.  Degrading value is a factor that both escorts and model hardpoints for PD upgrades both have to contend with.

Model hardpoints aren't as cost effective, even if at a glance they seem like they should be.  For one they use a model's hardpoint slot, second the benefit degrades as the model takes damage, and of course the PD value does not use combined calculations with other squadrons.  The area of coverage is typically the modest standard and tied to a slower moving ship that interferes more with fleet movement and position, although not as much as escorts can.  Regardless, upgrading a model directly for PD can be a superior cost choice for the fleet compared to escorts.

SRS provide PD with minimal fleet movement disruption, an easily managed single token radiating the benefit, and that token is difficult to remove from play or degrade in value.  The extremely low price per additive wing also makes SRS an optimal choice for PD, especially with higher value Interceptors that can combine PD values across squadrons in a larger than normal field of coverage.  Frankly, they circumvent many of the problems using cross Squadron PD encounters, and even within squadrons considering Interceptors can loiter on the field and provide constant, non-degrading, nearly inviolable coverage for much of the game.  Even later in the game it remains difficult to dislodge the Interceptors of a canny opponent.

 

My reason for making these statements was that rarely do I see people state their full, detailed, intentions when posting about changing SRS.  Most read as oriented about changing SRS to a vision more pleasant to their own personal interpretation of what SRS would be within a space opera universe and not so much what the proposed alterations are intending to directly change in this current Firestorm Armada rules release.

Often the outcome is curious, as removing PD from non-Interceptor SRS still does not address the most obvious and relevant problem with, shall we say, normalizing PD value costs across fleet choices.  Reducing Interceptors to 1 PD value per wing does not seriously counterbalance the many benefits SRS enjoy compared to the other fleet options for improving or including new PD sources.

 

My thoughts for negating at least some of the biggest benefits are thus:  Remove the ability to combine point defense values with model, additionally since SRS do not degrade and are so difficult to remove include something like a, "Bingo," rule.  Effectively, anything not an Interceptor immediately, "Bingos," and must immediately Return to Base if they participate in model defense.  Interceptors can have a 50/50 shot at going, "Bingo," for participation in model PD rolls twice, and then immediately, "Bingo," upon a third participation.  Roll a D6 and pass on a 4+ result for all that it matters, but a 50/50 shot is pretty fair in my book.

The upper limit may need lowering to simply the second attempt and only roll, "Bingo," once as even in Patrol fleet levels some factions can still easily provide constant Interceptor coverage for all of an enemy's possible activations over a turn.  Still, that might encourage more points spending on SRS which would reduce cost effectiveness, which is the end goal.  Regardless, in reducing cost effective benefits this reduces the value by immediately lowering PD values across squadrons from SRS and implements degrading performance over the course of a turn.

If anything not an Interceptor can only provide 3 PD value at max wing size, 30 fleet points, and only do so once in a turn sacrificing any other utility, I'd say that has become well within the price value range of an Escort by comparison.

Interceptors themselves can add 6 PD to a single model at most thrice in a turn, more likely to only be twice, and perhaps half the time only once.  Either way the reliable nature of a non-degrading and high value Interceptor is gone although those 30 points are still superior to an Escort.  However, they are far removed from the currently dominant PD source you would see in standard rules.  Frankly an Escort is rather poor for what you get for my estimation, so while Interceptor might still need further down tuning, to be fair Escorts are a poor fleet choice to begin with without comparison to SRS.

Also, I think this is a more minimal amount of rules changing and rote memorization of various stats and rules required for reaching the end goal of ending the current level of SRS shut-out dominance in PD coverage.  Going much further you'd be better served to just say SRS can't add into model PD rolls and be done with it.  If the end goal is making torpedo reliant fleets relevant and competitive; there are other ways to shut those fleets down without using SRS, and that is going to be a much more invasive balance change.  SRS are simply the best and most faction universal tool available right now.

 

Edit:  Ugh, I posted this too late at night, corrections to wording and values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intercepters have always provided mad PD coverage, in each and every edition of the rules. It was never such a huge major issue until this edition, because there were effective ways of dealing with/removing Intercepter Clouds but they have all been either removed or nerfed into uselessness in 2.0.

Intercepters are not the problem! They never were!

The lack of ways to deal with them currently, is the problem!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "big picture" fix for the SRS PD mountain would be to simply allow no wings (even interceptors) to add PD against torpedo attacks.  In compensation, I would allow interceptors and fighters to "escort" other wings on attack runs.  Opposing wings have to get through the escorts before they can do damage to the attacking wing (ie if you have 3 interceptors escorting 6 bombers, the first 3 destroyed/driven off results affect the interceptors, and only additional damage hits the bombers).

Generally add +1 PD to each escort class and you've pretty much solved both the wing PD mountain problem, and the fact that escorts have little utility for the points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the suggested escorting feature would really add to the game, unless the SRS loiter as Interceptors do now.  Otherwise I only see a worse situation compared to carrying two tokens of Bombers.  Enemy SRS are only going to get one potential dogfight against two activated tokens of Bombers and the SRS type they dogfight doesn't affect how effective they are in driving them off.  Not to mention you can't launch more than one token per activation so unless the SRS escorts are allowed to loiter, escorting really doesn't seem like a good use of fleet points.  The only noticeable advantage the SRS escort might provide as I see it, would be an opportunity to dogfight against multiple SRS tokens during an attack run.  Frankly that doesn't sound like a good situation to be in to begin with, nor a very sustainable one for the same wing to deal with several times within the same activation.

 

The Escort models are just too fleet point ineffective for even improved PD to matter, they're not particularly valuable as meat shields either.  Only a fool would waste a high Attack Dice roll on an escort over a Tier 1 model, and the low value attack dice bands can easily find a vulnerable target instead of desperately plinking away at the bigger model(s).  Frankly by the time escorts provide a noticeable gain which won't disappear like so much space dust in the stellar winds, you've spent enough points to have bought a better model, improved a model considerably, or just outright bought another vital fleet model which can do more than add PD.

The price point Escorts sit at adds together so quickly that multiple models become a notable chunk of potential fleet power.  Frankly they're not significantly effective at PD outside of their squadron for cost, and that's the primary and sometimes only purpose they have.  Regardless of how initially high they can raise an escorted model's PD, that's only one target in a fleet and torpedoes aren't typically the most threatening thing the enemy fleet brings to bear.  Nothing which wants to board is so poorly armed that it cannot wipe out an Escort while preparing to board a model.

A single Sorylian escort is 20 points and an easy target to remove if you want it gone, a full group costs 60 points, and frankly for just 30 points more I could replace a Sorylian Carrier squadron with the Hasta Battlecruisers at that point.  A much better proposal if I wanted to maintain PD coverage by far compared to using Escort ships.  I say only 30 points, since a Carrier without wings is pointless, but a Hasta Squadron isn't worthless without its' wings.  The wing capacity is simply a bonus on top of everything else compared to an escorted Carrier.  Perhaps this isn't a convincing argument for you?  The outside squadron PD coverage of three +1 PD Sorylian escorts would be 7 PD, compare that to the 5 PD from a Hasta Battlecruiser squadron which applies over an 8 inch, bigger batteries produced, bubble.

Escort models aren't just slightly higher priced for what comparative fleet options can do or provide, they're damned near completely unjustifiable.  Given that Escorts are relatively model price competitive with T3 frigates, the end result is an overall absurd choice for competitive fleet building.  Exceptions could be made to this statement though, since Dindrenzi and Rense System Navy Escorts are both capable of noticeably adding to a model's ranged fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, escorts are overpriced for the benefits, perhaps with the exception of those escorts that have weapons to add to the AD pool. Yes, they are easy to snipe but while your opponent is targeting them, they're not targeting the T1 they are escorting and they're not so easy to torpedo early game due to difficult target and the PD coverage that the squadron will likely give. Without wanting to repeat myself, changing the functionality of escorts so they provide repair/medical assistance in the way that support shuttle SRS' do now would make them more viable.

That said, this is a wishlist for V3.0 and my first post here was a suggested fix for SRS which isn't really in the spirit of the thread. So here's my wishlist.

1. No changes to the movement/turn limit mechanic. To me this is a fundamental part of the game that provides a large proportion of the strategy and player skill, and the primary reason I play FSA. If new players are daunted or put off by it they are missing the point and probably ought to play a different game.

2. For Carriers to become more viable, instead of poor second cousins to other T1's. My ideal wish would be for all dedicated carriers to have quick launch and deck crews as standard, and for deck crews to work 100% of the time, not 50%.

3. For mines to remain but for drive-by minings to be discouraged. To my mind they should act as area denial rather than a direct weapon.

4. For targeted strikes to become more viable and a strategic tool that is worth using, still with a downside but not enough to render them next to useless.

5. For bombers to remain but for their attacks to be easier to repel.

6. Interceptor PD mountain to be toned down to fit in line with other PD options.

7. Grav weapons to be changed to a primary weapon, so they degrade with HP/CP loss and can't shoot through all types of terrain unimpeded (Mr Ian Duff). I'm fine for them to bypass PD and shields.

8. Crit table/damage markers to be simplified and normalised. Security in disarray won't hurt most players and is a softball, Main Drive Failure can be devastating.Decompression and Fire do the same thing.

9. More scenarios where the objective is more important than the amount of damage you do to your opponent. I think I've said this before, but a lot of the time you can ignore the scenario and go for all out destruction and still win the game.

That's all I can think of for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The movement system is too slow and clunky, and would benifit from an upgrade.  I understand your concern, as Movement is the most important part of the game, but it also should improve.

2. Carriers should be more viable, which requires an overhaul to every SRS mechanic.

3. Drive-by Mines are only a problem in a few limited areas, which can be targeted.  Only allowing Mines to be dropped before Moving would help though.

4. The game doesn't need Targeted Strikes right now, but Scenarios could make them important.  Some games have Scenarios where you can win without killing a single enemy.  FSA would likely benifit from something like this.

5. The Critical Table contributes to the uselessness of Targeted Strikes as well.  My main gripe is Reactor Breach, but it would benifit from refinement.  For example, what if a Critical Hit no longer inflicted 2HP damage, and this extra damage was part of the table?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ryjak said:

4. The game doesn't need Targeted Strikes right now, but Scenarios could make them important.  Some games have Scenarios where you can win without killing a single enemy.  FSA would likely benifit from something like this.

 

Scenario wins without killing anything are generally a sign of a really, really bad scenario.

Around 5 years ago, Warmachine ran a set of scenarios that were structured like this:

Zone X (X may be a rectangle or circle)

Any turn after turn one, If, at the start of your turn, you have models in the zone and your opponent does not, you win.

The scenarios were very winnable.  In fact, there was a popular strategy of flooding the zone with modes, using a warcaster with a movement denial ability, and then just auto winning - no game play necessary.  Even with multiple changes over time to the scenarios to add various types of scoring, there are still plenty of games where there isn't really a game.  Just pushing some models forward and saying "I win".

The best scenarios are the ones that force engagement, but are essentially impossible to win unless one player plays a disengagement game.  In other words, the only way you'll win by scenario is if your opponent runs away, or if you table him so badly that he can't possibly contest the scenario.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ryjak said:

5. The Critical Table contributes to the uselessness of Targeted Strikes as well.  My main gripe is Reactor Breach, but it would benifit from refinement.  For example, what if a Critical Hit no longer inflicted 2HP damage, and this extra damage was part of the table?

One thought was to change targeted strikes so they used the same table as crits, but a TS allowed you to choose one of the 4-9 entries instead of rolling for it.

The cost would be that you only ever cause 1 HP worth of damage after declaring a TS. The table would need to be altered, because being able to choose 'main drive failure' could be devastating to certain races *cough* dindrenzi *cough*

 

A well designed scenario (my opinion) would be one that has an objective, where whoever achieves that objective wins the game. At the moment this isn't present in any of the scenarios as far as I can tell. If battlelog could only be scored by meeting objectives, but to meet those objectives would require conflict, then you're onto a winner.

Take for example "hold the waypoints". It's perfectly feasible to ignore all waypoints and kill the opposition and win the game on BL. There's no real incentive to defend your own waypoint because holding back a squadron near your own deployment for 1BL per turn is a less attractive option than using that same squadron to get into the thick of things and net more BL through the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×

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.