Jump to content
S.Derek

Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Nuck Fewton said:

Bigger batteries is nice but uncommon at best and it still puts you in RB 1. Flak frigates are hard to justify, I play relthoza and if I take a squad of say 3 Ichneumnon frigs with upgraded PD, I can only target SRS and probably won't make my 90 points back before they are eaten as easy BL or victory points.

I think building a list with a single wing of fighters/bombers is....not optimal? First off, the interceptor token doesn't HAVE to go after that wing and probably shouldn't. Second, with how interceptors are stuck in the middle of enemy formations, your single wing is gonna eat a lot of PD before it even gets there.

I get your point and maybe it doesn't come up as often in your group but I also think you have 4PD escorts in the lizard fleet and ships that like to be at point blank as well.

Bigger Batteries was just the first thing that came into my mind because lizards are my main fleet. flak frigates are great if you have issues with srs. you can wall off enemy srs if you place them properly. the enemy then has to shoot them down to make a breach for SRS which is fine aswell as it pulls fire from your main AD dealers. dont bother the BL because of some frigs. it probably wont make much difference in a 1200 points game^^

Why a single wing? i just said you can use a wing to disctract PD and/or SRS. you also could split lets say 3/3. 3 bombers are well enough armed to threat a cruiser and are bonkers is a later state of the game. on the same note, fighters are like one of the best things if you do not have alot of SRS at all. your ships will loose alot of AD over the course of the battle so fighters will give you alot of flexibility. your ship wont be able to shoot but your fighters are. and they wall you of from people trying to do the same thing and lategame torpedo flood.

as relthoza you shouldnt have problems with SRS anyway. you have them yourself at abundance and you can just use shunt cruisers and drop them into the fleet and PD SRS into oblivion. then your opponent has to handle them quickly or they will tear their ships a structural superfluous new behind and they will pull fire from the other ships. (you should not do that in the first turn though xD) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kaptyn Krys said:

Moving on from SRS and Boarding how do y'all feel about mines? (And mine realism)

they are a pain to figure out where to place them in the movement phase and it slows the game down. I don't have a great solution for them though. Maybe a fixed rear arc weapon with 8" range bands to place the token?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To remind everyone Interceptors provide PD against torpedoes, boarding and attacking SRS, this notion that they only work against long range Terran torpedoes is an absurd generalization which is also factually incorrect, one simply needs to look at the various fleet statistics to see the sheer number of torpedo weapons that are completely nulled by the presence of Interceptors. But by all means continue thinking its the Pilgrim that Interceptors are there to deal with.

Walling off SRS with flak frigates means they are all stacked less than 4" apart as any further than 4" apart and SRS can just fly through the PD gaps and eat minimal PD. Being stacked that close means nukes and mines.

Now lets get on the SRS vs SRS, because this is where I think people are missing the point, When you have to fleets with equal SRS investment it's fine. SRS are counters.

This completely misses the point of the whole issue. Tell me what is Veydreth's counter to SRS?

The issue isn't that SRS counters SRS.

Quote

Its an opportunity cost srs are expensive and interceptors are not the biggest breaking SRS people dont load up on them because they like but because they have to to protect themselves against SRS and torp spam

There highlighted is your issue, tell a player who doesn't run SRS at all or very lightly in their fleet how to deal with an opposing fleets heavy SRS investment. The answer everyone gives is take more SRS. That's your problem, it's forcing fleet builds, some fleet builds can't even do that, so how are they to deal with it? Interceptors are too cheap and too good compared to every other answer. When everyone answers "take more Interceptors" it is a problem, it's even happening here, in an effort to prove that they're fine people are pointing out how the very same thing is the perfect answer. When your answer is more of the same you have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Mines idea tossed around with the locals:

Allow a ship to go Full Stop and make a roll (based on CP or something) to reduce the strength of the mine by successes rolled to represent crew being sent out in pods to disarm the mines.

Or even a direct fire attack within something like 8" or RB1, still requiring Full Stop outside of the Mines range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Charbe86 said:

I've started another thread to continue this if you want Frans, but if you wouldn't mind getting thing rolling again there that would be great, as my technical skills are quite lacking in regards to the forum and I have no idea how to quote between threads.

Everything that needed to be said concerning the plausibility of boarding during space combat has been said here already.

You either get the arguments or you don’t.

So thank you, but I’m not going to waste any more time on it ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Meatshield said:

To remind everyone Interceptors provide PD against torpedoes, boarding and attacking SRS, this notion that they only work against long range Terran torpedoes is an absurd generalization which is also factually incorrect, one simply needs to look at the various fleet statistics to see the sheer number of torpedo weapons that are completely nulled by the presence of Interceptors. But by all means continue thinking its the Pilgrim that Interceptors are there to deal with.

Walling off SRS with flak frigates means they are all stacked less than 4" apart as any further than 4" apart and SRS can just fly through the PD gaps and eat minimal PD. Being stacked that close means nukes and mines.

Now lets get on the SRS vs SRS, because this is where I think people are missing the point, When you have to fleets with equal SRS investment it's fine. SRS are counters.

This completely misses the point of the whole issue. Tell me what is Veydreth's counter to SRS?

The issue isn't that SRS counters SRS.

There highlighted is your issue, tell a player who doesn't run SRS at all or very lightly in their fleet how to deal with an opposing fleets heavy SRS investment. The answer everyone gives is take more SRS. That's your problem, it's forcing fleet builds, some fleet builds can't even do that, so how are they to deal with it? Interceptors are too cheap and too good compared to every other answer. When everyone answers "take more Interceptors" it is a problem, it's even happening here, in an effort to prove that they're fine people are pointing out how the very same thing is the perfect answer. When your answer is more of the same you have a problem.

We would just have to disagree whether they are too cheap or not. What sort of size games are you playing that you think that they are too cheap ? but id rather see more expensive interceptors than nerfed interceptors personally. Also again the problem is again not interceptors but like you said other fleets heavy srs investment or spam that you have to deal with and stock up on interceptors to counter. If there was sufficient pd from other sources and if there was no spam people wouldnt buy as many interceptors as you are apparently seeing now. So solution would be making other alternatives better and not nerfing interceptors. Just how like nerfing Aquans because they are "too Good" or whatever isnt a solution to making game more balanced but making the other races better in line with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

boarding:  possibly we are looking at this the wrong way instead of an assault srs h why not an assault boat a craft the size of say a small frigate or escort w/ one turret or fx for W/ good Rb 1 & 2 Mv of 11 OR 12 Cp of say 3 and a Ap 4  and this would be added to the points of building a fleet. allow it to shunt in near a ship you want to board. just a thought 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am getting this right your saying that we should get rid of boarding assaults because they are becomeing too weapon like.  Correct? Why don't we think of ways to make them unique? Cyber warfare ignores sheilds and the most defensive dice the enemy can roll is 3. If I use a cyber attack I don't suffer any to hit modifiers, and I can still use my other attacks. So why don't we get rid of targeted strikes and boarding and make cyber warfare more powerful and widespread?

I think that WestAustralian hit the nail on the head when he said that the various methods of attack should be differentiated from each other. So instead of argueing about how boarding should be gotten rid of, lets discuss on how we can make boarding assaults, targeted strikes and cyber warfare different from each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mines : I don't have a problem with mines. as a mostly Terran player we don't have as much as some of the other races. our Dn has it as a hard point for 10 pt and our both carriers have it in it's stats. drop a mine before you move or move 4" and drop one. just be sure you are out of the blast area when your done moving.  removing mines should be a job for fighters or interceptors with a command check. if you fail the mine stays for another turn if you pass it the mine is removed. that's just my take on it. I would like to see our R&D Shield cruiser get an amended stat to include Mn either as an upgrade or hard point. though I do know that is just wishful thinking.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Skyhawk said:

 

If I am getting this right your saying that we should get rid of boarding assaults because they are becomeing too weapon like.  Correct? Why don't we think of ways to make them unique?

 

no I'm not saying get rid of boarding what i"m thinking is a different way of looking at this boarding issue if there is one.  i had a thought and put it out here to be kicked around chewed up and spit out. there is no right or wrong just an open forum where we can express our thoughts. and yes that would make boarding unique at the very least if some of the factions that do not do boarding as there normal make up could go this route to make thing a little more equal. your thoughts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/06/17 at 3:10 PM, murphy'slawofcombat said:

 i had a thought and put it out here to be kicked around chewed up and spit out.

I do apologize, I was not trying to bite anyone's head off.

I personally thought that your idea was a good one. The ability to have a dedicated boarding vessel would open up some interesting tactics. The horizon might be considered that kind of ship. The idea of of having SRS boarding shuttles sounds like a good one as well. Perhaps boarding could be an ongoing event? Every turn the attacker has an opportunity to hit another system in the target ship?  Those marines aren't going to just leave  after the target system is destroyed after all. This could be done until the attacker runs out of the AP used in the initial assault. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding mines(sorry I forgot to put it in my other post). It seems like I remember someone mentioning using escorts as minesweepers by allowing them to use their point defense to take out the mines. This would add some extra utility to escorts and give players the ability to clear mines. I think it would be wise though to keep this ability exclusive to escorts or dedicated mine sweepers to avoid negating mines completly. 

It would be nice if the Aegis got mines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Skyhawk said:

 

42 minutes ago, murphy'slawofcombat said:

 i had a thought and put it out here to be kicked around chewed up and spit out.

I do apologize, I was not trying to bite anyone's head off.

 

no offence taken we are all here to make this game not just good but GREAT..... I just wish I had more people to play agents. it seems I am the only person in all Carlisle Penn. or Harrisburg Penn. to be playing this game. as a result i have a lack of imagination in the making of battle plans. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Skyhawk said:

Regarding mines(sorry I forgot to put it in my other post). It seems like I remember someone mentioning using escorts as minesweepers by allowing them to use their point defense to take out the mines. This would add some extra utility to escorts and give players the ability to clear mines. I think it would be wise though to keep this ability exclusive to escorts or dedicated mine sweepers to avoid negating mines completly. 

It would be nice if the Aegis got mines.

I hadn't thought of escorts in that role but it does sound good. how would you do it by way of command check like i mentioned in my other post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After some thought I think it would work better than using a regular point defence attack. It would prevent escorts from being over the top in effectiveness.

On 05/06/17 at 4:18 PM, murphy'slawofcombat said:

I just wish I had more people to play agents.

Your not the only one in that boat. I have one person I play with and due to time constraints we play Taskforce and even then we have yet to finish a game. We do hope to rectify that here soon though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about mines maybe let support shuttles and escort carriers have mar minesweeper to sweep them up on a roll? And with minefields to discourage static gameplay when minefields are spammed maybe make it so only installations can deploy them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Escorts do need help.

 

Heh, this turned into a monster of a thread. It's a bit intimidating. Between everything that has been said here, one could build three or four different Armada 3.0s, haha.

 

In any case, I'm tempted to follow my habit and throw down another overhaul idea, but I'd be giving another angle to things I've already given plenty of talk to. Not sure, do we all get more than one idea per phase of the game? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Hive said:

Heh, this turned into a monster of a thread. It's a bit intimidating. Between everything that has been said here, one could build three or four different Armada 3.0s, haha.

This is what I'm afraid of, that 3.0 will turn into another V1.5, a rules-set that nobody likes and has 3 or 4 different house rules that no-one can agree on and it will destroy the current player base that has barely recovered from V1.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Commodore Jones said:

This is what I'm afraid of, that 3.0 will turn into another V1.5, a rules-set that nobody likes and has 3 or 4 different house rules that no-one can agree on and it will destroy the current player base that has barely recovered from V1.5

Seriously, ATX has like seven players; there used to be tournaments here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • 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.