Jump to content
S.Derek

Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

Calculating AD with multiple weapons systems is even worse; this situation came up when I ran a trio of Corsair cruisers with the second gun upgrade, and doing the math when one was at full, one with one damage, and the third with two damage was tedious. The calculation, following alextroy's example, was:

1. Ship one 7 AD as the primary, with 5 going into the linking pool.

2. Ship two has 7-1 AD and 5-1 AD, so a total of 10 going into the linking pool.

3. Ship 3 has 7-2 AD and 5-2 AD, so a total of 8 going into the linking pool.

4. Total attack is 7 + (5+10+8)/2 = 7 + 23/2 = 7+11 = 18 AD going into the pool.

 

If no ships were damaged, we'd have 7 + (7+7+5+5+5)/2 = 7 + 29/2 = 21 AD going into the pool. If things were to be streamlined, should each damage then count twice (once for each weapon), as in alextroy's example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not weeing how the math is hard let alone time consuming... I graduated :P

Honestly moving to anything smiler to planetfall or taskforece is a terrible idea as it makes ships alone useless as a two sided dice.

The current system allows ships to maintain the firepower levels to attack with independently while not becoming to ridicules while in groups. Something the power system may not be able to do and definitely simply adding them together cannot accomplish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting AD ideas all, I'm sure a solution exists.  Let's not get too deep or clutter the larger feedback.   

The link/combine big picture issues are:  

1) what is the gameplay purpose of adding weapons systems together?  Can a new, streamlined mechanic preserve and honor this purpose?  

2) how can we rebalance the stats of ships if the new mechanic changes the AD/PD pools?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CoreHunter said:

not weeing how the math is hard let alone time consuming... I graduated :P

Honestly moving to anything smiler to planetfall or taskforece is a terrible idea as it makes ships alone useless as a two sided dice.

The current system allows ships to maintain the firepower levels to attack with independently while not becoming to ridicules while in groups. Something the power system may not be able to do and definitely simply adding them together cannot accomplish.

 

3 hours ago, Stoobert said:

Interesting AD ideas all, I'm sure a solution exists.  Let's not get too deep or clutter the larger feedback.   

The link/combine big picture issues are:  

1) what is the gameplay purpose of adding weapons systems together?  Can a new, streamlined mechanic preserve and honor this purpose?  

2) how can we rebalance the stats of ships if the new mechanic changes the AD/PD pools?

@CoreHunter has the gist of why Linking is so valuable. The answer to 1) is that both single ships and full squads have AD profiles that are within reason to each other. Taskforce's problem with "ghost ships" isn't just that ships degrade quickly, it's that because the dice pools a squad can muster are solely focused on the maximum pool compared to the relative defenses of any given ship, ships on the individual level are horribly pillowfisted (excepting where the total pool comes from a lone ship, like a BB)

 

To that end I say the solution to 2) is that you would either need to add a stat (something lower than the ship's DR, so you can still put some kind of effect on it with a very weak attack?) or potentially go the exact opposite route and say ships fire completely independently, with some form of defensive penalty for a ship being targeted by multiple attacks at a time (you have to divide both your shields and PD against all incoming attacks in a single activation?)

 

But rather than removing a core game mechanic and having to discuss 2) to begin with, I think something that's been pointed out is worth review- even if I'm personally quick about figuring out AD pools, damage adds extra steps to the linking mechanic. While I don't believe this is a problem that warrants cannibalizing an entire core game mechanic,  several of the workarounds make a good bit of sense, and are worth review. While I'd hate to see the current system changed at all (I hate change to the same extent that Garfield loves lasagna) if the math of linking while damaged is consistently one of the most cited reasons for slowed play, something has to be done.

  1. Power Core has merit for a very good reason; you already take the time to see what targets are available when you first start your shooting phase. Tacking on the impact of damage here makes a lot of sense; you're adding a little bit of bookkeeping, but it's comfortably tucked into some bookkeeping you would have to do anyways, NO MATTER ANY OTHER SOLUTION. You were always going to have to figure out LoS and pick targets, adding another step here doesn't sting that badly..
  2. Removing dice after doing the math for Linking is also very clean, and leaves the core piece of linking math (add linking weapons together, divide by two, add to the focus weapon) in a state where no weird or confusing stuff happens. There is one problem, though, in that removing dice from the linking ships could potentially reduce the AD of the primary weapon system BELOW where it would be unlinked, if the linked in dice pools are small enough and the contributing ships are damaged enough. E.G., a ship with a 4 AD weapon that has lost 3 hull links to another vessel in its squad, then its net contribution to the attack is -1 AD (4/2 - 3). This is a non-problem in the ideal range bands of any given ship, but at the fringe RBs could be a thing. There are, however, a good number of solutions to that- a simple modification to the "all contributing weapons provide at least 1 AD" clause, or even just saying "hey, if linking in a given situation makes you lose AD, maybe you shouldn't?" somewhere in the book.
  3. Removing no dice but removing successes... is clean, but to me very unsatisfactory. There's something very haptic and pleasing about rolling dice and counting them up, and removing successes without there being some opposing roll feels... wrong. It could be a very clean solution,  probably the cleanest one Power Core aside, but leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This may not be a problem for other gamers, however, and so as an option should be strongly considered.

 

The thing is, though, that I think there are plenty of other places where streamlining ~could~ happen first, to relieve some pressure from the need to streamline shooting excessively. SRS and mines, for example.

Taskforce's one redeeming quality is that the SRS rules are clean and concise. If we took the way we currently buy and organize SRS, and combined it with the way SRS are deployed in Taskforce, we could have a very good engine for handling them on our hands. Just a thought.

My solution to mines is also pretty simple; First, no more AOE mines. First enemy that trips their range takes the blow. The other properties of mines, that they ignore hit modifiers and don't do rear arc, stay the same- eating a single Frigate from a squad because a mine doesn't care about Difficult is still a deterrent in the way mines are now, just not one that goes over the top and eats whole squads. Second, mines get laid in the Shooting phase, as a rear arc weapon with a single range band. You either pick a target and shoot 'em with the same rules (no rear arc, no to-hit modifiers) or if there's no target you place the mine somewhere in the range. Bam. No more wiggling around a mine when a single ship already can't avoid it, no figuring out where mines can be placed during the movement phase. Super. Simple.

These are two ideas that clean out the movement phase of the game without cutting the core movement mechanic. They won't be applicable to every activation, or even every game, but they're simple and don't cut into the grit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hive said:
  • Removing dice after doing the math for Linking is also very clean, and leaves the core piece of linking math (add linking weapons together, divide by two, add to the focus weapon) in a state where no weird or confusing stuff happens. There is one problem, though, in that removing dice from the linking ships could potentially reduce the AD of the primary weapon system BELOW where it would be unlinked, if the linked in dice pools are small enough and the contributing ships are damaged enough. E.G., a ship with a 4 AD weapon that has lost 3 hull links to another vessel in its squad, then its net contribution to the attack is -1 AD (4/2 - 3). This is a non-problem in the ideal range bands of any given ship, but at the fringe RBs could be a thing. There are, however, a good number of solutions to that- a simple modification to the "all contributing weapons provide at least 1 AD" clause, or even just saying "hey, if linking in a given situation makes you lose AD, maybe you shouldn't?" somewhere in the book.
  • Removing no dice but removing successes... is clean, but to me very unsatisfactory. There's something very haptic and pleasing about rolling dice and counting them up, and removing successes without there being some opposing roll feels... wrong. It could be a very clean solution,  probably the cleanest one Power Core aside, but leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This may not be a problem for other gamers, however, and so as an option should be strongly considered.

I very much agree with the second point here Hive. bleurhg. 

On the first point I quoted my concept was do the main bit of linking to determine the pool, regardless of damage. so 8+((8+8)/2)=16. Which for  squadron of 3 ships people will know its basically just double your pool, 2 ships, add half again etc. less finicky. What you then do is remove 1 dice per damage on the lead ship and then 1 dice for every 2 damage cumulatively across the linking ships. 

So if a lead vessel is down by 1 HP and his 2 squad mates have lost 1 and 3 HP respectively we would have the following:

*8+((8+8)/2)=16

*count damage on lead ship = 1.    16-1=15
*count damage on linking ships = 1+3=4,   4.2=2,   15-2=13   13 total dice to roll, no icky removing successes. Most ships in squadrons have 4/5/6HP (frigates tend to pop) so the adding and dividing by 2 should be simple and quick enough. 

13 AD dice total. If we use the current system this would give (8-1)+(((8-1)+(8-3))/2)= 7+((12)/2)=7+6=13. I'm sure it wont work out the same in every case but it will be fairly similar I think. It keeps linking important. Halts double degredation issues, making things like terran cruiser that little bit more punchy. Weapon shielding MAR can simply make it -1 dice per 2 damage on the lead ship and -1 dice per 3 damage on linking ships.

Of course this could all go out the window with the power core concept!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a doubt TF combine dice mechanic is faster, regardless of if we subtract damage or not.  

FSA was great in 2.0 cause ships of similar value have a decent chance of meeting the DR of each other with direct 1on1 attacks.   Sadly wasn't the case with TF.  

If we use a combine dice (not link) mechanic the AD and PD of squads with multiple systems is amplified 25-80+%.  Oroshan Cruisers roll combine 32 dice, not 20 link, for instance.  Ships like a Dend Battleship get no 'combine boost'.  

So we could either:

1. Restat AD and PD of ships, either those that can combine or those who can't.  This is time consuming but doable. 

2. Adjust the CR of all ships by a similar 30-80%. DR remains the same.  1:1 shoot outs can still meet DR, but a crit generally requires combining, shooting down-tier, aft arc or luck.   

Thoughts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pumped for 3.0! I will say that my buying of ships has stopped until August though.

My thoughts:

I love weapon degradation but I can see why it is slowing the game down. The power core idea vaguely reminds me of the old Star Trek: Battle Force system where damage knocked out certain weapons, launch bays, shields, etc. Should be fun and I think it will ultimately help the Dindrenzi a ton.

As far as boarding goes, I see we have abandoned the age of sail style of FSA. Makes sense. Boarding ships this large is just unrealistic. Sure it was fun but SpecOps blowing up engines and stuff, that will lead to some shenanigans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making the AD linked and removing 1:1 for the main Shop and 1:2 for linked ships might be workable as it dumbs down some of the math without killing the effect.

Any move towards a taskforce style setup for AD will kill this game. It is my honest opinion the taskforce section should be burned from existence. The only workable section of that system maybe parts of the SRS section. Burn the rest as warp spawned clown droppings.

Share this post


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

Making the AD linked and removing 1:1 for the main Shop and 1:2 for linked ships might be workable as it dumbs down some of the math without killing the effect.

Any move towards a taskforce style setup for AD will kill this game. It is my honest opinion the taskforce section should be burned from existence. The only workable section of that system maybe parts of the SRS section. Burn the rest as warp spawned clown droppings.

I think the task force is terrible in general sometimes dumbing things down too much to make something more accessible takes away from the experience and ruins it so I m hoping they focus more on cleaning up the rules rather than streamlining them. The game wouldn't appeal outside of its target demographic whether it's streamlined or not so might just as well cater to,the needs of the target audience majority of which is savy in that regard already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't like the "subtract successes after rolling as damaged" from Taskforce.  It feels punitive, nerfs damaged ships who might as well not join their buddies.  

Subtracting AD as damaged before you roll makes a ton more sense and is no less cumbersome.  Credit where due: Ryjak was the first to have that idea.  

Combining rather than 1/2-linking additional ships is an interesting streamlining opportunity.  It just causes the "AD inflation" for some squads I mentioned earlier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hive said:

My solution to mines is also pretty simple; First, no more AOE mines. First enemy that trips their range takes the blow.

That's how mines worked in v1, and was one of the big reasons mines were utterly useless that edition.  Opponents would just slam a frigate into minefields as a sacrificial mine-clearer.  Valid gameplay perhaps, but it meant no one cared about mines at all (it would be even worse now that 6 SQ T3's exist, since sacrificing one of those basically eliminates 1 or 2 AD from the SQ attack, so who cares?).  And does anyone think a commander routinely (emphasis on ROUTINELY) telling ships to go commit suicide so others can move through that area is a valid simulation of war?

Which isn't to say v2 doesn't have a problem, but I think it's more with drive by's than with mines impacting multiple ships and being true area denial.  Along those lines a couple (mutually exclusive and not fully detailed) brainstorming ideas:  

1) A simple rule change that says a minefield cannot be deployed when an opposing ship is within the area of effect (on the grounds it would immediately go off).  That would mostly eliminate the drive by.  Mines can still be dropped in front of a SQ but that's a trickier move to pull off and still hit the whole squadron so heck, arguably SHOULD be rewarded.

2) Forget active deployment of mines during a game.  Instead treat every minelayer in a fleet as if they had the Minefield MAR and make it a phase of deployment (including linking within a squadron, and some major playtesting around location and timing (before or after ship deployment) and to see which ends up more balanced).

But I would strongly oppose going back to "first ship detonates and that's it" (not that my opinion matters :) ).  We've been there and done that--it didn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hive said:
  1.  
  2. Removing dice after doing the math for Linking is also very clean, and leaves the core piece of linking math (add linking weapons together, divide by two, add to the focus weapon) in a state where no weird or confusing stuff happens. There is one problem, though, in that removing dice from the linking ships could potentially reduce the AD of the primary weapon system BELOW where it would be unlinked, if the linked in dice pools are small enough and the contributing ships are damaged enough. E.G., a ship with a 4 AD weapon that has lost 3 hull links to another vessel in its squad, then its net contribution to the attack is -1 AD (4/2 - 3). This is a non-problem in the ideal range bands of any given ship, but at the fringe RBs could be a thing. There are, however, a good number of solutions to that- a simple modification to the "all contributing weapons provide at least 1 AD" clause, or even just saying "hey, if linking in a given situation makes you lose AD, maybe you shouldn't?" somewhere in the book.

This only complicates things and adds an exception to already time consuming process. For simple situations it's easy and okay, but for multiple weapon system ships linking together it's a nightmare exception. Local Terran players hate this exception as when they finally manage to count the final AD they find out it's not enough and have to compare it with the amount of systems etc. If you also change the degration system you might need to take it out anyway, especially in the system you mentioned. Yes, it makes linking useless for crippled ships, but they are crippled and maybe should FSD out anyway (which might need to revisit FSD escape and fasten it a bit). If you use the following linking formula: Focus Weapon + [(All linked weapons - all squadron damage) / 2] and keep it in the rules, then heavily damaged large capitals with any accompaniment pretty much ignore their damage. If you drop it you force players to get these ships out of the fight and with better FSD escape it will only speed the game. Tested it, works pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CoreHunter said:

not weeing how the math is hard let alone time consuming... I graduated :P

Honestly moving to anything smiler to planetfall or taskforece is a terrible idea as it makes ships alone useless as a two sided dice.

Most people aren't talking about going to combined dice rather than linked, which is the big problem with independent ships (either they have too many dice for SQ, or not enough for single ships).  But removing damage from successes rather than dice rolled?  All that does is effectively remove 1 success, instead of .8 successes, per point of damage.  A few judicious +1's to AD values and you end up with damage curves almost identical, and don't have to recalculate AD all the time.

I graduated too--no need to be snide.  Congrats if you haven't noticed the slowdown in your meta-mine has.  It's not a big deal on any particular squadron, over the course of a game it adds up.  It also makes it harder to show the game off because it has to be explained on top of linking (and the exploding 6 mechanic and why it doesn't make the game completely luck based).  Even if experience makes the math fairly simple and easy (which it does), no one chooses a new game because they want to do math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as for SRS if styled smiler to that which shall be unnamed . I'd rather see carriers with either or options.

Take a carrier with fleet defense or support focus.

10 SRS: 3 wings = 2 support and 2 x 2 Interceptors or 3 x 2 interceptors.

               2 wings = 2 x 2 bombers or 4 fighters.

it would also be good to order stats a bit as each may have AD and PD pools listed.so roughly

Bombers: 2 AD each srs. Fighters: 1 PD and 1 AD each srs. Interceptors: 2 PD each srs. To make fighters stand out better consider them heavier armed interceptors with longer ranged stronger guns so they strike before other SRS in a dog fight. While not making fighters better at either job it will give them a chance to force through interceptors when bombers couldn't or run off interceptors to clear a path for bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

My solution to mines is also pretty simple; First, no more AOE mines. First enemy that trips their range takes the blow.

4 hours ago, reddwarf said:

That's how mines worked in v1, and was one of the big reasons mines were utterly useless that edition.  Opponents would just slam a frigate into minefields as a sacrificial mine-clearer.  Valid gameplay perhaps, but it meant no one cared about mines at all (it would be even worse now that 6 SQ T3's exist, since sacrificing one of those basically eliminates 1 or 2 AD from the SQ attack, so who cares?).  And does anyone think a commander routinely (emphasis on ROUTINELY) telling ships to go commit suicide so others can move through that area is a valid simulation of war?

Which isn't to say v2 doesn't have a problem, but I think it's more with drive by's than with mines impacting multiple ships and being true area denial.  Along those lines a couple (mutually exclusive and not fully detailed) brainstorming ideas:  

1) A simple rule change that says a minefield cannot be deployed when an opposing ship is within the area of effect (on the grounds it would immediately go off).  That would mostly eliminate the drive by.  Mines can still be dropped in front of a SQ but that's a trickier move to pull off and still hit the whole squadron so heck, arguably SHOULD be rewarded.

2) Forget active deployment of mines during a game.  Instead treat every minelayer in a fleet as if they had the Minefield MAR and make it a phase of deployment (including linking within a squadron, and some major playtesting around location and timing (before or after ship deployment) and to see which ends up more balanced).

But I would strongly oppose going back to "first ship detonates and that's it" (not that my opinion matters :) ).  We've been there and done that--it didn't work.

Actually Mines DID NOT work that way in V1.0 or with the errata document. If ships in the same squadron triggered the detonation range of a single mine, then all ships in that squad ate the mine's explosive damage, just like it does now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry it just doesn't make fluffy-sense to have certain carrier types restricted to certain SRS types, with the one possible exception of bombers might not fit on a light carrier (depends how big they are).  And I'm unsure what problem this restriction is trying to solve from a gameplay perspective.

Share this post


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

Sorry it just doesn't make fluffy-sense to have certain carrier types restricted to certain SRS types, with the one possible exception of bombers wouldn't fit on a light carrier.  And I'm unsure what problem this kind of restriction would solve from a gameplay perspective.

There was a suggestion earlier that SRS be changeable in game, that makes a lot of sense fluff wise, since the only real difference between space based srs would be payload.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a concern about this Power Rating (PR) system in conjunction with removal of AD degradation, and the many varied and complex nuances of ship weapon profiles.

Asking a question to anyone interested: In the interest of furthering your goal/board strength/victory how many times is getting a ship/squad to make ONE important attack versus making MULTIPLE attacks occur? Which do you consider the more common goal? What occurs the most and what do you often find you are needing?

In my experience, even heavily playing Terrans and their turrets and arcs, fundamentally most ship/squad activations boil down to getting the squad/ship to output one key attack and anything else is just a bonus, this is due to board conditions such as terrain, enemy placement, your placement, etc.

Consider factions like Dindrenzi and Directorate (mono-arcs or heavy emphasis on a specific arc) versus Terrans and Aquans (Yes I know about Aquans and "balance"). In my eyes this PR system is in great danger of causing massive issues with no AD loss. Who cares if your ship is nearly dead and PR is low, so long as it can fire the ONE weapon that you want it to. That's the issue I have concerns about, something like a Nausicaa on 2HP if it can still fire a 16AD railgun and nothing else, it is of little consequence because I can still fire that 16AD railgun, into an Apollo that used to win because of attrition and AD loss.

I hope I expressed that clearly.

 

Conversely on the subject of linking, maths and alternate options, consider the following stat grab from an Aegis cruiser:

Beam

Fore: 5/6/4/-

Everyone knows what that little snippet is. Lets adjust.

Beam

Fore: 5(3)/6(3)/4(2)/-

OR

Beam

Fore: 5/6/4/-

Fore(linked): 3/3/2/-

 

Format as you please to make it more presentable but I'm sure many of you picked up on what it means, the second smaller red number is linked AD value, having the number displayed in the stat block with proper formatting (not my hack job) removes a portion of the mental equation/gymnastics players go through because the answer is presented as a number for them. Such a change however does require alterations to the mechanic such as subtracting successes after totaling AD to make it work smoothly.

The other benefit of such a system is options, placing the linked AD values as a discrete number on the ship stat block now means weapons do not have to necessarily be curtailed by linked potential. Consider the following totally unbalanced Retribution AD excerpt.

Kinetic

Fore (fixed): 12(6)/16(5)/10(5)/6(4)

 

Three numbers were adjusted, they significantly alter options for the ship, but importantly because you control linking through a discrete number the railguns can reach higher individual peaks without becoming overwhelming when taken as a linked whole (this is an illustrative example don't take it as remotely balanced). It's all about creating options and design space and doing something like this does that in spades.

You could go further:

Kinetic

Fore (fixed): 14/16/12/10

 

No link numbers means the weapon has to be the lead weapon (so the railguns can't link together, but a Buckler's weapon could link into the railgun because the Buckler weapon would have a link value). You could go the other way to and give a weapon system only a linked AD spread so it can never be the lead weapon and must always link into something else.

Doing this you can add identity through variations to the normal 1/2 AD for linking that is the norm, Dindrenzi get slightly higher link in values in say RB3 and RB4, Terrans and Sorylians get significant to great link in values in RB1, to again add personality and variance.

 

Well that was long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised so many people love the fact that they do want to keep making ships zombies, even if less ineffective zombies. AD reduction for damage makes zero sense- either the gun works, or not. FT is more in-depth than FA, but in that one you knock out individual guns on the ship with each critical roll (if failed). Why not have weapons damaged result more common on the crit table instead of weakening every consecutive attack after damage? Zombie ships slow the game down, and fighting with them is an exercise in futility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pok said:

I am surprised so many people love the fact that they do want to keep making ships zombies, even if less ineffective zombies. AD reduction for damage makes zero sense- either the gun works, or not. FT is more in-depth than FA, but in that one you knock out individual guns on the ship with each critical roll (if failed). Why not have weapons damaged result more common on the crit table instead of weakening every consecutive attack after damage? Zombie ships slow the game down, and fighting with them is an exercise in futility.

Pretty much this on zombie ships. Though I can see justification for AD loss, bits of a battery are knocked out, targeting systems damaged. Though it does make less sense for things like Dind rail guns throwing a single solid projectiles than Terran pew-pew-pew laser batteries.

I could forsee some sort of power core system where weapons are either on full power or maybe, operating at half power, or possibly even none. Would also cut done on the damage-linking issue we have been discussing. Just Mainship+linkingships/2. It leads to player decisions about what to power and therefore, tactical choices. Maybe I can swing my cruiser behind the BB, rail cant wont be in arc but I could power the gun rack? Rather than trying to work out linking AD after damage and just rolling a pitiful number of dice on a ship with no teeth left. 

Players having to make decisions > players worrying about maths

So, "intensify forward batteries, I don't want anything to get through", "All power to main phasers", etc etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need Power Core to remove/reduce zombie ships. Just reduce the effect of damage to AD.

What if damage reduces AD by 1/2 total HP damage in a squadron rather than 1 AD per damage on each ships AD like in my earlier example? Single ships are suddenly less impacted, as are squadrons, and double degradation disappears with one rule change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pok said:

I am surprised so many people love the fact that they do want to keep making ships zombies, even if less ineffective zombies. AD reduction for damage makes zero sense- either the gun works, or not. FT is more in-depth than FA, but in that one you knock out individual guns on the ship with each critical roll (if failed). Why not have weapons damaged result more common on the crit table instead of weakening every consecutive attack after damage? Zombie ships slow the game down, and fighting with them is an exercise in futility.

I can understand disliking ships becoming ineffective as they become damaged, but saying that AD reduction due to damage makes "zero sense" is overselling it a bit.  

If you look at most of the ships, their firepower is based on firing multiple weapons into the same arc.  Instead of making you fire 5 to 10ish weapons individually the system condenses this into a single AD value.  As a ship gets pummeled by enemy fire it is going to lose control linkages, power supplies, and weapon mounts.  Rather than make you keep track of all of these things individually the system abstracts this by lowering your AD values to represent that accumulation of damage.  Many of the ships that rely on a single big gun can still be susceptible to accumulated damage.  Take a rail gun, it works by using a chain of magnets to accelerate a slug along its length and launch it at the enemy.  You can have links in the chain fail and still fire the weapon, but the net effect is that your slug will not reach the same velocity as a fully functional rail gun.  Since F=MA, as you reduce A you reduce F and this is represented by a smaller AD pool.

The logic behind the damage system is fine; cluttering up the field with mostly dead ships that are unlikely to contribute may not be.  Personally, I don't have a problem with it.  It fits with a space combat game involving ships upwards of thousands of meters long and gives me the on the fly tactical decision of "what can I do with this crippled ship to help me win?"

Share this post


Link to post
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.