Jump to content
S.Derek

Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Presidente said:

I would get rid of boarding too its a silly mechanic, and its not like the ships that are really good at boarding are bad at shooting, they don't really pay for the ability to board, so what do regular factions get with average or low ap...boarding ships should at least cost more:)

You are being sarcastic there i assume?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Presidente said:

I would get rid of boarding too its a silly mechanic, and its not like the ships that are really good at boarding are bad at shooting, they don't really pay for the ability to board, so what do regular factions get with average or low ap...boarding ships should at least cost more:)

I have been playing Directorate, amongst others, and the problem with Directorate is that most of their upgrades are boarding orientated.

So when you don’t want to use boarding you don’t have much options to fill up the points to the agreed maximum, and often end up with reduced size squadrons as a result.

And compared to full sized squadrons reduced sized squadrons simply aren’t worth their points cost in FA.

So removing boarding would at least need some changes in available upgrades for boarding oriented factions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Presidente said:

No I wasn't being sarcastic, and as a plus it would speed up the game, and as far as I'm aware that's one of the things people have been asking for:)

Relthoza Sorylians and Directorate would require having a major rewrite if that was to happen thats why i assumed you were joking. Cause you know they do pay for those boarding  stats in one way or another especially with directorate .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Charbe86 said:

I don't believe boarding would be common place, simply because it would generally be a one way trip whether you succeed or not, and who's prepared to through away lives like that?  That doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective when it is used, quite the opposite.  

 

Getting the boarders on to the ship would be difficult, I don't believe maneuverability would be an issue due to the huge mass difference between even a corvette and a boarding shuttle, but PD definitely would be, which is already represented in the game.  Shields may be an issue here, as well as things like propulsion methods and artificial gravity, but there's not enough fluff available to say either way.  

 

Once aboard the offensive party is trying to damage the ship as much as possible, while the defenders are trying to limit that damage, which means the defenders are limited in their options.  You could vent plasma into a corridor, open compartments to vacuum, or have automated gun turrets with armor piercing rounds, but what are the consequences for your ship and crew? The boarders however are simply trying to sell their lives as dearly as possible which gives them free reign to use any offensive weapon which won't accelerate their own deaths.  A ships marine contingent would also be equipped similarly to a planetfall unit, where as the the rest of a ships crew is unlikely to be armed, and very unlikely to be armoured, which means the main battle would be almost purely between the two marine forces.  

 

If we're aiming for realism, a boarding attack should behave more like an indirect weapon but damaging ships AP and CP instead of HP, allowing for a roll on the critical table for particularly high success.

 

Ships being captured is unrealistic, apart from the effort required to do so, how do you control the ship unless the crew cooperate.

 

What will “get you” trying to land on an evading warship is the combination of sheer speed, high acceleration, and reaction time.

The chances of PD “getting you” will be 99+%, the current rules hardly represent that.

Once you get inside, if you get inside, bulkheads built to withstand ship grade weaponry will shrug off defensive weapons effects that will toast your boarders with ease.

During combat ship crew would be very stupid if they didn’t wear some kind of protective suit, and if boarding was a realistic danger they would all be armed too.

Regarding capturing ships; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nZlXngXB64

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is rather amusing really. People talk about how boarding is unrealistic. Your flying giant spaceships crewed by lizards, giant spiders, fish people and cyborgs, who are shooting lasers mass drivers, rail guns, corrosive torpedos, nuclear weapons, cyber attacks.......... very reastic. This is SCIENCE FICTION. If you want reality go play another game.  

 You could make it to were you can disable a ship and claim it after the battle. Even in the sailing ship days they would not take a ship until after the battle.

I think that it is feasible for boarding parties. HOWEVER if you wanted to capture something you should have to launch multiple assaults, or  you could launch a massed boarding assault if you connected the two ships together. 

Also you would connect to the airlock to board a ship.

Just my two cents. Please remember this is science fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, fracas said:

To address the hull armor argument, boarding could be limited to ships that has suffered hull damage

I think “boarding” should only be possible for the side controlling the battlefield after the battle, and even entering any drifting hulks the enemy left behind would still be dangerous as hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Skyhawk said:

It is rather amusing really. People talk about how boarding is unrealistic. Your flying giant spaceships crewed by lizards, giant spiders, fish people and cyborgs shooting lasers mass drivers, rail guns, corrosive torpedos, nuclear weapons, cyber attacks.......... very reastic. This is SCIENCE FICTION. If you want reality go play another game.  

Yeah, the usual argument; it's science fiction, so it’s bollocks anyway, so why bother with anything that could be confused for realism.

I think you're confusing SciFi with Fantasy ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nuck Fewton said:

are people really calling for boarding to be eliminated as it's not "realistic"?! As if anything is this game is realistic, all you end up doing is eliminating a play style from the game, killing off a whole option of fleet building.

It’s unrealistic, it invites close up fights the movement system doesn’t handle well, and it could easily be replaced by another weapons / combat tactics concept that doesn’t come with these problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas getting into a big arguement will solve nothing. All I was merely saying was that we should put things into perspective.

 Besides, no one is going to board an undamaged ship. You would board after it has sustained damage to allow the boarders the greatest chance for success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Skyhawk said:

Alas getting into a big arguement will solve nothing. All I was merely saying was that we should put things into perspective.

 Besides, no one is going to board an undamaged ship. You would board after it has sustained damage to allow the boarders the greatest chance for success.

I just don’t get why we MUST have boarding in a space combat game, especially if it is fundamentally unrealistic and adds nothing but trouble.

Why not have some special forms of bio, cyber, nano, whatever, warfare instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want lasers, they are unrealistic. I don't want FSDs, their unrealistic. I don't want nanomite cloaks, their unrealistic. I don't want shields, their unrealistic. I don't want spaceships, their unrealistic. 

Please present a good reason for players to give up boarding, that is a legitimate reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Frans said:

I just don’t get why we MUST have boarding in a space combat game, especially if it is fundamentally unrealistic and adds nothing but trouble.

Why not have some special forms of bio, cyber, nano, whatever, warfare instead?

I'm curious, why does it add trouble into your games? Crew is a fundamental part of the game that isn't just there for AD degredation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It invites close in engagements which is the main problem with the current movement templates secondly it adds little in the way of tactics as targeted strikes and cyber do very similar jobs without your people commiting suicide to may be accomplish what you can do with guns at 2 to 4 times the range.

Also at what point would you send soldiers to board a ship you are pouring rows of heavy weaponry into while also trying to get past enemy pd and return fire with friendly pd also going off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick word about realism and space combat; please show me your  real working space ship in combat and demonstrate your point.

You can't. They don't (currently) exist, so any mullings on the realism of them is hypothetical. Calling for the removal of a mechanic because you don't believe it is realistic or practical is pointless. I think the mechanic should stay because it's FUN. I like the imagery of marines and combat droids running through my enemy's ship wrecking the thing! who doesn't!? 

If thematic are a problem for people, what about ART's? Wouldn't these be the "realistic" path?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second Bessemer's comment.

If the template is the problem, modify it!

35 minutes ago, CoreHunter said:

Also at what point would you send soldiers to board a ship you are pouring rows of heavy weaponry into while also trying to get past enemy pd and return fire with friendly pd also going off.

1. You send them after you have disabled the enemy ship.

2. You don't send just one shuttle. I mean really, who would send just one shuttle?

3. You run the same risks with SRS. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I'm not touching this discussion with a ten foot pole, haha.

WHAT I AM DOING, however, is dropping a thought on Targeted Strikes. The table seems to be getting a bad response; not really a surprise- if something is Targeted, rolling on a random table seems like the opposite of what it should do. BUT, the simplified table, which makes sense to the goal of reducing the given tables from 6-some-odd to one, could work if, say, another element was added to the process.

 

My thought would be that upon making a targeted strike, you pick a result you would not particularly want to inflict right then, and during the roll if you get that result, you instead get to pick the result. This could then be integrated into the Vulnerable and Precision Strike MARs, such that either one being applicable will cause the attacker to select an additional result to discard, increasing the chance of hitting something you want to hit. Stacking all of these modifiers would give a 2/3 chance of getting what you want, with a 1/6 each of two other less desired results. On its own, just making a Targeted Strike would give a 1/3 chance, with four other 1/6-probable results.

 

...ASSUMING that the discussion of boarding doesn't go into the deep, dark abyss I expect it to, you could also apply these modifiers to boarding assaults as well, with Special Forces having a higher chance of hitting the right part of the ship and Secured Bulkheads possibly denying a single discarded result.

 

In any case, my thought process is that this puts some agency back into the hands of the player, while still utilizing a simplified, universal chart, instead of the pool of targeted location charts 2.0 has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Xerkics said:

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 you pay the points to protect yourself from the spam and they dont do anything else and you gimp your offence capability by taking them unlike the other srs its really things like bombers and fighters need to be less of jack of all trades like bombers shouldnt provide any pd at all. IF they were to nerf interceptors they d need to rebalance all indirect weapons. ITs not like Tier 1 are the only ships that get attacked by torp spam and smaller ships have much smaller pd pools. Also nerfing them would severely restrict the usefulness of escort ships. 

1: Opportunity cost, SRS aren't expensive. 30pts for 18AD or 12PD? 3 escorts cost 45+pts. 30pts is is a Frigate, that's easily workable through judicious hardpoint juggling.

2: "people don't load up on them because they like but they have to protect themselves against SRS and torp spam". 

So to be clear you are stating that SRS such as PD mountain exist to combat SRS and torps, if Interceptors are fine why do people take them over dedicated PD escorts? Your statement supports my point, Interceptors are too good, people take them per your own words whether they like them or not. They're the overwhelmingly best option bar none. When PD escorts are overwhelmingly ignored in favor of finding ways to put SRS in to do the job and do it better you have a problem.

3: Gimping offence? No, not with supportive ship selection. A Tyrant with 3 Interceptors, what offence is it losing? What offence is it gaining by being harder to damage with certain attack methods and therefore maintains better HP?

An Ares loses a once per game 18AD attack by taking 6x Interceptors and 6x Bombers over 12x Bombers. Double bombers are significantly overhyped. With those Interceptors an Ares buys itself and any nearby friendlies extra board time, extra board time = extra attacks, more targets for the opponent to deal with, more denial against your opponent and their viable options. 

4: So you agree with me that bombers are too all-rounder? I stated earlier that bombers should lose the ability to provide supportive PD (they keep it for personal defence). Fighters are supposed to be all-rounder, they're the in-between.

5: Indirect weapons (torps) are overwhelmingly voided by Interceptors, Interceptors aren't supposed to completely null the impact of a weapon type, 30pts isn't supposed to null the investment of about 200pts of torpedo ships, that's what happens presently. Torpedo ships like the Pilgrim aren't weak or lacking, it's that the SRS meta completely nulls their ability to engage effectively. Indirect weapons (torps) wouldn't need nerfing as they right now are severely under-represented due to SRS PD.

6: No Tier 1 ships aren't the only target for torps, conversely Tier 1 ships aren't the only ship SRS protect, SRS protect merely through proximity. Unlike PD escorts I might add.

7: How does nerfing Interceptors nerf escorts? Escorts aren't taken because Interceptors do the job better so overwhelmingly in every way. Nerfing Interceptors actually makes escorts more viable. Additionally you take Escorts to protect against Bombers, Fighters and torps. Escorts are also conveniently vulnerable to all 3 of those. Apollo with 3 Guardians gets attacked by 12 torps. The escort gets attacked by the 12 torps instead. Note the PD totals between these two examples. Interceptors are immune to the above. 

 

Finally replace any of my examples concerning SRS providing PD with escorts providing PD, how much more expensive did it become for those escorts, how many situations is it downright impossible for the escorts to actually do? An Ares pays 30pts to shield itself and Titan as an example. Now to do the same with escorts for those two ships it costs 90pts. 

Interceptors are too good at PD defence and need quantitative PD reduction but can maintain a qualitative edge (3+ stops or reroll 1's). I stated all this earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Frans said:

 

What will “get you” trying to land on an evading warship is the combination of sheer speed, high acceleration, and reaction time.

The chances of PD “getting you” will be 99+%, the current rules hardly represent that.

Once you get inside, if you get inside, bulkheads built to withstand ship grade weaponry will shrug off defensive weapons effects that will toast your boarders with ease.

During combat ship crew would be very stupid if they didn’t wear some kind of protective suit, and if boarding was a realistic danger they would all be armed too.

Regarding capturing ships; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nZlXngXB64

 

The maneuverability issue tepends a fair bit on fluff, but hostile boarding actions still take place in wet navies, pirates and smugglers etc, I see no reason why you couldn't scale up, especially with automated piloting systems and other similar systems.  

 

I don't know if I agree with your PD estimates, torpedoes still get through, and they can't dodge.  Again this depends on fluff though, PD turret sizes, weapon type etc.  

 

Ship bulkheads are designed to withstand ship grade weapons from the outside, not the inside, I think you may be overestimating hull strength too there do need to be considerations to inertia and economy.  It's also easier to make a weapon that will punch through something than it is to make something that can withstand a weapon, I'll cite history there.  

 

I'm sure ship crews would wear environmental suits when in combat, but engineering staff wearing powered armour seems both inefficient and expensive, and an entire crew carrying side armsseems likely to lead to unacceptable accidents.  

 

I would like to point you to two hard sci-fi series, the honor harrington series, and the expanse.  Both series point out, much better than I can, why boarding in space battles is possible, potentially very effective, but not very common.

 

On ship capture, you don't really even need to use self destruct, a terran prize crew is going to  have issues piloting a dindrenzi ship, let alone a ship designed to be crewed by giant spiders.  

 

And to Derek, if we had more fluff these arguments would be both better and potentially more useful to a design team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems consolidating this into a single area would be Better. Is boarding used ships they would be pinching assault are not how it works now. So no boarding is not them flying over on ships it seems.

Tim simplifying this why not just load current boarding ships with a number of assault are instead of having boarding at all?

A Soeylian cruiser with a built in assault srs with 3-4 assault values would be fine and a better use of ship specific are than on carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, regarding to the boarding discussion....in Horus Heresy you have many examples of ship boardings and sounds epic and unrealistic, but possible. Just think on little assault capsules (which are too small to can use the objective defences, since they are prepared to destroy bigger objectives, less maneouvrable that those little capsules. In addition, they can be extra reinforced, to resist the smaller fire weapons of the ship, which are more prepared to destroy this small targets. And also should be consider that the objective of the capsules are access points to the ship, not the upper hull for example, but access gates, enemy hangars....sites which are exposed to a easy boarding attack. The point is the boarding causes too much damages on enemy ship with a little bit of luck, so maybe as Corehunter said, maybe only a few specially oriented ships should be used to assaults, or maybe increasing the successfull rolls to 5+ instead the typical 4+; or reduce the boarding effects on the target ship except to the infestated faction, which is totally boarding oriented, representing that they uses virus and other toxins to destroy the ship crew and defences...

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.