Jump to content
S..Mike

3rd Edition Command Orders

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, alextroy said:

The Terran Aegis, the original R&D Cruiser, is now weeping in the corner from being overlooked.

I would like to see the old girl get a revamp on her stats like being able to lay mines ,carry a wing ,sweep mines or some of the other ideas that came out of that thread Aegis what do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, she's not going to be able to lay mines, and there's not really room in the hull for hangar space.  The R&D class (or CRX, Cruiser, eXperimental) is more of an experimental platform for testing out new concepts in the fleet.

But the Aegis thread, I missed that...where is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, murphy'slawofcombat said:

I would like to see the old girl get a revamp on her stats like being able to lay mines ,carry a wing ,sweep mines or some of the other ideas that came out of that thread Aegis what do you think?

Considering mines have been removed; I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ThePayneTrayn said:

Considering mines have been removed; I doubt it.

yea it stinks even though Terran's didn't use them much I personally though they were a good MAR

35 minutes ago, alextroy said:

The Terran Aegis, the original R&D Cruiser, is now weeping in the corner from being overlooked.

I would like to see the old girl get a revamp on her stats like being able to lay mines ,carry a wing ,sweep mines or some of the other ideas that came out of that thread Aegis what do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the Aegis, I really wish Spartan would clean up the Shield Projector MAR. It is so clunky. This is one of the few places I like the Planetfall version if the rule better. Add the ship to a squadron and the squadron gets a bonus all the time. No bonuses to your opponent. No checking to see how close models are to the Shield Cruiser. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

depends on the player, the aforementioned player did so, almost every game, as a terran player, get a few picks with torps, and bug out (he never wanted to play anything but border clash, for that reason) 

which developed into more of a problem in our meta, and I've seen it happen at least on 4 other occasions with other players, so it's probably not super wide spread, (using scenarios fixes it well enough) but it's a kill joy when it happens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2017 at 8:16 AM, Cernunnos said:

I guess I can see how this stops winning fold space bug outs but I kinda liked that cinematicly. 

Was this often abused?

Often?  Probably not often, but very disappointing to lose because the enemy retreated (before we changed to score half TV).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/03/2017 at 10:33 AM, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

Correct, belly up is no more.  Emergency Vectoring is the closest replacement.

Which is an utterly stupid replacement.

Say I lost weapons on my port side and I want to fire at a Port side enemy. Instead of a simple Belly-Up I'm now forced to flip 180 degrees and potentially present my vulnerable aft arc to the enemy in front of me, and I'm also being forced to change directions. What if I DON'T want to suddenly fly back the way I came.

Its not a new option, it's a screwover.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of note, just turning 180 in the normal way requires nothing for a TL0 ship as it can make 45 degree turns after covering a distance of its TL i.e.: zero.

TL1 requires 4 inches of movement and ends up 1" forward of its starting position and ~2.4 inches displaced left or right

(cos(x)=a/h, h=1 inch, x=45 in degrees therefore = 1*cos(45)=0.707, *2 as you have to do this twice to turn 180 so ~1.4 inches, plus a single horizontal 1 inch move ~2.4)

TL2 requires 8 inches of movement and ends up 2" forward of its starting position and ~4.8 inches displaced left or right

TL3 requires 12 inches of movement and end up 3" forward of its starting position and ~7.2 inches displaced left or right

pattern repeats

For the bigger slower ships it might be relevant to flip 180, for most cruisers I think they can probably just move normally.

===

Oh and yes it's the loss of a good option to get a worse option that costs more. Also, if it was meant to reduce the number of tokens on the board why does it roll on subsystems critical and thus place an extra token on the board to represent that status?

For me a big draw of Firestorm was the sci-fi space opera theme. Not really any realism concerns but the big sweeping ship battles we see in movies and TV and suchlike. Firestorm achieved a lot of this 'feel' by having rules and options and weapon systems etc. that tried to mimic or give the feel of the different kinds of things we saw in that media.

Ships going belly up, boarding actions capturing ships, biohazard weapons, venting airlocks, cyber attacks, nanomachines eating or repairing hulls, cloaking systems, retractable plating, sector shields, space dogfighting etc. EVEN IF THEY WERE MOSTLY OF VERY LIMITED USE they were rules flavour, rules character that added to that personality by simply existing as options, even if they'd probably only see use one game in 10 or something.

The more of these options you get rid of to speed things up and simplify the more of this character you slowly shave away from the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Commodore Jones said:

Say I lost weapons on my port side and I want to fire at a Port side enemy. Instead of a simple Belly-Up I'm now forced to flip 180 degrees and potentially present my vulnerable aft arc to the enemy in front of me, and I'm also being forced to change directions. What if I DON'T want to suddenly fly back the way I came.

You mean it turned from a no-brainer into a decision you have to actually think about? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Xystophoroi said:

And one that makes little sense considering we're representing 3-dimensions, not wet navy operations.

If we go down that direction (sense, three dimensions), we might as well start replacing the entire movement system.

By the way, I do agree with what you said about flavourful options further upthread. At the same time, from a standpoint of meaningful decision making, I stand by my assessment that vectoring is more interesting than belly-up.

So, perhaps a good question to ask would be whether we can make going belly-up (or other effects trying to map 3d maneouvres to the table) similarly intersting (in addition to being flavourful), i.e., involving some sort of trade off? Aside from a Command Point cost and maybe a slight movement reduction (diverting engine power to the roll) I cannot think of anything of the top of my head though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to have to back up Blut_und_glas on the Belly Up.

Whilst thematic and realistic, in game terms it all to easily negated an otherwise punishing damage effect. YMMV, but in my own experience it rarely came up, and when it did, it often didn't affect the best arc for my opponent or me. Can't say I'll be sorry to see it go.

As I see it, as mines getting changed, a 180 flip will be of far more use than an axis flip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, blut_und_glas said:

If we go down that direction (sense, three dimensions), we might as well start replacing the entire movement system.

By the way, I do agree with what you said about flavourful options further upthread. At the same time, from a standpoint of meaningful decision making, I stand by my assessment that vectoring is more interesting than belly-up.

So, perhaps a good question to ask would be whether we can make going belly-up (or other effects trying to map 3d maneouvres to the table) similarly intersting (in addition to being flavourful), i.e., involving some sort of trade off? Aside from a Command Point cost and maybe a slight movement reduction (diverting engine power to the roll) I cannot think of anything of the top of my head though.

And spending 10-20pts of your fleet budget isn't enough of a choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, it's the one thing I can think of, too. But I find it far less interesting compared to all the host of effects of vectoring.

That is a general problem with a lot of the command point options - they have no downside other than costing a command point. That makes for more streamlined rules and a quicker game, but I predict that it will also somewhat dull the experience.

That said, I do like the command point mechanic. I feel that the options themselves could be a bit less one sided. (Also, the straight up buying of command points from the fleet budget does not sit too well with me at the moment.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blut_und_glas said:

<snip>

That said, I do like the command point mechanic. I feel that the options themselves could be a bit less one sided. (Also, the straight up buying of command points from the fleet budget does not sit too well with me at the moment.)

This (budgeting for CO) was one of the hardest things to get accustomed to.  We do want to have more ships on the table, not CO in a ledger.  I think that we've set the point costs for extra CO about where they need to be.  When using increments of 5, there isn't a lot of room to change without getting huge spreads.  The number of free CO given is a balancing factor that will be reviewed in the upcoming 'shakedown' of the rules and stats.  In reality, either factor (cost or free CO) can be changed, I just think it will be the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ThePayneTrayn said:

Here's a thought: Everyone gets the same number of command points at the start of each turn. Certainly MARs and squadrons will add more. Or pull an Infinity and say each battle ready squadron contributes 2 command points, each attrition 1 at the start of each round.

Now, the following isn't going to happen, but what I was thinking about was more something like this:

MFV is used to buy ships and their upgrades, but Command Points are excluded from this. Otherwise no change.

Then, a separate budget, let's call it the Main Staff Value (MSV) is introduced. This can be set to a different level than MFV.

MSV is used to buy Command Points, as well as fleet wide options and factors influencing the battle as a whole (this could be things like access to additional faction orders, the right to rearrange or place specific terrain pieces, re-rolls on the roll to determine strategic/operational dominance, and so on - maybe, if an ally tax for specific factions is to be re-introduced, this could also come out of this budget).

With this split budget, you would still have to make decisions about the number of Command Points you wish to have (among other stuff), while you also avoid the issues with scoring and different amounts of points spent on squadrons raised in the neighbouring thread.

(Plus, if you wish, it would still be easy to throw all the points back into a single bucket.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Xystophoroi said:

Why not just allow the 'pool' to reset each turn?

I.e.: If i get 2 for the size of game and buy 2 more I get 4 per turn not 4 per game.

This seems like a much more interesting mechanic. At the moment I'm finding it hard to see why is spend points on CO when I can just have more ships and win through superior numbers. The command orders aren't compelling or advantageous enough for my consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cernunnos said:

The command orders aren't compelling or advantageous enough for my consideration.

Some of the faction specific ones might be. And Focused Fire is a huge boost basically taking a die from an average of ~0.75 success per die to closer to ~1 success per die.

Otherwise? Not really. Maybe removing Disorder, especially for Boarding Fleets as they're about the only ones who care about their Crew Points.

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.