Here a quick set of questions I would love to get feedback on.
- Currently the Fleet Command Center provides a +1 to all Quality rolls while within a distance of 2L. Should this be limited to Activation and Morale checks or retained for all Quality rolls?
- Overloaded Weapons - in the current write up, overload seems undervalued. In test plays I would rather spend the extra action on an additional shot vice a -1CV to my target. For example if we are both CV3, I would take two shots at 3 vs. 3 vice one shot at 3 vs. 2. Am I off base? Would you be tempted to use overload if it gave a +1 CV as well as a -1 CV to enemy? In same example I would get either two shots at 3 vs. 3 or one shot at 4 vs. 2. What do you think or do you have other ideas?
- Direct Fire Range - We have had confusion between the movement sticks distances and the the direct fire ranges as they both use Short/Medium/Long but have different meanings. We are considering making the weapon ranges: Point Blank (less then twice the weapons distance); Nominal (Between twice to four times the weapons distance); and Extreme (over four times the distance). Would this help standardized the terminology and reduce confusion with new players?
- More Direct Fire - We have found that an experienced player with a missile heavy force can 'missile spam' pretty effectively and that direct fire sometimes get relegated to a secondary role. Would changing the range band penalty help this? Specifically, using the above terminology, change Point Blank from a +0 to a +1 CV to the attacker, change Nominal from -1 to +0 CV to the attacker, and change Extreme from -2 to a -1 CV.
Thanks!
jp
My thoughts:
ReplyDeleteFCC - I like the idea of the FCC only working for activation and morale (and I still love the rather perverse idea that it doesn't affect the ship it's installed on :) )
Overload - I have been playing overload fire incorrectly, making it +1 to the firing ship rather than -1 to the target. Your suggested change makes it the same as using full spectrum sensors. I actually find the idea of it giving the target a -1 to be counter-intuitive, since you;re boosting the power of your own offence rather than reducing that of the target's defence - how about giving the firing ship a +2 for overload?
Direct Fire Ranges - No change to the rules there, just wording. I don't really have a view on this.
More Direct Fire - If you go for a missile-heavy force you would expect direct weapons to be secondary, would you not? If you feel missiles are too strong in comparison to direct fire, why not limit them a little more instead of boosting direct fire? If a ship has Indirect: 4 it is, in fact, always going to launch missiles with a strength of 5-7, as you always add the number of successes to their strength. How about reducing missile strength by one - the first success launches a missile at the base Indirect score, with each other success giving a +1? So a ship with Indirect:4 will launch missiles with a strength of 4-6.
(I have been playing missiles wrong as well; I have missed that if you fail all three Q rolls, they don't launch at all; I had them launching automatically at base strength, with each success giving a +1. This would tie in with fighters who get no successes also not launching, and make my question about that irrelevant.)
So - proposal. One action to launch missiles. Roll 3 dice checking against Q:
0 Successes - Target not acquired; no launch.
1 Success - Missile launches at base strength
2 Successes - Missile launches at +1 strength
3 Successes - Missile launches at +2 strength
Direct fire may be more attractive if missiles are less so, perhaps.
One thought, though. It is hard to design a ship based purely around direct fire that has an equivalent cost to one based around missiles and direct fire, even at a lower CV. Giving the ship a higher CV isn't quite the same, as CV represents defence as well as attack.
- FCC: I think so, yes. It seems implausible for Fleet Command to be able to talk Engineering through the difficult process of fixing weapons/systems during a battle.
ReplyDelete- Overloaded Weapons: In my FLGS game on Monday, lots of players chose to Overload their guns using the current rules - the -1 makes it a lot more likely that you'll double compared to the +1. It's a case of 10/5 against 11/6 for example. I think it's fine personally.
- Direct Fire Range: I think rewording might be helpful, but the system as is works.
- More Direct Fire: I don't think direct fire should work at long range: if everything is whizzing around at c-fractional speeds, locking on and extrapolating target position at those distances should be nigh-on impossible. But I do think there should be a +1 for within 1 Range.
Incidentally, at the FLGS game, it was 2 Battlesuns (Galactic/Hermes) and 6 Berserkers against 2 MkII Cruisers & 8 Lancers - the ultimate missile/DF matchup.
The Imperials won handily, with a 3-8 loss ratio before the Colonials called it. Direct Fire is excellent, especially with Overload/Assault Craft/Rear shots in whatever combination. We even had a "Death Star" moment when a (damaged) Lancer got behind a (damaged) Battlesun and tripled it with a roll of 1!
"It seems implausible for Fleet Command to be able to talk Engineering through the difficult process of fixing weapons/systems during a battle."
ReplyDeletePerhaps every FCC comes with an IT Support Department as well (or should that be a new system?)
"especially with Overload/Assault Craft/Rear shots in whatever combination"
Apparently missiles get rear shots too, if they move through the rear arc when they hit the ship. Flying in close behind an enemy, then launching missiles is very nasty; the missiles move straight to the target, and it gets the -2 rear shot penalty against them.
- Currently the Fleet Command Center provides a +1 to all Quality rolls while within a distance of 2L. Should this be limited to Activation and Morale checks or retained for all Quality rolls?
ReplyDeleteOnly for Activation and Morale. The Admiral don't have to control if a ship in his fleet is launching missiles...
- Overloaded Weapons - in the current write up, overload seems undervalued. In test plays I would rather spend the extra action on an additional shot vice a -1CV to my target. For example if we are both CV3, I would take two shots at 3 vs. 3 vice one shot at 3 vs. 2. Am I off base? Would you be tempted to use overload if it gave a +1 CV as well as a -1 CV to enemy? In same example I would get either two shots at 3 vs. 3 or one shot at 4 vs. 2. What do you think or do you have other ideas?
I prefer to give a -1CV to enemy...much easier to destroy hit...
- Direct Fire Range - We have had confusion between the movement sticks distances and the the direct fire ranges as they both use Short/Medium/Long but have different meanings. We are considering making the weapon ranges: Point Blank (less then twice the weapons distance); Nominal (Between twice to four times the weapons distance); and Extreme (over four times the distance). Would this help standardized the terminology and reduce confusion with new players?
Could be a good idea! But I have a small table so I will probably use other range for Short/Medium/Long distance.
- More Direct Fire - We have found that an experienced player with a missile heavy force can 'missile spam' pretty effectively and that direct fire sometimes get relegated to a secondary role. Would changing the range band penalty help this? Specifically, using the above terminology, change Point Blank from a +0 to a +1 CV to the attacker, change Nominal from -1 to +0 CV to the attacker, and change Extreme from -2 to a -1 CV.
Sound good to me!
Quite interesting questioners.
ReplyDeleteSample CV Template