Post by unclejoe on Aug 11, 2010 19:42:19 GMT -5
OK, well I guess I'll be the first.
Here are the house rules that we've instituted and a brief explanation of why we made the change. Note that many of the things that we using as house rules previously are now 'official' with 2.0 rules for CB.
1) RDF: RDF role grants +1 Delta and +1 free turn (so a normal ship with purchased Delta of 1 would be Delta 2, and allowed 3 turns)
Explanation: We felt that RDF was just entirely too beneficial for the opportunity cost. It was not uncommon for our RDF fleets to not only win, but TROUNCE opposing fleets that were not predominantly RDF. The RDF role also sort of makes a mockery of missiles and terrain (too easy to dance around them). Add in a potential 'strategic' benefit for these ships in a campaign setting and we felt we had to do something.
Even with the 'speed limit', these ships would just go to max speed and dictate the terms of the fight. They could end up anywhere within range due to being to run circles around to bleed velocity off at will. We felt that even if these ships WERE beatable, the game devolved to initiative rolls.
2) Torps - We removed the hull type restrictions on AN Torps and made Plasma's CL+ We also gave Plasmas +2 Pen instead of +1.
Explanation: Torps weapons seem pretty substandard to ballistics and even disruptors for cost and tech. They werent BAD weapons, the others were just 'better' leaving it as a less desirable option. These changes allow them to be fielded on smaller ship to give those weapons a distinct role. They are the heavy hitters for the small fry, but they are extremely large and thus limited. Their existence however, prompts players to build ships to escort their caps and take out opposing small fry and creates more of a game within a game feel.
3) FIghters - We have kept Strikefighter with the 3 damage. At Fighter TL5, we allow Ints to engage missiles instead
Explanation - far more details are available in the main forum in various threads, but suffice it say that our experience with 2-damage Strikes is that they simply werent worth the tonnage/roles/tech to get them to the battle. Even at 3 damage they are VERY easily countered with a few defending Ints, a pile of cheap Gatlings, or Flak, or Clustermissiles. With this change however, players at least considered them somewhat of a threat unlike 'stock'
4) Alternating movement and firing - this is the biggie! Basically we are trying alternating between Aggressive and Tactical player each moving a ship and doing the same in the firing phase (alternating fire).
Explanation - After 20 some odd games, we decided we had just too many decided in a single fire phase. Also, games were becomes more like 'chicken' or 'mexican stand-off' since the Tactical player was loathe to engage unless he had a serious positional advantage. And on turns when two sides were roughly evenly matched, it just didnt make sense to move into effective range and lose a few ships before any of them could fire. It also just didnt 'feel' right to have to sit and brave ALL of the opposing fire before being able to shoot back.
Similarly, the movement started to take on some very 'gamey' overtones. The Aggressive player would have to sit off to the side of the map in some crazy arcings to make sure they couldnt be flanked and the Tactical players were also maneuver according the 'system' rather than anything that resembled something like 'fleet tactics'.
I've only tried the alternating once, but I was pretty happy with it. Yes, I can see how 'conga lines' could form, but I dont see that as any worse than what we saw with the 'all or nothing'. In addition, the alternating has created some VERY interesting tactical decisions as to WHICH ships to move when (and which to fire when). The dynamic seems to be that you want to have more ships during the movement phase (to give more options of what to move and preserve your 'critical' moves till last), but you want to have LESS ships in the firing phase (since each shot is more telling and more likely to pre-empt an opposing shot).
The other advantage we noticed was that it kept both players involved at all times. During movement, there was real back and forth on the tactic/counter and during firing, neither side felt like they were just 'taking it in the shorts' and eating ridiculous amounts of damage without being able to reply.
Mechanically, it wasnt difficult to implement or execute. We had decided to use beads as a memory aid, but in the end, it was completely unnecessary.
Of all of the house rules, I think this one most improved our experience. Granted it was only one play, but it felt like the system was very refreshed. I would highly recommend trying it for folks to see what they think. We'll keep an eye on it for signs of awkwardness, but so far it seems very superior to the standard sequence.
And that's all folks!
Here are the house rules that we've instituted and a brief explanation of why we made the change. Note that many of the things that we using as house rules previously are now 'official' with 2.0 rules for CB.
1) RDF: RDF role grants +1 Delta and +1 free turn (so a normal ship with purchased Delta of 1 would be Delta 2, and allowed 3 turns)
Explanation: We felt that RDF was just entirely too beneficial for the opportunity cost. It was not uncommon for our RDF fleets to not only win, but TROUNCE opposing fleets that were not predominantly RDF. The RDF role also sort of makes a mockery of missiles and terrain (too easy to dance around them). Add in a potential 'strategic' benefit for these ships in a campaign setting and we felt we had to do something.
Even with the 'speed limit', these ships would just go to max speed and dictate the terms of the fight. They could end up anywhere within range due to being to run circles around to bleed velocity off at will. We felt that even if these ships WERE beatable, the game devolved to initiative rolls.
2) Torps - We removed the hull type restrictions on AN Torps and made Plasma's CL+ We also gave Plasmas +2 Pen instead of +1.
Explanation: Torps weapons seem pretty substandard to ballistics and even disruptors for cost and tech. They werent BAD weapons, the others were just 'better' leaving it as a less desirable option. These changes allow them to be fielded on smaller ship to give those weapons a distinct role. They are the heavy hitters for the small fry, but they are extremely large and thus limited. Their existence however, prompts players to build ships to escort their caps and take out opposing small fry and creates more of a game within a game feel.
3) FIghters - We have kept Strikefighter with the 3 damage. At Fighter TL5, we allow Ints to engage missiles instead
Explanation - far more details are available in the main forum in various threads, but suffice it say that our experience with 2-damage Strikes is that they simply werent worth the tonnage/roles/tech to get them to the battle. Even at 3 damage they are VERY easily countered with a few defending Ints, a pile of cheap Gatlings, or Flak, or Clustermissiles. With this change however, players at least considered them somewhat of a threat unlike 'stock'
4) Alternating movement and firing - this is the biggie! Basically we are trying alternating between Aggressive and Tactical player each moving a ship and doing the same in the firing phase (alternating fire).
Explanation - After 20 some odd games, we decided we had just too many decided in a single fire phase. Also, games were becomes more like 'chicken' or 'mexican stand-off' since the Tactical player was loathe to engage unless he had a serious positional advantage. And on turns when two sides were roughly evenly matched, it just didnt make sense to move into effective range and lose a few ships before any of them could fire. It also just didnt 'feel' right to have to sit and brave ALL of the opposing fire before being able to shoot back.
Similarly, the movement started to take on some very 'gamey' overtones. The Aggressive player would have to sit off to the side of the map in some crazy arcings to make sure they couldnt be flanked and the Tactical players were also maneuver according the 'system' rather than anything that resembled something like 'fleet tactics'.
I've only tried the alternating once, but I was pretty happy with it. Yes, I can see how 'conga lines' could form, but I dont see that as any worse than what we saw with the 'all or nothing'. In addition, the alternating has created some VERY interesting tactical decisions as to WHICH ships to move when (and which to fire when). The dynamic seems to be that you want to have more ships during the movement phase (to give more options of what to move and preserve your 'critical' moves till last), but you want to have LESS ships in the firing phase (since each shot is more telling and more likely to pre-empt an opposing shot).
The other advantage we noticed was that it kept both players involved at all times. During movement, there was real back and forth on the tactic/counter and during firing, neither side felt like they were just 'taking it in the shorts' and eating ridiculous amounts of damage without being able to reply.
Mechanically, it wasnt difficult to implement or execute. We had decided to use beads as a memory aid, but in the end, it was completely unnecessary.
Of all of the house rules, I think this one most improved our experience. Granted it was only one play, but it felt like the system was very refreshed. I would highly recommend trying it for folks to see what they think. We'll keep an eye on it for signs of awkwardness, but so far it seems very superior to the standard sequence.
And that's all folks!