kashre
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 110
|
Post by kashre on Jul 7, 2010 13:20:14 GMT -5
I don't think we're going to mess around with it after some discussion, but I do think that if I were going to house-rule it I'd just give the mag cannon a D8 attack die instead of a D10 and leave it where it is on the chart. I don't think adding one more die type to the game to make an tier of guns between 6 and 10 is going to make things that much more complicated.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 7, 2010 13:26:10 GMT -5
Yeah, my original thought was d6+1, but even there, it's still 'better' than torps and disruptors and it's cheaper than torps. I'd still buy them 9 times out of 10 at TL3.
|
|
kashre
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 110
|
Post by kashre on Jul 7, 2010 19:34:49 GMT -5
Yeah, my original thought was d6+1, but even there, it's still 'better' than torps and disruptors and it's cheaper than torps. I'd still buy them 9 times out of 10 at TL3. I don't have the weapon chart to look at right now so there could be other factors here, but I think that the fact that torps have the added benefit of balanced sheild/hull damage goes a long way towards balancing things in general. A ship with mag cannons needs lasers to back them up, but all torp designs are viable, and in my experience really powerful in conjunction with large FC or RDF roles.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 8, 2010 11:38:23 GMT -5
Yeah, that is definitely a benefit, but not enough to compensate for both being on a d6 (instead of d10) and taking more tonnage IMO. The d6 means that you are more likely to miss with more torps, fully negating the extra damage to shields and if there ARE no shield, those misses are just total lost damage compared to the Mag. Shield purging weapons tend to be cheap/effcient at doing just that. So having your 'ship killers' do good shield damage isn't that huge of an advantage in many cases. Compared to the Plasma Torp, the Mag Cannon REALLY overshadows it. The added damage from the Plasma doesnt even compensate for the lost accuracy and the increased weight at all. So you have a lower tech weapon that is actually superior in many ways to the higher tech one. Again, is it a game-breaker? No, it sure isn't. But it just sort of sticks out as a 'better' weapon for similar tech slot and cost. I would expect people to gravitate to those choices over time (role-play and race flavor notwithstanding ). Oh and since I hate to offer critcism/analysis without a proposed solution, here would be two possible 'solutions': #1: Remove the +1 Pen on the Mag Cannon. This leaves it on par with the torpedo line. It does weaken it slightly vs the HDisruptor, the progression is still OK even there. #2: Increase the Plasma Torp's Pen by +1 (to d10+2). This gives it a purpose that the Mag Cannon can't do better per cost/accuracy (ie, punch through heavier armor more reliably). This would still leave the Mag clearly superior to the Disruptor line though, but at least there are other key benefits to climbing the Quantum Manip tree.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 8, 2010 13:02:15 GMT -5
Plasma torp is a bad comparison. Deliberately designed on the conservative side.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 8, 2010 13:05:40 GMT -5
Don't know why you're stressing the mag cannon so much.
It's not breaking anything, and it just ensures that the mag cannon is the premier weapon for heavy cruisers, just as the rail gun variants are the premier weapon for capital ships.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 8, 2010 13:25:09 GMT -5
If that's the goal, then it's likely accomplished IMO because it is a superior weapon to others in the game tonnage band.
I just figure it's more interesting to design ships when there are more options that are equivalent, but play differently. I can't imagine why you'd really want to use AN Torps, Plasma Torps, and HDisruptors on your ships if you have the Mag Cannon.
For a space combat game, having more variety in weapon systems helps differentiate it from say, gun-era wet navy games where the heavy main gun armament is king.
I guess a different way of putting it is why include other options if there is one that better (even if just slightly)? I'm asking that as an honest question. Competitive players will natural move towards those better options. Non-competitive may or may not, but I dont see the harm in having the weapon choices balanced against each other as closely as possible.
As I said, is it 'breaking' anything? No, but it does represent an obvious choice for weaponry which in turn reduces to the variety of ship people will field in competitive games.
No biggie either way. If we start to see too many of the things, we'll end up house ruling it. I just wasnt aware that you had a specific vision for how you thought ships in 'x' class should be armed. If you do, then yeah, giving those weapons a slight break like this will eventually lead players where you want them.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 8, 2010 13:42:18 GMT -5
Part I of II I think part of the problem is you are approaching the rules from a competitive standpoint. Which is partially my fault.
I didn't write CB to be a competitive tournament-style game. However, I was obsessed with making sure it was "unbreakable" because no other starship game even came close, and because I was told it couldn't be done.
My vision for CB was really what I thought most people wanted out of a tactical starship combat game. A flexible, unbreakable system that would allow people to fight starship battles in their favorite sci-fi setting. The Colonial Battlefleet setting was only an afterthought, and the 'default' TL5s across the board were only the default tech settings because that's how we had to playtest it -- include everything plus the kitchen sink and get as extreme as you can to see if the system can be broken.
I'm glad that people have really taken to the system for its own merits and are having fun designing their own factions. I had hoped people would, but I never really expected that to get as much use as the popular settings. To be honest, I thought most people would use it primarily for BSG.
The purpose of the tech levels was to allow for easy ways to customize the system to other settings. That's why some of the weapons are in the order they are on the tech charts. You have really taken analysis of the tech trees to a whole new step and are looking at in from a very metagamy perspective. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not in alignment with the design goals.
For instance, nowhere was in my intention that weapons at the same tech level would necessarily all be equally viable. Furthermore, I'm not uncomfortable that some weapons - given an unlimited tech environment - would be the natural forerunners. That's the way its worked historically - everyone builds ships along the same general lines because that's what works best. So the question was really "which weapon was it going to be." For part, there are plenty of games out there designed around the SW/ST style where beam weapons are all that matter. I wanted a more BSG/Lost Fleet style where kinetic kill, missiles, and armor are king.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 8, 2010 13:55:19 GMT -5
Part II of II For the competitive side of the game. . . the CB core rules are only 1/2 of the vision. I had intended competitive play to be set within the context of a campaign framework that accords benefits and penalties for victories and defeats. Even with a system as brilliantly designed as CB the "I build my fleet, you build your fleet" approach only carries you so far. I really liked your suggestions on shifting armor and tweaking the other tech trees, because they are critical to my vision of the campaign setting. . . but whether mag cannons are slightly better or worse than the other weapons at the same TL will matter a whole lot less to you when you're starting at tech levels 1s and 0s and having to spend resources to buy them up. Sure, you can go for the conventional weapons tree because it's got all the sexiest weapons at the top end. . . on the other hand you can get a faster payoff by pursuing some of the other techs which are better towards the lower end. And of course, you have to balance what you are researching against what your opponent is researching. Don't know if you've ever played any roleplaying games, but this example is pretty straight forward: Assigning a certain number of tech points and building from that is like rolling up a D&D character at 10th level. When you're just coming in half-way through, you have the luxury of picking only the very best magic items for everything. That's why D&D characters rolled up at higher levels are almost always more powerful than D&D characters brought up from 1st. But the landscape looks very different when you're starting at the bottom and working up. Getting those mag cannons will be a priority because they're pretty sweet, but how much of a priority vs other techs? Benefit now/benefit later? In that respect, having each tech confer pretty much exactly the same level of benefit on the way up would ruin the excitement of the campaign system. If I can be sure that the next level of tech I purchase is going to put me on par with everybody else no matter what they have and no matter what I have. . . then it's pretty boring. Now, especially with your brilliant armor suggestion - which tech level to increase each time is going to be a much more agonizing decision. Anyway. . . that's kinda where I'm coming from. YMMV.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 8, 2010 14:21:43 GMT -5
OK, understood. We'll just keep our further tweaks in the realm of the House Rules tm. And FWIW, I agree 100% that 'one off' battles will never be 'equal' in any type of system like this. There is simply too much scope for 'overloading' one aspect of the system and catching the opponent by surprise and winning with little issue ("Every battle is won before it's ever fought" is pretty much the M.O. with my crew...for better or worse ) We'll look forward to the campaign system then. I'm sure they'll find ways to 'abuse' that too.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 8, 2010 14:32:58 GMT -5
Hmmm. . . well I don't agree that the system is 'abusable'. Just that mag cannons are slightly cooler than other weapons at the same tech level and plasma torps are slightly less than. Neither one allows you to dominate the game with a particular ship design.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 8, 2010 15:29:41 GMT -5
Ok, perhaps better put as 'stress the system' I mean, I didnt really consider the Gatling ACs much of a threat to larger ships till my friend demonstrated a pair of smallish BC with a battery of Phazors and 20 Gatling ACs. The hull damage output to even large ships was not bad and smaller ships were vaporized with no issue with plenty of firepower to spare. In any case, I know my crowd typically tends to using the 'best' stuff (not necessarily biggest/heaviest/whatever, but most efficient per ton/space/MCr/whatever). They'll spend time building spreadsheets to graph damage and they'll crunch all the numbers. I tend to be closer to design by 'feel' and then let them tear it apart and iterate from there. I have my own home-grown set of rules, but it's development dates back to the late '80s so your system does many things 'better'. It's also fresh and different and currently a lot of fun for us. I'm sure they'll continue to look for loopholes that they can play with or barring that, simply analying and find the 'best' combinations of hulls/weapons/whatever to use. And then I'll change stuff on them and send them back to square one.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 8, 2010 16:17:03 GMT -5
" The purpose of the tech levels was to allow for easy ways to customize the system to other settings."I always thought that parts of the tech tree wouldn't be available in every setting. I wondered why a setting would have big guns, shields, armor, fighters and lasers. They just didn't all go together. I guess I grew up with all these shows/movies so there wasn't a lot of different tech. Of course if a writer needed to do something for a show, even if they had never used it before or again, that was okay. I do think the Fleetbooks will help define some of this and that the basic rules are and should be the building block/spring board for books to come.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 8, 2010 18:37:08 GMT -5
OK, and since I can't leave well enough alone... Here is a quick idea to bounce: What about removing the CA+ restriction on the AN Torp and Plasma Torp? That would all of sudden give the a torps a clear role again without diminishing the dynamic of having CA+s tending towards larger ballistics. DDs and CLs could then carry them and you have a bit more reason to climb the Anti-matter Manip tree a bit. It also nicely mirrors a lot of sci-fi settings (and real world navies) where small DDs can carry a torpedo that is a threat. I can't see it causing any balance hassles because: 1) There are already hard limits on the number of DDs/CLs you can bring. 2) The tonnage on the higher torps means that you certainly wont be carrying much else! 3) Fighters can now pre-empt weak small craft a bit easier. I think the general effect would simply to be to give more option for people to explore at minimal risk/hassle. And it would easily preserve the 'flavor' of the system. And if it gives more incentive to deploy light screening forces your battleline, so much the better! Thoughts on that? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 8, 2010 18:49:39 GMT -5
I think we need to leave things as they are after the changes that have been recommended. In fact, I'm not totally sure what all has changed or is just under consideration, or as been declined. Dread is working on an update and I'm sure he wants to get it out. I think we need that done so we can see how all of this interacts before anything else is considered. IMO of course.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 8, 2010 19:10:27 GMT -5
Yeah, that's why I'm trying to get as much playtesting and feedback before the upcoming version in.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 8, 2010 23:03:58 GMT -5
|
|
kashre
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 110
|
Post by kashre on Jul 9, 2010 1:07:38 GMT -5
Hrm.. On one hand, I kind of like the idea of being able to fit one high-pen type weapon on a destroyer or CL... so far my experience with the game has been that light (non screen) ships are basically fodder for the heavy ships, but they do serve nicely as missile sponges and blocking forces...with a side order of anti-fighter. This would make lighter ships more viable against larger ships... On the other hand, I get the feeling the game was intended to have weak lighter units, much like it was intended to have fighters that a lot weaker than some other game systems... so maybe it's not such a good idea. Also, missiles already fill the "traditional torpedo" role. Anyways, I still don't think the mag cannon is superior to the plasma torp, and tbh, even less so compared to the anti-neutron (which is the real comparison). Plasma torp: pen d10+1, shield + hull damage =.88/t AN Torp: pen d10+1 shield +hull damage = 1.0/t Mag cannon: pen d10+1, s+h damage = .84/t if you take a size class 3 ships with 3 mag guns backed up by 6 turbo lasers on the wings, you get .97 damage per ton but less damage total than you could have gotten with just 6 AN torps. Mag cannons do get superior hull damage/ton... but that's what you'd expect, and imo it doesn't make it better... just different. The biggest difference is in the range and accuracy, given the slow speeds in this game and relatively short "effective" range of even FC4 sniper boats, I don't see having a D6 attack die as that much of a detriment, at least when you put the torps on RDF ships. Torps on slowpoke battleline ships... that's a different story... (one that involves me getting my butt kicked). Anyways.... thats my 2 cents, just had to get it off of my chest. In the end, I think the fact that we're arguing about it means the game is pretty well balanced as it is.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 9, 2010 8:03:25 GMT -5
Yes, it's the accuracy that is the kicker. A d6, even when it's just 1 to miss is much more likely to get that '1' than a d10. So your actual damage output is lower on average.
I just thought it would be cool to give people some incentive to go down the AM path. The torps arent BAD, but they offer nothing that you can't get the same or better with the Mag. I figured if you could use them on DDs or CLs, then that opens up an option to explore without upsetting the ballistics route.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 9, 2010 12:43:50 GMT -5
In the end, I think the fact that we're arguing about it means the game is pretty well balanced as it is. I believe you are correct in your thinking. The discussions have been fun, and in the end will make the game better. But I do think it is well balanced now.
|
|