Jump to content

Kulikov

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kulikov

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Concord, 0, United States
  1. That's not my actual issue here. My problem is that the product line isn't providing access to pieces in an efficient way. Consider this: Each squadron set is going to come with a full compliment of cards to match. Any set after the first of a type will therefore include unnecessary card components; it's an impractical offering, and one that is wasteful. Alternatives abound the provide more fidelity, and can even be offered in addition to the current squadron boxes. That is one viable solution, though it is inefficient. I'm not saying there aren't options, I'm saying the current options are sub par and I don't see a glaring reason for why the product line is set up in such a way. Warhammer, Battlefleet Gothic, and Warmachine allow you to configure the pieces within the box to match the loadout you require. That isn't an option here. If the squadron box allowed you to get any combination of 8 squadrons, I wouldn't have a problem.
  2. Thank you for putting the work in on this.
  3. It bothers me that the only ways currently to add starfighters is to either buy a new core set (inefficient) or box sets of 8 stands, made up of two of each figher type. I would like more flexible options when it comes to purchasing these fighter stands, whether it be individual blisters that only contain the dials and ships, and then the cards can be purchased in a separate pack, or allowing any makeup of fighters as long as there are 8 stands worth. Even including one or two stands of fighters with the larger ship boxes would be an improvement. Because as it is right now, to get 7 *additional* TIE fighter stands through purchasing I'd need to spend ~$80 USD. Edited for correctness.
  4. I wonder why, if a Commander is required, there isn't a generic one that costs 0 points and provides no ability.
  5. That's a good point as well. I like the customization the upgrade cards allow.
  6. Thanks for explaining the rule with analysis. This will increase understanding and is helpful.
  7. I suggest allowing the Squadron command to apply to the repairs, so that if you use the squadron command, the fighters could move into contact with the activating ship, and then instead of attacking get 1 point of damage repaired. That would allow for better action economy and meaningful choice when selecting command dials.
  8. I understand better. Such as the case, rules as written add whichever dice suit your tactical needs. If FFG considers it an issue, I believe they will patch or FAQ it.
  9. If any color dice can be used in this context, would there be any reason to not use black dice? > If there is no reason to use dice other than the black dice, why would the objective card allow a choice of any color?
  10. Edit: I don't think hangar rules should be anything higher than optional, at both player's agreement. I've got an idea of what could be offered. You know how the space station offers repairs to any component that overlaps it? Ships with hangars could offer that 1 point of hull repair to a number of squadrons up to their Command value. That could extend the life of fighters as 'screens' to protect from bombers. Separately, and this is far closer to my personal interests, hangars offer an exciting array of utility for Campaign rules and scenarios. For example, if a force is ambushed, they probably wouldn't have their full complement of fighters deployed, or any fighters deployed if Imperial. For a Campaign, part of the game becomes resource management. Hangars would be integral to supporting fighter squadron components of the fleet and would give more differentiation between the different capital ships.
  11. I'd pick Y Wings for the most flexibility. The Lambda is more suited to infiltration, and the base keeps the campaign locked in one place until the party finds another means of leaving.
  12. - Political Prison break. - Party sees storm troopers harassing a local shopkeeper. If they don't intervene the troopers execute him and trash the stall. - The garrison is getting lazy. They've left a supply of arms / explosives / fuel unattended or lightly guarded.
  13. If you wanted a cinematic lightsaber duel, I'd adapt the rules for a challenge from FATE. Basically instead of recording wounds and damage, you set thresholds of successes and use opposed skill rolls (if both participants are using lightsabers). Determine how tough you want the NPC to be, to decide how many successes it will take to defeat them. Winning the opposed check decisively means the enemy will be defeated faster, while you can still chip away as long as you get at least 1 net success. This can have the back and forth dynamics and encourage players to use the environment (loose crates and such from Empire and Phantom) to generate boost dice.
  14. Then why make fast and maneuverable ships? Why would anyone manufacture them at all if they have no effect in combat conditions? Why not make nothing but heavy bombers like the y-wing and b-wing if maneuverability and speed has no signiicant advantage in a dogfight, especially considering outside of a dogfight, the y-wing and b-wing are definitely going to do better anyway since they have stronger and more heavy missiles/torpedoes. Now you're just asking questions that have to do with designs of aircraft. Quite frankly stressing the dog fighting capability as most important criteria means you are probably designing a poor aircraft. If you are in dog fights in air war you're strategy is failing and you're well on your way to losing. Modern fighter design doesn't stress dog fighting. Radar cross section, payload, combat radius, EW/ECM, and cost per flight hour are all far more important design considerations. The point carries over to the Alliance as well. Getting in lots of dogfights with TIEs would be an overwhelmingly stupid strategy. Having fighters that can deliver payloads against capital ships and facilities would be far more important. You bemoan the difference between A wings and Y wings but frankly the Y wing was a far more valuable vehicle to the Alliance. I've said it before but it bears repeating. There is no such thing as 'more maneuverable' against weapons that fire at light speed and computer targeting, you have a mythic attachment to that notion that simply isn't born out by historical example in war or physics. For starters in order for higher maneuverability to even play a part in being hit you have to know you are being targeted, but you aren't actually ever going to know when someone 'pulls the trigger' and since the round is moving at lightspeed you are not going to be able to react. Even if it were possible to react at lightspeed you have to be in a position to act on that information, but in a dogfight, or combat overall, you aren't always going to be positioned correctly by default 100% of the time, so you expecting that you will be isn't realistic. I understand that's what is realistic, and established from current history. It's also boring from both a cinematic, and thematic perspective. Star Wars is built out of mythic themes, and low realism. For example, you mention speed of light lasers, but the blaster bolts shown on screen are clearly discrete rounds within a frame, meaning they aren't travelling at the speed of light. Also the Imperials using walkers instead of tanks. Nothing in Star Wars gives any impression of realism or design for practicality. If realism was taken to a full extent, neither fighters nor missiles nor torpedoes would be a factor at all in space combat due to point defense laser cannons. I don't understand why if you wanted realistic simulations of space combat that you would choose Star Wars as a setting, rather than something like the Saginami Island tactical simulator or even Babylon 5. Realism isn't a strength of Star Wars. Add that to a game, where options and items should only be included if they provide a meaningful choice, and I'd like the maneuverability of an interceptor to play a larger role within space combat to make selecting the ship more of a meaningful choice. I still feel that the A wing is a poor example of a dogfighter. It is explicitly mentioned in the EU that it relies on it's speed, not maneuverabiity. We have already shown that this is best reflected mechanically by using the A wing's speed to get in and out of range before the enemy can react, rather than using Gain the Advantage to dogfight. The Xwing is the paramount dogfighter, aand should be your example. Ah. I assumed it was the Alliance's counter to the TIE Interceptor.
  15. Then why make fast and maneuverable ships? Why would anyone manufacture them at all if they have no effect in combat conditions? Why not make nothing but heavy bombers like the y-wing and b-wing if maneuverability and speed has no signiicant advantage in a dogfight, especially considering outside of a dogfight, the y-wing and b-wing are definitely going to do better anyway since they have stronger and more heavy missiles/torpedoes. The targeting computer being better than squishies makes realistic sense. But in universe, it feels like it flattens the experience to dogfighting if done today: guided missiles, people killing people they only see on scopes, no visual contact. And if that tone is taken, what advantage do the fast interceptor class ships provide? Especially since in the flicks blaster bolts have time to target, and so aren't fired at the speed of light. The only advantage in a pitched combat scenario that a fast ship would have is that it's harder to hit, speed only comes into play for outmaneuvering outside of combat. Especially since the A wing gives up some firepower for it's speed advantage. The targeting computers make practical and logical sense. That's how it works in the real world, guided missiles relying on computer systems and radar to strike fast targets. But I don't want that to take away from the breadth of experience that could be offered by mimicking WW2 aerial combat. I want all of the toys in the world to be useful. If there is no mechanical reason to use an A Wing in pitched combat over an X Wing, I'd like to change things so that each option is viable within it's role. Now, how would I do that without seriously changing the rules? I don't know yet. Perhaps gunnery against an active Silhouette 3 or less target's difficulty is the target's Piloting pool, but that doesn't make the A Wing by itself more useful. Perhaps ships at Speed 5 or more get setback dice as defense due to their evasion. Or make successful gunnery attacks re roll. Lots of options, but I need to study the game dynamics before tweaking them. Side note: No TIEs have turret mounted weapons. Couldn't the A Wing, moving faster than them, simply stay out of their firing arc? Perhaps that's the only advantage that they need.
×
×
  • Create New...