Norman Dizon:

Re: Disengagement.

I fear I am misunderstood. What I was doing was pointing to the rule that I thought someone else was referring to. Yes, the overall rule heading is "Stalemate," but it says "the forcing moving away is deemed to have disengaged." and "disengaged" means "disengaged," i.e., the player moving away has in essence involuntarily disengaged, and the other player has won (gains the victory points for his opponent disengaging).


Norman Dizon Asked: In the Nicozian Thread, you said that the idea of using the Wild Weasel to nullify the Nicozian's Skip Missiles was easy to counter. You just include an Explosive Skip Missile with a batch of Anti-Shield Skip Missiles. But I am not sure how you mean for that to work. The Anti-Shield Skip Missiles are going to have to strike the Nicozian (not the Wild Weasel) during the Post-Explosion Period of the Wild Weasel. So it seems the Explosive Skip Missile cannot be stacked with all the Anti-Shield Missiles in one hex. Do you mean the Explosive Skip Missile should be sent before the Anti-Shield Missiles? Or that all the Skip Missiles should be staggered over many impulses with the single Explosive Skip Missile somewhere in the mix? When exactly should the Explosive Skip Missile be launched so that the Anti-Shield Skip Missiles won't be distracted by the Wild Weasel?

ANSWER: Under rule (FD94.13) if you have an anti-shield missile and an explosive missile in the same hex, both targeted on ship A, and ship A launches a wild weasel, when the two missiles hit the weasel the anti-shield missile's damage will be resolved first [resulting in no damage to the wild weasel under (FD94.111)] then the explosive missile would be resolved, doing eight points of damage (FD95.11), sufficient to destroy even an advanced admin shuttle. This resolution is the same whether you have two anti-shield missiles and one explosive missile, or three anti-shield missiles and an explosive missile (full strike by a Nicozian CA is four missiles). If, on the other hand, ship A did not launch a wild weasel and was hit by the two missiles, then the anti-shield missile would do 16 points of shield damage (resolved before the explosive warhead missile), and the explosive warhead missile would then do eight points of either shield (assuming the shield still had at least eight points after the anti-shield missile was resolved), or some number of shield damage points and the rest of its value applied as internal damage, or eight points of internal damage if the anti-shield missile destroys the shield. This same sequence is used if there are two anti-shield missiles and one explosive missile, or three anti-shield missiles and an explosive missile. The explosive missile does not have to precede the anti-shield missiles, but can travel with them in the same stack. It is just that when the missiles impact, the anti-shield missiles will only damage shield boxes, and must have their damage resolved first, and if there are no shield boxes (whether the unit never had shields, such as a wild weasel, or had the facing shield destroyed) they score no damage. There is no way to force a voiding of the weasel, so all you are doing by including the explosive missile is making sure the weasel goes away. The enemy cannot recover it and rearm it and use it as a weasel again, nor can he sit under it for successive turns, if he launches it, it gets destroyed, and if you launch missiles on Turn #1, and he launches the weasel, and the missiles destroy the weasel (due to the timing) early in Turn #2, then you can wait for the explosion period to end and launch more missiles during Turn #2, and he will have to use another weasel, and he will run out of weasels before you run out of missiles. But if you only use anti-shield warheads, he can sit under a weasel for a long time, or (after the anti-shield missiles hit it), void it by activating his fire control, fire at you, tractor the shuttle back aboard and launch another shuttle as a wild weasel while rearming the first one.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Norman Dizon:

To be clear, no one expects perfection, and I am just making observations on tactics from my former lofty perch as the best player in a small group (big fish in a small pond). There are lots of players who are far better than I ever was (Paul Scott, Norman Cruz, Bill Schoeller to name just a few, but that list is far longer) when I played a lot. I read what is posted and tend to run it through the filters in my own mind to find "what is not written" and point to those things that I think are important for everyone to consider. And I do so with trepidation because perhaps what I think I am seeing is not there. Maybe the Gorn had some reason why a high energy turn was not a good idea for example. I cannot know, and contingently allocating for one would have cost him another point of speed. The "feel" of the report left me thinking the things I noted (that he did not consider a high energy turn, than he tried to arm all of the plasma torpedoes at one time costing him speed at a bad time, etc.). It did not mean I was right, but I wanted to make sure everyone would consider as much of the tactical situation as they could. Not just "the Gorn got caught," but "why did the Gorn get caught?"

Believe me, I appreciate the effort here very much, but I am trying to do my part of the job and analyze what is presented rather than just make changes based on partial and incomplete data. In so doing, I hope to also help your group improve their gaming skills overall by providing some tactical insight [which might be in error, after all,it has been many years since I was part of an active gaming group, which makes me little better than the crusty old soldier snarling at all of you young whippersnappers (GRIN)].

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Thanks for the clarification and explanation, SPP. We very much welcome and appreciate your insight. That is why I asked for your tactical advice previously over in the Borak Thread.

I also agree that changes should not be made based on a single Playtest Duel or incomplete data. I feel that there should be numerous Playtest Reports against a whole variety of empires. Each Playtest Report should be analyzed, as you said, not just for "what" happened, but for "why" it happened. Ideally, the more Playtest Reports you have from different Groups and Players, the better. It is a long and lengthy process to trudge though each Playtest Report one at a time, but we believe the Nicozians (and others) are worth the effort.

I apologize for not being clear enough on my question about the wild weasel. It was not so much a question of what happens when an anti-shield skip missile strikes a wild weasel, but rather how mixing an explosive skip missile in with a batch of anti-shield skip missiles could somehow nullify the wild weasel defensive strategy.

Here are the specific references from the previous conversation:


Dennis Surdu:
I guess my main tactical point regarding no damage to a WW is that you really can effectively use a WW to evade and distract a large number of missiles indefinitely. Of course this has implications for the WW using ship too but interesting nonetheless!

SPP:
Dennis Surdu:

I do not understand your point.

If you are concerned about wild weasels, include one explosive warhead (FD95.0) in your missile swarm. Even if the anti-shield missiles will not damage the wild weasel, the explosive missile will destroy the weasel (unless it is based on an advanced MRS or GAS shuttle). If the target does not weasel, the explosive missile will do half the damage of the anti-shield missile it is replacing, but it will score its damage after the anti-shield missiles, and if the shield was dropped by the anti-shield missiles it will score internal damage unlike the anti-shield missiles.

Dennis Surdu:
SPP...agreed. It just seems more possible is all that a WW can be (stress can be) a much greater tactical nuisance to the Nicos if they hope to maximize the intent of the anti- shield missiles.

SPP:
And, again, note that tactics matter. I agree with the note that if you only use anti-shield warheads a single wild weasel is impervious too and can deal with an unlimited number of them and yawn, but a single explosive warhead included in the swarm is enough to destroy that weasel and does not really harm the overall value of the swarm if it hits the real target. (Not pointing fingers or anything here, just noting that tactics matter and to me the wild weasel can defeat an infinite number of anti-shield skip-warp missiles is just not that big an issue because there is what seems to me to be an easy tactical solution.


So here is what I was getting from all that: a Nicozian gets lucky enough to get an enemy ship in his centerline, so he can fire all 4 skip missiles at once (if he wants to). He has both anti-shield and explosive skip missiles at his disposal. But the Nicozian also knows that the enemy ship has a wild weasel prepared and is just waiting to use it. I thought you were implying there was some way for the Nicozian to use his skip missiles to both take out the wild weasel and successfully land skip missile strikes on the enemy ship. But I guess this is not the case.

I see these possibilities:

1) The Nicozian launches all 4 skip missiles. The Wild Weasel is launched and all 4 skip missiles never hit the enemy ship.

2) The Nicozian launches two skip missiles (one explosive, one anti-shield). The Wild Weasel is launched and both skip missiles are destroyed. Then the Nicozian launches the other two skip missiles, successfully scoring damage on the enemy ship with them.

3) The Nicozian launches one skip missile at a time. The enemy ship does not want to waste the Wild Weasel on just one skip missile, so he does not launch the Wild Weasel. This staggered skip missile launching strategy prevents the launching of the Wild Weasel, but also makes it so that your Skip Missiles are not all together in a single wave.

So I would guess that, like Drones, the Wild Weasel is an effective defense against Skip Missiles, but with the same drawbacks (slow speed, etc.). I suppose I was looking for a magical tactic with the skip missiles that just does not exist.

Thanks for all your help.
p.s.) I really enjoy your Blog Entries. Blowing the Bridge was entertaining, defeating your opponent with your Reputation alone was funny, your interaction with Jean's Dog is curious, and your Adventures with Lady Kara were great!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Norman Dizon:

Dennis Surdu made the observation that a wild weasel could indefinitely stop skip warp missiles. I was countering that the solution was to include a single explosive missile in the launch.

Wild weasels, tactically, are something you launch when the number of seeking weapons that are going to hit you exceeds any other ability to fend them off. It is a desperation ploy.

As "anti-shield" warheads will not damage a wild weasel, the tactic remains something of a desperate move, but the upside is that if the Nicozian only uses warheads that will not damage the weasel you can recover and reuse the weasel over and over again.

I note simply that the counter is to make sure the weasel cannot be used repeatedly by insuring its destruction, and that a explosive warhead is not that much of a sacrifice for the Nicozian.

24 points of damage will destroy the flank shields of most ships of size class 3 or smaller, which can then be exploited with the Auger, so it is not much of a tactical sacrifice to use half anti-shield and half explosive warheads at the start of a battle. And doing so means that if the opponent uses wild weasels, you destroy them and the resource disappears. A Klingon or Kzinti can typically use only two wild weasels (only two shuttles), a Fed or a Lyran command cruiser can use four. If they want to use the tactic, use it against them. Destroy the shuttles and exploit their slow speed.

As a Nicozian, you do need to consider the mix of skip warp missiles. You need the anti-shield missiles early in the fight, but once your opponent has multiple down shields, you need explosive warheads late in the fight (otherwise the now shieldless enemy ship can ignore the missiles, or turn down shields to the anti-shield missiles to help protect his remaining shields. Note, it is not an invalid tactic for a ship fighting the Nicozians to tractor anti-shield warheads, and then use rotation (or turning his ship) to face a down shield to them, or even drop an intact shield in front of them, and then allow them to hit. Timing matters, and being sure to identify any missile that is going to hit you is important. Explosive missiles do have to be killed if at all possible, but anti-shield missiles (again, you need to identify them) can have their weakness (they only damage shields) exploited.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 07:14 pm: Edit

CLARIFICATION: My statement "half anti-shield and half explosive warheads" in the above refers to having half of your skip warp missiles carrying standard anti-shield warheads and the other half being fitted with explosive warheads, not that a special "half anti-shield and half explosive" warhead existed.

And obviously rigidly using such a half and half mix would be self-defeating. You need to figure out (as in all players) what works best for you and your style of play. A Nicozian CA has 32 spaces of skip warp missiles ready to go, and might adopt a mix of 18 explosive, 12 anti-shield, and two electro-magnetic pulse warheads. His plan being to use he anti-shield missiles (and if me, some explosive warheads in the mix) early in the battle to weaken shields, and then switch to the explosive only late in the battle when most of the opponent's shields are down (so that he still has to consider the skip warp missiles dangerous rather than just letting anti-shield missiles hit his down shields for no damage) and the EMP missiles as a possible surprise (like voiding the enemy's last weasel and allowing three explosive drones to smack his ship).

We all need to figure our own tactics for dealing with the enemies of the Concordance. We know they are all out to get us. We must kill them all for the good of the Concordance. Or because they are ugly. Or big, or . . .

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 10:57 pm: Edit

It does seem that allowing the Nicos missiles to forego a skip move is a broad solution to many of the eccentricities of their play. Will this become an official ruling? By the way, is their official release as a new empire imminent? What other changes to them are contemplated, if any?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, January 20, 2014 - 10:23 am: Edit

Dennis Surdu:

They are still playtest. The Skip Warp thing is an official ruling, there was enough on that as a problem that I went ahead with that ruling. As to the rest, insufficient playtest data to make any other changes or consider any other changes, at least in my book.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, January 20, 2014 - 04:32 pm: Edit

I was looking back over this thread, and wondered if there was any update on the issue of which (if either) "pulse phaser" should be renamed (and, if so, to what new name): (E98.0) or (EN102.0).

For my own part, I suggested that (E98.0) be changed, perhaps to either Phaser-D (dual mode) or Phaser-T (twin phaser). Or might Phaser-N (for Nicozian) be an option instead?

Or is that the kind of decision that might need to wait until either type of weapon approaches formal publication?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, January 20, 2014 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

Well, as I said before when this was brought up, something will need to be changed sometime, but as currently it does not create any confusion in the playtesting, it does not need to be resolved now, since doing so WOULD create confusion in the playtesting. The people testing Nicozians are not running up against the Triangulum Galaxy and telling them to report pulse phasers as something different now would confuse the issue. The obverse applies to the Triangulum galaxy.

Does it need to be fixed?

Yes.

Does it need to be fixed now?

No.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, January 20, 2014 - 07:55 pm: Edit

SPP:

Understood, and thank you for the reply.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Monday, March 03, 2014 - 12:03 pm: Edit

Norman, have you had a chance to do any more Nicozian playtesting?

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Monday, March 03, 2014 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Hi Stephen. Not yet. I have been so focused this last month on completing the Retro Galaxy. This last weekend we were playtesting the Galactic Defenders, the Pherdan, and the Butterflera. It was a load of fun.

But we are going to be meeting up a few more times this week (including tonight). So we will rotate back to the official material and do another round of playtesting for the Nicozians, Peladine, and Borak.

Have you and Dennis had a chance to playtest the Nicozians further?

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Monday, March 03, 2014 - 04:36 pm: Edit

No,we haven't--we have been exploring a few other races. Maybe we will do a Nico game in the not too distant future: I would like to. Our games are all on a closed map. If and when we do I will try to describe the battle. Though I don't think I can match your very detailed and well written reports.

Alas, we don't have many opportunities to play.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Monday, March 03, 2014 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Maybe I can retire early and play more :-) Good news is that work will let up a bit soon and we will get some games in. Trobrin versus Run game we just played was fun. The Ryn are actually quite a challenge!

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, March 04, 2014 - 07:21 pm: Edit

I have read through C91.0 Skip-Warp, and I know this sounds goofy, and yes I understand that Warp is the answer, but what is the rule reference for how Skip-Warp boxes are destroyed on the DAC.

I read through and skimmed the rules but I can't find the reference.

Thanks.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 03:11 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

Just out of curiosity, what did you think skip warp would be hit on?

Do we need to add a reference for a special DAC damage note for the center warp engines of Hoverwarp ships in Module C4 and Module P6 to be hit on since they are warp engines that happen to be the only ones that can generate hoverwarp points?

I am not being sarcastic here (honest), just somewhat bemused.

None of the Nicozian SSDs use "SWARP-L" or "SWARP-R," they are just 'WARP-L" and "WARP-R" (okay, just the three letter "WRP" with an "L" or "R" in the box below the word, but still).

Module R107 also included an annexes extract covering the Nicozians.

There is no special damage listing for Nicozian warp engines under Annex #7E.

There is no special repair cost listed Nicozian skip warp engines in Annex #9, or any mention of a different repair cost in their rule. Nor any restriction preventing them from being hastily repaired as AWRs.

So I am somewhat bemused that this comes up.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 06:45 pm: Edit

Steve,

"and yes I understand that Warp is the answer" so yes I know what the answer is.

I was just curious if I missed something in the rules.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 09, 2014 - 10:35 am: Edit

Where were the CA & CL first published? I have a note see page 9 but I don't have a product reference.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 09, 2014 - 11:42 am: Edit

Found it - SFT V2.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, April 12, 2014 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Dennis and I finally had a chance to play test the Nicos again. I too a Nico CA, with half 10 speed and half 20 speed anti-shield missiles. He took a Kzinti CC. We played on a closed map.

On the first turn we charged at each other. I fired four missiles, while he launched a scatter pack. At range 20 I fired the SAs and caused 8 points of damage, and then turned away to the right. He knocked out my missiles with dogfight drones.

On turn 2, I ran, firing missiles--all knocked down by dogfight drones. He fired disrupters and phasers at me, knocking out most of the #6 shield.

On turn three I reloaded the SAs, but still ran from the drones, moving along the edge of the board. He fired more drones at my ship. I fired two missiles that finally evaded his dogfight drones, but he destroyed them with phasers. His drones finally caught up with me. I destroyed most of them with phasers 3s, but one got in one shield 6, and shield 5. He also fired disruptors again and phasers, getting about 20 internals.

I considered charging him. But there was another wave of drones coming at me, and I had only reduced his number 1 shield a little. All my phasers were needed to fire at drones, while against shields, my SAs did little damage.

So we quit the game, though I would have tried to run if I could have gotten away.

Again, as we found earlier, against disruptor or proton torpedo, and drone races especially, the Nicos have a hard time, at least on a closed map. I admit to a couple of mistakes, such as not grabbing a drone with tractor, which could have led to a drone hitting on a fresh shield instead of the weakened one it did hit on, and not checking with labs on a wave of drones, which my possibly caused me to not be hit by one of them.

But we both strongly doubt it would make much of a difference. He could knock out my missiles with drones, while I have to use the phasers to knock out him, with no guarantee of success against all of them. The Nico's SAs are weak against shields, and since both the missiles have a hard time hitting, and the phasers are needed for defense, the SAs cannot cut through to the ship before the enemy's heavy weapons and phasers cut into the Nico.

We still think that the Nico's are broken. at least on a closed map, in duels, and against disruptor/photon races with drones.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, April 12, 2014 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Why not use your Special Sensors to turn off his drones?

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, April 12, 2014 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Yes, I considered that, and perhaps should have done so. That might have worked better. But there is only so much energy, and I was trying to move fast to keep away.

And of course, once you fire anything the sensors are blinded.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Saturday, April 12, 2014 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Hi Stephen. Its great you had a chance to playtest the Nicozians again. Thanks for the detailed report.

Since you asked for any thoughts, I will offer my opinions. Please don't take anything personally; I cannot help but analyze your battle.

I think there is not enough data at this point to consider the Nicozians broken (IMO). Further playtests, against a variety of empires, on an open map and closed map, are needed (IMO). However, I suspect the Nicozians are, in fact, broken, but not for the exact reasons that you do. My reasons have to do with the design work I have been doing on GenesisGalaxies.Com.

Your single, most powerful defense against Drones (and other Seeking Weapons) would have been Warp Field Distortion Mines. Transporter Bombs would also have been useful against Drones. Dennis anticipated facing skip-warp missiles, so he took Dogfight Drones. Is there a particular reason you didn't take any Warp Field Distortion Mines or Transporter Bombs?

In addition, I don't think it was fair to take a CC against a CA. You could argue that the BPVs were the same and so the fight was fair. You could also say that there is not much difference between the Kzinti BC and the Kzinti CC, because the Kzinti CC only has 2 more APR, 2 Flag Bridge, and better Drone Racks.

The big difference comes in the number of Drones that the Kzinti CC can field at once. The Kzinti CC can control a number of Drones equal to double its Sensor Rating. The Nicozian CA can only control 6 skip-warp missiles at once. This is an unfair advantage (IMO).

If you look back at SPP's post on 11/9/13, he states, "A Nicozian CA is 156 BPV (assuming all skip warp missile frames are Speed 10), is it really that outmatched against ... a Kzinti BC with type-IF drones in its drone racks (again a difference of four BPV in the Nicozian's favor)? ". Notice that SPP does not indicate to fight a Kzinti CC, but rather a Kzinti BC (which IMO is more of a fair fight against a Nicozian CA).

Also, there seems to be a minor rules violation in your duel. Under (FD2.51) Dogfight Drones, it clearly states, "Dogfight Drones cannot be loaded on or fired by any drone racks except E and G (and ADDs). Looking at the Kzinti CC SSD from the Basic Set, it has Type B and C Drone Racks (and No ADDs). So those Dogfight Drones should never have been there (plus the whole Kzinti CC vs Nicozian CA thing).

There are some other tactical options you could have considered. One of them is dropping out of Skip-Warp Movement to go to regular Warp Movement. This would have allowed you to High Energy Turn. A High Energy Turn could have been useful for a lot of things, one of which is to turn a fresh shield toward incoming danger.

Another tactic you could have used is to overrun the Kzinti CC right off the bat. Consider that the Nicozian has 16 PH-3s. Each PH-P can fire 2 PH-3s. The Nicozian CA has 4 PH-Ps in the FH and 4 PH-Ps in the RH. Get the opponent to your side and you've got all Phasers pointed right at him. Overrun him, and you've got 8 PH-3s on the way in and 8 PH-3s on the way out. 8 PH-3s is going to do from 24 to 32 points of damage. 16 PH-3s is going to be twice that.

If you were using the overrun tactic, save the Augers until after one of his shields is down. On the following impulse, fire all (or two) of the Augers through that down shield (brought down by the PH-Ps) and score Triple Internals.

Use standard Drone tactics by launching a one wave of skip-warp missiles on one turn, then launch some more on the next turn and follow the whole wave in. This will setup your overrun attack.

Most likely, you will end up taking Disruptor and Phaser fire on the way in. He will blow through a shield and score internals. But consider your Collapsium Armor. It advantage lies in blocking repeated strikes, even with shields down. So, in the long run, if you both have down shields and internals taken, you will end up with Collapsium Armor and he will not. This could give you an important edge.

Yes, you could have used your Special Sensors to counter his Drones. Under (G24.22) you could have Broken Lock-Ons three times per turn with each channel. But firing any weapon would have Blinded Your Special Sensors (one weapon blinds one special sensor and the Nicozian CA has two special sensors). Curiously, I found under (G24.1341) it states, "Weapons that DO NOT blind sensor channels include: phaser-3, ADD, suicide shuttle, scatter-pack, and drones launched from drone racks." Checking the Nicozian Skip-Warp Missile rules, I found nothing about launching Skip-Warp Missiles blinding special sensors. So it seems you could have used the Special Sensors to Break the Lock-On of the incoming Drones while still being able to launch Skip-Warp Missiles yourself.

As for limited power to use Special Sensors, (G24.14) says it only costs one point of energy to operate each channel. So that is only two points of energy per turn to counter his incoming drones.

Another tactical option would have been to use ECM. That would have changed many things. Both of your Power Curves would have been affected by an ECM Battle.

Lastly, I would have highly recommended to take a few Armor Modules under (FD94.22) and (FD95.21). This would have increased the damage required to destroy the Skip-Warp Missiles from 5 to 9. Mix them with regular Skip-Warp Missiles and watch him try to counter them all. You will have a better chance of one slipping through to hit his shield with armored Skip-Warp Missiles taking 9 points of damage.

So why do I suspect the Nicozians may be broken? It is because, as I have been designing new empires for GenesisGalaxies.Com, I have thought about the Nicozians more and more from a design perspective.

The Nicozians are very similar to Kzintis, because they both have 4 Drones/Missiles and plenty of PH-3s/PH-Ps. So what are the differences?

The Kzinti has 4 Disruptors for Heavy Weapons. The Nicozian has 4 Subspace Augers. After carefully examining the Subspace Auger damage chart, you will see that the Auger only does the damage of a Phaser-1! At Range 0, best die roll, it scores 8 points of damage. Then it scales down to 0 and 1 at long range. That is pretty bad for a Heavy Weapon. Also, this is a two turn weapon (due to the Cool-Down). So a standard Photon does 8 points of damage at any range and an overloaded Photon can do 16 points of damage at any range. The Subspace Auger only does 8 at Range 0 on its best roll? And much worse at range and with bad rolls. So what other advantages does the Subspace Auger have to balance it against the legendary Photon Torpedo?

Well, it is designed for long range combat. It can score decent damage at Ranges 9-20, 21-24, and 25-40. Definitely more than a PH-1 is capable of doing at that range. So there is one plus.

The other is the Triple Internal damage. But if the Shields are never penetrated, this advantage does not come into play. IMO, this should be reduced to Double Damage, since that is already a big advantage (Triple is a bit overkill).

So we end up with a two turn, long range weapon, that does killer internal damage, but only PH-1 damage against shields. IMO, not quite the equivalent of a Disruptor firing every turn or a Photon firing every other turn.

Then we look at the Nicozian (CA) ship itself. This CA has 20 point Shields for #1, #2, and #6 and 16 point Shields for #4, #5, and #3. The Nicozian CA has 90 Internals. The Kzinti BC has 101 Internals. IMO, this is why the Nicozian CA gets hurt so easily, even with the Collapsium Armor.

The Special Sensors are interesting to have on a CA, but they don't reach their full potential because of the Blinding Rules. This forces the Nicozian CA to either use the Special Sensors in a Limited Fashion (by only Blinding One Special Sensor and only firing one weapon) or to play a totally defensive turn using both Special Sensors at once.

IMO, Special Sensors are best reserved for Scouts in Fleet Actions. How often will we see a Fleet of Nicozian ships moving around to complete some objective? And, if that rare event occurs, will we see a Nicozian DN, a Nicozian CA, a Nicozian CL, a Nicozian DD, and a Nicozian FF, EACH with own set of Special Sensors?? This seems really strange to me and counter to what the idea of Special Sensors are supposed to be for.

I realize the Special Sensors are there because the Nicozians are looking for their new, special home. But tactically on the tabletop, in Duels and Fleet Actions, the Special Sensors don't seem to fulfill their role very well.

I also suspect the BPV of the Nicozian CA is off, as we can see from the Playtest Duel between Stephen and Dennis. 160/140 may be too high compared the 120 range that most CA's are.

So, if the Nicozian's are "broken", what can be done to "fix" them? I would start with the Subspace Auger and make its capabilities more in-line with the Disruptor and Photon. The Nicozian shouldn't only be limited to a long-distance war on an open map. Its Heavy Weapon should reflect that. It needs flexibility.

I would also improve the Shields all around the Nicozian, especially the Rear Shields. I would beef up the Nicozian's Internals. The Nicozian CA should be able to take a good shot and keep ticking.

Lastly, I would seriously reconsider the Special Sensors and what they are supposed to accomplish. Does having two Special Sensors on every ship type match their background conception? Does having two Special Sensors give the CA (and other ship types) a tactical advantage in a Duel? Does having two Special Sensors on each ship give a Nicozian Fleet any advantages? Is there another way to accomplish these goals without using Special Sensors as defined for Scouts?

Well, these decisions are not mine to make. But these are my current thoughts on the Nicozians. And, as previously noted, a lot more raw playtest data is needed to substantiate these claims. It is only my guess, that after all the playtest data is gathered, these necessary changes will become clear for everyone to see.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Saturday, April 12, 2014 - 11:33 pm: Edit

Thought of a proposed "solution" for the Subspace Augers. Give them two firing modes. One mode could be "good against shields, poor or no internals". the other mode could be "great internals, poor or nothing against shields". Then Nicozian player could decide what mode to fire in depending on the moment in battle. Of course, "good against shields" means doing more than a PH-1 damage-wise.

Alternatively, two firing modes could be "good at long distance, poor at close distance" and "good at close distance, poor at long distance". This would allow the Nicozian player to choose the appropriate mode depending on the distance in battle.

Having these two options would help the Nicozian, both on a Closed Map (up close) and on an Open Map (far away).

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, April 13, 2014 - 09:53 am: Edit

I had a CCH by the way. It has two ADDs. Yes, it is a powerful ship but we also gave the Nico all phaser ones so thought BPV should be OK. Maybe not. I also mentioned to Steve after the game why no TBombs or anything so perhaps that would have helped. Despite this, a closed map is a good way to way to force ships to mix it up and evaluate capabilities. What we see is that the need for a Nico to first hit with one weapon before another can really be effective is a strong negative. One is virtually predicated upon the other. That makes them hard to coordinate and perhaps over-valued BPV wise.