Just thought of another way to "fix" the Subspace Augers (if indeed they are proven to be "broken in the long run). This "fix" would not require a lot of rules changing.

Allow the Subspace Auger to fire every turn. If the Subspace Auger is doing damage equivalent to a standard Disruptor or overloaded Disruptor, then it should be a one turn weapon, not a two turn weapon. To balance this, decrease the triple internal damage to only double internal damage. The increased damage at long range (compared to a PH-1 or Disruptor) and increased internal damage (triple/double) can be justified by the higher cost to fire the Subspace Auger (3) compared to the Disruptor cost (2/4).

Another option is to allow the Subspace Auger to be overloaded. This could allow for a higher damage output, but only at closer ranges (like less than 5 hexes or so). The Subspace Auger would then keep its long range sniping ability but gain more teeth in an alpha strike and fighting on a closed map.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Sunday, April 13, 2014 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Norman and Dennis.

Thanks for your thoughts. I admit that I could have played the Nicos better than I did. Of course, I often think I could have played better than I did after many games no matter what I am flying, even when I win.

I largely agree with Norman's and Dennis' analysis. A couple of points. I didn't mention it, but we did use ECM.

Also, regarding T-bombs and Warp Field Distortion Mines. I did consider using them. I may be wrong (I often am), but during the game there was too much turning and maneuvering to use them effectively. At least that is the way it seemed to me.

Norman's ideas about the Space Augers are interesting. I actually had the same ideas about firing every turn, or having two modes of firing. I do think that changing the SA is probably the best way to fix things. Possibly also change the PH-Ps from having phaser 2 to having phaser 1 options.

I also agree with you observations about the sensors. In a fleet battle they may be great--in a duel not so much.

From the experience that Dennis and I have had, and from the battles that Norman's group has had, I think that that there is something significantly wrong with the Nicos. On a closed map, they are at a definite disadvantage, especially against disruptor/photon drones races. (Kzintis may be their worst nightmare.) Dennis' point about having to hit with one weapon before the second is effective is quite right.

On the other hand, they seem to be at an advantage on open maps, where their speed can be taken full advantage of.

I do think that changing the SA rules seems to be the best bet to fix them. Norman's ideas should be tried. Stronger at close range, weaker at a long distance is the way to go, I think.

Norman, I look forward to reading about your next battle.

Any other ideas, anyone?

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, April 13, 2014 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Changing the firing rate of the augers is an option while decreasing damage on unshielded target. This may decrease the unique nature of the race a bit but then again, the skip warp is unique and seems to work just fine.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - 07:58 pm: Edit

I have a suggestion. The major problem with the Nicos seems to be that the SA is too weak at close range, but too strong at long range with sniping.

To fix this, the Nicos could be given an overload function from 1-8, wherein with 2 or 3 extra points of power, the damage is increased by 50% or a little more. It would now be a two turn arming weapon, with no cool down period.

At a distance, the ranges greater than 8 would be reduced from 9-20, 21-24, and 25-40 to something like 9-14, 15-20, and 21-30. If one wanted to shoot at the old ranges (or something close to them), then the 2 or 2 power points would be needed to extend the range. They would still have superior sniping ability, but would now have to pay for it. In other words, overloading would either increase the damage at close range, or increase range at which they did damage.

To help make up for this, the damage to unshielded targets would be reduced from 3 times to 2 times the damage.

Does this suggestion have any merit?

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Wednesday, April 16, 2014 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Hi Stephen. That is an interesting suggestion. I would be curious as to what SPP thinks about it.

If you feel strongly enough about your solution, I would recommend to run a few duels with it on a closed map against the Kzintis, Feds or someone else. If the Nicozian is able to win half the battles, then your solution might be a viable one. You could then post the duel results for SPP to review.

Just a suggestion. Thanks.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Wednesday, April 16, 2014 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Thanks Norman. I may try it next time we play with the Nicos. I thought of it because it seems like we are dealing with 2 opposite problems, but with the same weapon.

Your suggestion about making it fire every turn would be easier, and might have the same results. Though in either fix, the Nicos might need more power.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, May 03, 2014 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Dennis and I tested the Nicozians once more. I made changes in the rules for the SA. Here they are.

SUBSPACE AUGER TABLE (REVISED)


Die Range
Roll 0 1-2 3-8 9-14 15-20 21-26

9-20 21-24 25-40 ______________________________________________________________________________

2 8/12 7/11 6/10 5 4 3
3 7/11 6/10 6/9 4 3 2
4 7/10 6/9 5/8 4 3 2
5 7/10 6/9 5/8 3 2 1
6 6/9 5/8 4/7 3 2 1
7 6/9 5/7 4/6 2 1 0
8 6/9 5/7 3/5 2 1 0
9 5/8 4/6 3/4 1 0 0
10 5/8 4/6 2/3 1 0 0
11 5/7 3/5 2/3 0 0 0
12 4/6 3/4 1/2 0 0 0

The SA may be fired every other turn. It takes 3 points of energy from any source 1 or 2 points on the first turn, and the remaining on the second turn, and may be held for 1 point. If it is not fired, on the second turn, or any turn where the SAs are being held, 2 additional points may be added, and it may then be fired on the Overload section. The Overload sections are in bold. Overloads may either be at 0-8 hexes, in which case the number to the right of the / is used, or else may from 9-40 hexes, in which case the second row of hexes, with bold numbers is used. (THE TABLE DOESN'T COME OUT CLEARLY HERE, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX IT)

The damage done is against shields. Damage is doubled against other targets. Overloaded SAs may not be held.

Also, phaser Ps were upgraded from have the P 2 option to having phaser 1s.

Here is a synopsis of the game. I'm sorry that it is not nearly as detailed as the ones that Norman posts--I don't have the time or energy.

Dennis flew a FED CB. It has 4 photons, 10 phaser 1s, 2 phaser 3s, and 2 drone racks. Its power is 32 warp, 4 imp., and 2 AWR. The front shield has a strength of 32, the 2 and 6 shield have 28, 3, 4 and 5 have 24. His BPV with drones waxs 170.

I flew a Nico CA with the modifications noted above.

I came in at speed 8, he a 16 (so with skip warp, we were both moving the same.) I launched 4 missiles. We came close to straight at each other.

On turn two I was moving at 14 and he went 26, I believe. (I don't have his EAF.) I fired overloaded SAs and four phaser 1s at a distance of 7. He we both moved and he fired 4 overloaded photons and 6 phasers. He had already launched a scatterpack. He also had a ECM drone out. Neither rolled well with our heavy weapons. I rolled 2 tens, 1 nine, and a 7. He hit with one photon. I scored a total of 22 hits on his front sheild. He did roll well with the phasers. He scored 42 points on my number 6. 12 went in, thought the damage wasn't bad. Later on in the turn, he fired 4 more phasers, and scored 6 more internals. (Thanks godness for the collapsium armor). The rest of the turn was extremely complex. We came close, but eventually he put out a TB that took out his own scatter pack to get all of my missiles. No drone or missile from either side hit during the entire game.

Turn three I ran and began to reload, moving to the left and reached the edge of the board, along which I ran. I fired a missile. He had knocked out 2 phasers at the front, and 1 missile launcher. (The launcher that had been knocked out was on the side facing him.) I began to repair one phaser. He sent another scatterpack after me. On turn 4, I destroyed all the drones in the scatterpack. I fired missiles and he took them out with drones.

On turn 5, I ran until I ran out of board. He launched another scatterpack, but I managed to destroy it with a warp displacement mine. Realistically, I would have kept going on open map, or else exited the game. However, as I had to leave for home. I turned and we fired at each other as point blank range. I better this time, but not great, and he had an Electronic warfare advantage because of his drone. He on the other hand, rolled well this time, hitting with all 4 photons, but we didn't count the damage.

Looking back on the game, I can see a couple of mistakes I made, but they were not major. I got in close because I wanted to try the new overload rules. This time, the CA put up a better fight against the Fed CB than it has in the past, but it still wasn't even. Dennis, who I think is somewhat the better player of us two, said I didn't do much wrong.

In my opinion, more needs to be done. The Nicos are a unique race, with some unique properties. There seem to be two major problems. On a closed board, the Nicos are a disadvantage, because they weapons aren't that great until the missiles knock down the shields, which is tough to do. (As I said, no seeking weapons hit this game, though we were both firing all we could.)

On an open map, the Nico seem to have the advantage, because they are great at sniping and can move very fast. My new table was an attempt to fix both these problems.

I think the main problem is the SA. Even on the new table, it isn't powerful enough against shield, and it is hard to break through the shields where it is tripled or doubled. Perhaps the distinction between shield and ship should be erased (though that does change the flavor of the weapon.), and the SA table changed in some other way.

My thoughts now are, the strength of the SA needs to be increased, perhaps by doubling the overloads instead of increasing them by 50% like I did. The Phaser P's should be changed from Ph 2's to Ph 1's, at least as an upgrade option.

I also tend to think that limited non-general missiles to 50% should be changed so that the Nico player can have whatever missiles he wants, but must pay for them.

I would like to say that we have played probably a dozen or so games of the Nicos against a variety of opponents, and I make these suggestions only out of experience and thinking about the matter.

Again, the problems that I see are mainly in duels on a closed board, In fleets and on open boards I think the Nicos will do better. But they are not ready yet for the big time.

Dennis thinks that the fact that the Nico ship can break a tractor with skip jump should be changed. I think that the Nicos need all the help that they can get at close range.

Any thoughts anyone?

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Monday, May 05, 2014 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Yes, if the intent is to make them a viable threat one-on-one and not just on an open map, but close-in, then not allowing such an easy tractor negation might be considered.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Hi Stephen. The results of using your new Subspace Auger table are surprising. I would have thought it would have evened up the odds a bit. Especially with the overload function and changing the PH-2s to PH-1s.

It was nice to see a Warp Field Displacement Mine take care of a Scatterpack.

I would guess that the rule about the Skip Jump breaking a Tractor Beam is there to avoid the Gorn Anchor. After all, if the small Nicozian gets caught in an Anchor and receives a full Alpha Strike of Plasmas or Drones, that is all she wrote for the small Nicozian.

Interesting suggestion to remove the limit of non-general missiles on the Nicozian. That would make the Nicozian a bit more dangerous and unpredictable.

It doesn't seem like the Nicozian double hex movement is much of an advantage on a closed map. Anyway, nice report and analysis.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Monday, May 19, 2014 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Thanks for your comments Norman. After thinking about it and talking with Dennis, I think that we are close to getting it right. Dennis told me that from his perspective, it was a very close game.

I am making two more changes. One, increasing the damage done with overloads by one point at the 1-2 and 3-8 ranges for some rolls, and simplifying the firing at a distance simply decreasing the range instead of the complex increasing the range by overload rule that I had a first. This, I think, makes the Nicos a bit stronger on a closed map, and weaker on an open one, while keeping their "flavor."

I agree with you about the Nico's needing the advantage of the jump break from the Gorn anchor (though Dennis disagrees.)

We are taking a break from the Nicos for a while, though I hope we can do more testing before too long.

Here is my revised chart. I'm sorry that the numbers get a bit jumbled when I post.

SUBSPACE AUGER TABLE (REVISED)


Die Range
Roll 0 1-2 3-8 9-14 15-20 21-26 _____________________________________________________________________________

2 8/12 7/11 6/10 5 4 3
3 7/11 6/10 6/9 4 3 2
4 7/10 6/9 5/8 4 3 2
5 7/10 6/9 5/8 3 2 1
6 6/9 5/8 4/7 3 2 1
7 6/9 5/8 4/7 2 1 0
8 6/9 5/7 3/6 2 1 0
9 5/8 4/7 3/5 1 0 0
10 5/8 4/6 2/4 1 0 0
11 5/7 3/5 2/3 0 0 0
12 4/6 3/4 1/2 0 0 0

The SA may be fired every other turn. It takes 3 points of energy from any source 1 or 2 points on the first turn, and the remaining on the second turn, and may be held for 1 point. If it is not fired, on the second turn, or any turn where the SAs are being held, 2 additional points may be added, and it may then be fired on the Overload section., from 0-8 hexes. The Overload section the number to the right of the slash.

The damage done is against shields. Damage is doubled against other targets. Overloaded SAs may not be held.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, May 19, 2014 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Stephen, there is a table command (\table {--}) in formatting or you can add periods in place of spaces in the table...

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Monday, May 19, 2014 - 10:26 pm: Edit

I still think if you want to make the Nicos better close-in fighters, disallowing the easy tractor break may be prudent. That is a huge defense capability and they are not THAT delicate, after all.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 12:49 pm: Edit

Dennis, you may be right. But until we know that the Nicos can stand up in a fair duel on a closed map we should concentrate on that. (I'm not saying you disagree with this.) The problem we have now is that they can't (or at least it is difficult for them to do so). If we fix that and then find that their ability to break tractor is too big of an advantage, something will have to be done about that.

The tractor break is, I agree, a major advantage for them (as is the collapsium armor) but they also have some significant weaknesses.

They don't have shuttles, so they can't use suicide shuttles, wild weasels, or scatter packs. Also, they only fire missiles on the right side or the left side, instead of 360.

Believe me, these hurt!

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 01:00 pm: Edit

I agree with Stephen. Fixing the Subspace Auger seems like the highest priority. I'm starting to like the overload function the more I think about it. But I was thinking that doing the overload damage against an unshielded target (resulting in double or triple damage) might be too many internals.

Stephen, you bring up something I never thought of before. With all this focus on the Subspace Augers, perhaps the missiles are part of the problem. Since they are only RS/LS, you typically can only fire two at a time. What if the missiles were 360? Or at least FH or FA? This would allow 4 Missiles to be launched at once (concentrating them) allowing the Nico to follow them in firing Subspace Augers and Phaser-Ps.

Just an idea. Changing a firing arc is far easier than developing a new table for damage and rules to go with it.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Stewart, I plan on re-posting the table later.

Norman: you are right, changing a firing arc is much easier than developing a new table. But while giving the Nico missile's better firing arcs would help them on a closed map, it would make things worse on an open one.

You are also right about overloads giving too many damage points against unshielded targets. For example, on the new table rolling a 7 overloaded at a distance of 3-8 would have 14 damage points (7 doubled) against unshielded targets. On the old table, it would be 4 tripled, or 12.

On the other hand, on the new table a non-overload would only be 8 points instead of 12. It also costs 2 extra points of energy to overload, and also overloads cannot be held. So it may even out.

I agree that changing a table is drastic. But it was the only way that I could think of that would fix the the problem that for duels, the Nicos on an closed map seem to be too weak, while on an open map they are too strong.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Hi Stephen. I think your new table is on the right track. I didn't mean to get rid of the table and just give the missiles better arcs. I meant that giving the missiles better arcs would help to give the Nicozian more teeth in addition to your new table.

I don't believe the improved missile arcs would make the Nico worse on an open map. If it was FH certainly not. Maybe FA might be difficult on an open map, but other empires deal with only a FA arc all the time.

Here are some suggestions for fixing the overload unshielded damage:

1) Say that overloaded damage does not double (or triple) against unshielded targets.

2) Say that overloads work only against shields and does no internals. This would force the Nico player to fire in standard mode when trying to do internals and to use overload mode only when trying to bring down an enemy's shield.

Lastly, remember that an alternate to firing in overload mode every other turn is to simply allow the Subspace Auger to fire every turn. This way, the double or triple internal damage won't get get too high with the damage caused by each shot (because the damage should something like the original chart).

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Norman, I thought about just firing the SA every turn, but again, though this would help with closed map battles, it would make the situation with open map battles worse. I am trying to fix two things at once.

Your suggestions are interesting. Would the non-overloaded SA double or triple against unshielded targets?

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Also, I think that whatever is done with the SA, it should be realistic--that is it should be consistent in its operation.

The problem has been to improve the Nicos on a closed map, weaken them some on an open map, while keeping their flavor. The SA had to be such that they have a decent chance of surviving long enough to knock down the shields,and then not be so strong that they are then unbeatable. They have to be strong enough to do that, but not too strong. It is a delicate balance.

I am not sure that the last table I gave wouldn't work, but am certainly open to other ideas.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Hi Stephen. Yes, the non-overloaded SA would cause double or triple internal damage against unshielded targets.

This would create an interesting play dynamic. Overloads cannot be held and would only score their higher damage against shields. So if the enemy moves out of overload range or faces a down shield towards you (perhaps even dropping it on purpose!), you will be out of luck if you overloaded the SA.

If you fire non-overloaded SA's at a ship with a down shield, you score double or triple internals, but only at the lower damage level of your non-overloaded chart. Now if the enemy has shields up and you only fire non-overloaded SA's at him, you are left with the lower damage level (when it might have been better to use the overloads). So the Nico player will be forced to plan his arming and distance well when using the SA's.

For the tabletop, this might work. But for the weapon's conception or "science", it might not. After all, if a standard photon is overloaded, then why would it not cause internals (but a standard photon does)? That is going to be hard to explain, especially given the background for the SA in Module R107.

Oh well, you can't win em all. The Nicozians seem to be curiously difficult to "fix".

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 09:28 pm: Edit

"The Nicozians seem to be curiously difficult to 'fix'."

You can say that again. The problem with being consistent with the science causes me to think that my solution with the updated table might be best--I don't see the problems with it as being that big.

Of course, we could just rewrite the whole SA rules, and make it like another disruptor or photon weapon. But I have been trying hard to save the essences of the Nicos as originally written.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 10:08 pm: Edit

OK, put another way, you want to make them be able to close and hose like ships that are tanks AND keep them impervious to an anchor while possibly giving them better missile arcs to boot? Remember, the only alpha ships that can pull that off are cloaked ones I think, and that is only while cloaked and no lock-on retained. Maybe the phasers should be left alone then? In our last game weren't they a phaser 1 or two P3's?

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 10:54 pm: Edit

I always like to keep the big picture in mind if possible when working on the little details. Keeps me pointed in the right direction.

So what are the "essences" of the Nicozian?

1) Double hex movement for the ship and the missiles
2) Collapsium Armor
3) Warp Field Distortion Mines
4) Various types of missiles
5) A two-turn heavy weapon that does a lot of internals if a shield is down
6) Special Sensors
7) No Shuttles
8) Cannot be boarded
9) Cannot be tractored
10) Phasers that are deadly at close range and weak at mid-range
11) Shields and internals are less than normal
12) Ship is considered nimble

This summarizes the characteristics of a Nicozian. This is what makes them different than other Alpha Sector empires.

I would also add an implied but not written #13:

13) Strategy revolves around knocking down shields with missiles first and then using the Subspace Augers to score massive internals.

I also recall the first short story I read about the Nicozians. The Nicozian ship came outta nowhere. It zipped around super quick, in and out. They tried to board it and it didn't work. They tried to launch drones (I believe) which got sucked into a Warp Field Distortion Mine. They tried to shoot at it but could not hit it. Then, if I remember correctly, it disappeared.

To me, this is the essence of what the Nicozian should be. Note what happened in the story.

Now we come to our playtesting and "solutions".

1) You and Dennis have consistently seen the Nicozian lose on a Closed Map.

2) My group has seen the Nicozian consistently win on an Open Map.

The "solution" therefore is to give the Subspace Augers an overload function, allowing them to compete better on a Closed Map. Another "solution" is changing the RS/LS Missile arcs to FH or FA.

But is this "solution" what the Nicozian should have? Are the Nicozians supposed to win on a Closed Map? Are the Nicozians supposed to get to Tournament play eventually?

Maybe the Nicozian should remain only a "monster" that bothers other empires from time to time? Perhaps they are supposed to lose on a Closed Map? Maybe .... or Maybe Not?

These are just some thoughts to consider to make sure we are headed in the right direction. Its always good to double check where you came from and where you are going, from time to time.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - 08:28 am: Edit

Dennis and Norman: Good points all. I am not sure how to respond to them right now.

My goal has been to make the Nicos playable with the minimal amount of changes. Perhaps this simply is not going to work--though I am not yet convinced of that.

It just seems to me that the Nicos are interesting enough so that they should be a regular part of the game, rather than just a weird monster. Maybe I am wrong.

At any rate, Dennis and I are going to take a break from the Nicos for a while. Norman, you and your group, if you are willing, might try a game with my new SA table--either on a closed or open map. That might help show if we are headed in the right direction. If not, thanks for all your input.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Well, here is the chart with periods.

I have redone it. Hopefully this time is it readable.

Die. Range
Roll 0..|...1-2|..3-8|.9-14|15-20|21-26 ._____________________________________________________________________________

2|. 8/12| 7/11.|6/10.| 5....| 4......| 3.
3|. 7/11| 6/10.|6/9..| 4....| 3......| 2.
4|. 7/10| 6/9..|5/8..| 4....| 3......| 2.
5|. 7/10| 6/9..|5/8..| 3....| 2......| 1.
6|. 6/9.| 5/8...|4/7..| 3....| 2......| 1.
7|. 6/9.| 5/8...|4/7..| 2....| 1......| 0.
8|. 6/9.| 5/7...|3/6..| 2....| 1......| 0.
9|. 5/8.| 4/7...|3/5..| 1....| 0......| 0.
10| 5/8.| 4/6..| 2/4..| 1....| 0......| 0.
11| 5/7.| 3/5..| 2/3..| 0....| 0......| 0.
12| 4/6.| ¾....| ½....| 0....| 0......| 0.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Thanks Stephen. We'll try out your new table in-between our Omega Regenesis playtesting. I'm not sure when, but it will be in the pipeline.