| By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - 06:35 pm: Edit |
Norman, thanks. I do appreciate it. I wouldn't work so hard on the Nicos except that 1) I really think that if they are balanced they would make a great addition to SFB, and 2) I'm stubborn.
I have enjoyed the conversation, no matter how this turns out.
I have redone the chart so as to be more readable. See above.
| By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 09:58 am: Edit |
BTW, what is Omega Regenesis?
| By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 11:17 am: Edit |
Hi Stephen. Omega Regenesis is an Unofficial SFB Setting in the Omega Sector in Y2000. It will feature about 80 New Omega Empires, Tons of New Weapons and Technology, and lot of other cool stuff. The background is too long to put here (and it doesn't belong in this thread), but you can read more about it under Other Proposals - Norm's Genesis Galaxies Workshop or just visit GenesisGalaxies.Com.
Also, I want to be sure of the arming cost for your new Subspace Auger Table. Is it correct that it is a two turn weapon costing 3 points by the 2nd turn for standard, 5 points by the 2nd turn for overloaded mode, costs 1 point to hold, and overloads cannot be held?
| By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 11:57 am: Edit |
Yes, that is the arming cost. Also to be clear, SA that is being held can be overloaded. All of this is not written in stone, of course.
Your project sounds interesting. Thanks for the info.
| By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, May 26, 2014 - 05:59 pm: Edit |
Here is your table formatted using the website's formatting.
| Range | ||||||
| Die Roll | ||||||
| By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - 01:39 pm: Edit |
Ken: Thanks!
Figuring out how to format the table was beyond my limited abilities.
| By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - 10:55 pm: Edit |
use the tag "/table{" at the beginning. Each line of data is just that a single line separated by commas.
1,2,ect
then end the table with a "}"
| By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 11:34 am: Edit |
Well, Dennis and I played a couple more games with the Nicos. I will describe the first one. I took a Nico CA as usual. We used the table that I had developed. The phaser Ps were all upgraded to phaser 1s. He took an Anmdromedan Heavy Mamba, with 3 heavy TR beams and 9 phaser 1s. Since the Andros don't have any shields. I only took half the standard number of missiles, all with explosive rounds. His ship was 164 BPVs, the way that I figured it (8 points for the phaser upgrades, and 16 points for the missiles, the Nico was too.)
The first turn we flew at each other from opposite sides of the board. I moved 7 (14) and fired 4 missiles at him. He moved 30, first coming straight at me, turning away from a head on meeting in order to avoid missiles. Of the four missiles, 2 hit his rear PA panel, and 1 his front PA panel.
On turn two, I came at him, firing two more missiles, moved 14 (28). He had speed 26. I overloaded all 4 SAs. When we got to about 8 hexes (I don't remember the exact # of hexes) , I fired all the SAs and the 4 front phaser 1s. I scored 60 points of damage, plus the 8 from the missile that hit. I scored 1 internal from the leak, which was a phaser. I then turned aside. He came after me, and being so fast, fired at range 4, with 3 TR beams and 4 phaser 1s (the others having been used to knock out missiles.) I fired the 4 rear firing phasers on the Nico. I scored 17 more hits, filling the front PA panels and causing 5 internals. These were a TR beam, another phaser, and 3 hull boxes. I knew that I was going to be hit hard, but hoped that I would have enough left to come around and finish him off with his weak PA panels, especially since he had lost weapons. But, he fired the 3 heavy TR beams, and rolled 3 ones for 60 hits. He then rolled 15 more hits with his phasers for a total of 75, on shield 3. 16 were taken by the shield, and 6 more by the collapsium armor, so 53 went in. We didn't even bother to roll it, as I would have been crippled, and unable to put up much of a fight.
The second game I am not going to describe, as I made an error that lost the game without much effort on his part. I think I was stilled stunned from the TR beams.
What can I say about this? I successfully filled his PA panels and caused some internals. If he had rolled poorly with the TR beams, I might have won. On the other hand, he made at least one mistake in the first game allowing my missiles to hit, so it is hard to say that it was still an even fight.
The Andro Heavy Mamba is a nasty ship. It has lots of energy, moves fast, hits hard, and can absorb an alpha strike at close range from most other races with getting internals. In spite of the BPVs being the same, it may simply outclass the Nico.
Does anyone have any thoughts?
| By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 12:02 pm: Edit |
Hi Stephen. Sounds like a great game. Looks like your new table is working well.
I was going to make sure you scored triple damage with your Subspace Augers (since Andros are treated as unshielded targets), but judging from the 60 points of damage you did, you must have been using the triple damage.
You could attribute the loss to a lucky roll. Its pretty rare to roll three dice and get three ones.
Interesting that Displacement wasn't even used. I guess it wasn't needed.
| By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 12:46 pm: Edit |
Norman: Thanks for the quick response.
Actually, I only doubled the damage due to the SA. This went along with the new overload capacity of the SA on the new table. I rolled a 4 , 7, 8 and 10. The four doubled was 8 doubled to 16, the 7 became 14, the 8 gave 12 and the 10 gave 8, for a total of 50. The other 10 points were from the four phasers.
He didn't have a displacement device. There is an equivalent ship with that, but only 2 heavy TR beams. That might actually be easier to fight. The Heavy TR beams are wicked.
It was a very good game. I felt good until he rolled the ones. The second game I'd rather forget about.
We will try the Nicos sometime in the future, but next we are going back to some alpha races against the Andros.
I hope that you, or someone else, could play test the new table some time, and see if the new table does work as I hope it does.
Thanks again.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 01:55 pm: Edit |
I apologize for being distracted and not getting my attention directed back to this topic earlier.
I am sorry to say this at this point, but really, if there is a problem with the Nicozians would not the first place to look be their BPVs rather than redesigning their major weapons system?
Maybe the Nicozians should have a "unified" BPV as found on the Klingon D6D (a ship with special sensors but which does not have both an economic and combat BPV).
I just really do not think redesigning the weapon is the place to go at this point without first identifying if the problem is literally that the weapon does not work.
| By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 02:10 pm: Edit |
SPP: A problem with just changing the BPV according to the play testing we have done, is that the Nicos are at a disadvantage on a closed map, while according to Norman's group, they have an advantage on an open one. If we are both correct, just changing the BPV to make things even will be difficult.
You have to make the decisions of course. I think that someone else besides me should be doing the play testing here. All I can say is that the changes I made, including the new table, were done only after quite a few games.
Believe me, I you can come up with a way to balance the Nicos different than what I have come up with, I will be delighted. You guys are the experts.
| By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 02:19 pm: Edit |
Also, giving the andro phaser ones is a pretty major change.
| By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 03:54 pm: Edit |
Hi SPP. Here are my thoughts on the Nicozians and Stephen's redesign of the Subspace Auger. Please read my tone as conversational and not rude or harsh in any way.
The Nicozian CA needs to be looked at as a whole, not in pieces. When you examine the whole, you will find it leads you to the Subspace Auger.
Stephen and Dennis have playtested the Nicozians on a Closed Map and found that they always Lose. Any Smart SFB Player is going to ask "Why?".
I surmise that these are the Conclusions that were reached after asking "Why do the Nicozians keep losing?". Stephen or Dennis is free to correct me if I am wrong about any of this:
1) The Skip Warp Missiles work fine, but they never hit their target. Their main function (for Nicozian Overall Strategy) is to absorb Phaser fire. Occassionally, one might slip through, but it is not a game-changer.
2) The Nicozian Skip Warp Movement works fine, but is limited because of the Closed Map.
3) The Collapsium Armor works fine.
4) The Warp Field Distortion Mines work fine, but are rarely used.
5) The Special Sensors are not used on a Closed Map.
So, when asking "Why do the Nicozians keep losing on a Closed Map?", what does that leave left? Two things: The Subspace Auger and the Phaser-P.
The Phaser-P is pretty straightforward. Phasers have been in the game from the very beginning. There is no questioning their tables or their power. The only question is: What does the Phaser-P fire as and does that help/benefit the Overall Strategy required by the Nicozian to Win?
So we have 4 PH-2s or 8 PH-3s (at any one time). The PH-2s are extremely limited in range for a Closed Map, being effective at Range 3 or less. The PH-3s are great for overruns or point defense.
If the Nicozians keep Losing on a Closed Map because they don't have enough Firepower, I can see how a SFB Player might conclude: Lets change those PH-2s to PH-1s. Not only will that enable the Phasers to do more Damage, but it will extend their Range too.
After you deal with the Phaser-P question in regards to "Why Does the Nicozian keep Losing on a Closed Map?", that only leaves the Subspace Auger left. Here we have a Two Turn Arming Weapon, that on Average Die Rolls, does damage equivalent to a Disruptor.
The Subspace Auger has Two Advantages:
1) It can hit farther and better than a Disruptor at Long Range.
2) It causes Triple Internals if shields are down.
If the opponent's shields are never penetrated, the second advantage is of no benefit. If you are always playing on a Closed Map, then the first advantage is of no benefit.
Given the Logic above, and using the Process of Elimination, and the Analysis of each of the Nicozian's Systems, is really that far a stretch to conclude "The Subspace Auger needs to be Fixed" ? I think that is a fair conclusion given everything above.
On a Side Note, my group's playtesting has shown that the Nicozian CA wins on Open Maps. But certain variables are changed on an Open Map. The Subspace Auger now gains its Long Distance Advantage, the Special Sensors are more useful, the Skip Warp Movement is extremely useful, and the Nicozian can now make use of the Nimble Bonus.
So what does Stephen do with his Conclusions and Playtest Results? He goes a Step Further (in my opinion). He proposed a Solution (his table) to what he thinks is the problem, and then he playtests his Solution. Now what if the Nicozian starts winning half of the battles on a Closed Map? Is that some kind of improvement over always losing? At the very least, a step in the right direction?
Stephen says, "I think that someone else besides me should be doing the play testing here." I Highly Disagree. Sure more playtest groups would be nice, but I think Stephen is doing a great job.
Stephen and Dennis are doing what Playtesters should be doing. They purchased R107, they playtested the Nicozian CA against a variety of opponents, and they posted summaries of the battles on the BBS. In my mind, that effort should be commended. Every bit of feedback is important when an empire is still in Playtest.
Its easy to look at someone else's battle results and say "You should've used a Warp Field Distortion Mine" or "You should have Overran him" or "You should have played against a different ship" or "You should have used Different Tactics". But after so many battles all with the same result, those critiques don't seem to hold the same weight (In my opinion).
Yes, you could change the BPV on the Nicozian CA. But will that allow it to win when it should have a chance to win? I don't think it will. The Klingon D7 is 121 BPV, the Gorn CA is 120 BPV, and the Fed Ca is 125 BPV. If you change the Nicozian CA to 120 (with Missiles) and put it on a Closed Map with one of these three basic empires, will it have a chance of winning?
I believe (and I think that Stephen does too) that the Nicozian should be able to win consistently half the time (against an equivalent BPV), whether on a Closed Map or Open Map. That Premise sounds fair to me.
The Questions are: Is the Nicozian CA able to do that and if not, then what can be done to make it so it is able to?
p.s) My original proposed fix was to allow the Subspace Auger to fire every turn. But a new table is at least a start to some kind of "fix"...
| By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 05:09 pm: Edit |
Thanks Norman. You put things very well. About the only things that I have to add are these:
1) The specials sensors are hard to use when you are in a duel. In squadron or fleet battles they would be of more use--I think.
2) The reason that I didn't change the SA to fire every turn is because while this would help with the closed map, it would make things worse on an open map.
3) The reason that I would like other people doing play testing is to avoid getting bad results because I am not playing the Nicos to their best ability. After all, maybe I'm a total incompetent. I don't really think I that bad, but I would like to see what other players think of the Nicos. Maybe they could think of things I haven't.
BTW, thanks Norman for your group's playtesting. It was your group who discovered the Nicos advantage on open maps. The Nicos are great for sniping at a distance. With the original table the long range of the SA plus the collapsium armor, the Nicos have a definite edge.
Whatever is done to the SA, I think that the Nicos should be allowed to at least to have an upgrade that changes phaser twos on the phaswer Ps to phaser ones. The Nicozians may be crazy, but I don't think they are stupid.
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 05:10 pm: Edit |
Well, this discussion prompted me to purchase the playtest module, so, for that...well played.
First thing, it is entirely conceivable to me that a single playtester or playtester group would achieve the same results consistently that can be solved by having multiple playtesters.
Second, anyone who has ever played a plasma or drone empire will tell you that fixed vs. floating makes a big difference. I personally eschew fixed maps because they are stupid AND unrealistic.
So, if the playtest results are that the Nicozians lose every fixed map game, well, either you fix THAT, or just never play them with a fixed map. (Which people should do anyway, because fixed maps are stupid.)
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 05:24 pm: Edit |
Randy, Fixed Maps are not stupid. One of the things the ISC did in the pacification era was to force battles around a planet or base. If you wanted to keep it, you had to fight at that fixed location. This essentially tied you to a fixed map.
Also tournament games are on a fixed map. So should they become a standard empire, they will need a Tournament Cruiser at some point and it will need to have a chance of winning on a fixed map.
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 06:09 pm: Edit |
Turtle, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on fixed maps.
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 07:21 pm: Edit |
You could use a double-sized map that is either 42x60 or 84x30 or the fixed center (about 83x59). While not completely open, it does allow some running room.
A fixed map indicates that there is something you do not want your opponent to get access to (be it a convoy, defenseless colony, repair point, cripples, etc) easily as it could be just offmap or several maps away...
| By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, June 29, 2014 - 09:42 pm: Edit |
I am not sure debating the realism of this game is fruitful discussion. That being said, fixed maps are certainly not stupid, especially for play testing. They tend to force non-stalemate situations while getting each weapon in the fight during maneuver. They also assume a military objective may be present.
It is hard to determine if Steve Parrish and I have a statistically valid sample set to warrant big changes to the Nicos, but his thoughtful analysis and so many Nico "deaths" point in that direction ;-)
| By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Thursday, August 07, 2014 - 05:37 pm: Edit |
I've been talking with Steve extensively about the Nicozians. To begin, I like the race, I like the weapon systems and the flavor of how they fight. Since this is a play test race I'll toss in my two cents.
First, I like Steve's overload idea and chart. It makes the SA more viable while not overpowering it imo. Reducing the damage from triple to double for non-shielded hits is a reasonable trade off for having the ability to overload.
Secondly, we've been discussing the skipwarp missiles. Specifically a heavy version like the type IV drone. In regards to the 'heavy' missiles, I think this is a viable consideration. Personally I like the idea of a heavy doing the 16 shield damage of the regular + the 8 damage of the explosive warhead and taking 8 damage to destroy. Make it 2BPV and restricted before say Y180 and general afterwards and/or do the 2 for 1 conversion like drones i.e. 2xI's for one IV.
As far as restricted vs. general availability I think we need to put a year on it so that at some point, say Y180 frame 20 become general availability. This is needed to keep pace with the D&D empires.
The pulse phaser needs a refit, imo, like the Borak phaser cannon to allow it to be upgraded to a Ph-1. Perhaps for 1 BPV. Right now if the target is shielded it is very weak at the moderate to long ranges. A ph-1 refit after such-n-such year will help this situation without making it OP.
Here is a quick recap of a game we had yesterday and our discussion:
We did a really quick game, Hydran IRQ w/3 Stingers w/WBP vs. Nico CA with two frame 20 missiles in each rack and adding 8 for a ph-1 refit. Came out to 168 each exactly. Hydran won but that was because I let him get too close and he rolled WAY above average!
At any rate, here are some of the highlights. I wiped out his Stingers with a SA each at R3 before they could fire. Since it was triple damage they didn't stand a chance. He misjudged the four skip warp missiles and they all hit his #2 taking it down. That was due more to his lack of experience against the skip warp missile. Too be honest, I wasn't looking for the hit either so we'll both need more time with and against it. We allowed the skip to practical at R1 and HET but neither was an issue in this game.
I was able to do 18 points of damage on his #1 at R5 with one SA and firing the four FA ph-P's as ph-1's. I couldn't have done that of course if they were ph-2's.
On the SA, didn't get the opportunity to use it as an OL in this game, again it was a quick one. Average damage at R8 with the SA would be 3.7 points (let's just say 4). If OL was allowed per your chart above, it goes to 6.2 (let's say 6). So 4 damage for 3 power or 6 damage for 5 power on average. Could be better or worse. I don't see where having this OL option would make it OP.
To finish up this post, I like the collapsium armor. It provides a real flavor for this race that others don't have and will require the opponent to really think about what they're going to do i.e. don't plan on Mizia against the Nico!
| By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Thursday, August 07, 2014 - 05:42 pm: Edit |
One other point, we need to go with SPP's thought earlier that the skip warp missile simply needs to go from skip warp to practical if needed to hit the target one hex away. The Nicos need the hits on the skip warp more than D&D users need the drone hits. Yes, they enjoy the drones hits, but they have one turn weapons to fall back on.
Also, I'd suggest the ability for it to be able to HET.
| By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Thursday, August 07, 2014 - 09:57 pm: Edit |
David: Interesting.
I agree that the phaser twos should have an upgrade to phaser ones at some point in the timeline. Also, allowing the Nicos to buy what missiles they want and pay for them sounds right. Further, getting more powerful missiles at some point in time is a interesting idea. Giving the Nicos more options would make them more popular.
Allowing the missiles to go to practical warp if need to hit is now official per SPP, and you are correct; it is a significant help.
| By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Friday, August 08, 2014 - 10:39 am: Edit |
FD94.2 Modularity
In FD94.21, 50% of the shield damaging warhead (8 points) can be swapped out for two points of armor (which adds 4 damage points to the frame). Or, and Eel module which generates one point of negative tractor.
From FD94.211 we can gather that each skip warp missile has two 1/2 spaces.
Proposal: Along the lines of the type I and type IV drone concept, allow for a 'standard' and a 'heavy' missile. Where the standard missile has two 1/2 spaces for payload, allow the heavy to have two 1 space (or four 1/2 space) in payload. This would allow (like a drone, deathbolt or tachyon missile) for either the standard or heavy to have some ability to be customized.
As one possible example for a heavy skip warp missile using a four 1/2 spaces for payload:
1/2 = ASW for 8 points of shield damage
1/2 = two points of added armor (4 damage points added to payload)
1/2 = Eel module (one negative point of tractor)
1/2 = explosive warhead (4 points of damage)
Or
2 1/2 spaces of ASW (16 points of shield damage)
2 1/2 spaces of explosive warhead (8 points of damage)
Or any legal combination. Heavy missiles could be swapped for two standard missiles in the same fashion as a type IV drone for two type I's. Or purchased for an additional cost in BPV.
This allows the Nicozian player the ability to tailor his/her missile compliment while keeping the opponent on his/her toes.
I would propose that the general/resticted availability be eased after a certain specific year i.e. restrictive becomes general after X year. This would include both warhead availability as well as speed frame 20.
In addtion, I would propose that after a certain year the number of reloads be increased.
| By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 03:09 pm: Edit |
Your ideas sound interesting and are worth a try. What is needed is more people playtesting them.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |