Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Speed Limits and the Feel of the Scenario
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bolo_MK_XL
Commander


Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 787
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Haven't played in awhile,
but only time I recall using ED (2 times in all my games),
was to rush in under EM to get close enough without taking major damage --

Then ED to clear off the EM to fire ---
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Klingon of Gor
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 132

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

storyelf wrote:

Quote:
Plasma has had at least (and maybe greater than) a 50% success rate in the games I've been in. Far from the plasma is doomed expectation that is expressed in these forums.


In our games, we've seen many victories by plasma races. I don't think plasma is hopeless, either. I've seen it work too many times to believe that.

I've never seen a plasma race win by patiently waiting for the other guy to make a mistake. You've got to get aggressive and force him to make a mistake. And you can do that. In battles between plasma and "crunch" races like Feds, the plasma player is likely to have more reserve energy. Once the heavy torps go live (And these days, that can be turn 1), they hold for 2, and you've got power to spend on speed, buying acceleration, and maneuvering for a good shot.

There seems to be an assumption here that the Feds can automatically run out a torpedo. I don't see it. If they're holding overloads, then their reserve power is limited. Personally, when I play Feds against a plasma race, I never use overloads. I may need the power to evade a torpedo. If I'm fighting ISC, then I need the power to buy acceleration and get close before the PPDs rip me apart.
_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Philip K Dick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ericphillips
Commander


Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 702
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA, Sol, Gould Belt, Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Universe Beta

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, generally I tend not to overload the torps until I fire. Then if i have the energy I'll top them off. Otherwise, I don't waste energy on 2-point holds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
The_Rock
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well,
This is very off-topic, but that certainly goes a long way to explaining why some people don't think more highly of the photon. 100% of the reason it is the best weapon in Fed Com is because it can be held as an overload.

If you are holding standards, then its as good (or bad) as any other DF weapon - you will be restricted to base speed 16 if you want to fire overloads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monty
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 231

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:

I would be interested in hearing who ADB believe the game is positioned for nowadays, certainly when I bought the game it seemed pretty well aimed at a different crowd than such grognards, if such players did pick up FedCom then they were to hopefully move onto SFB.


I would be interested in hearing how well the plasma empires did at the Origins tournament this year and if there were any more takers than previous tournaments.

Plasmas may not be broke but they sure seem to be bent out of alignment. Something a good EPT would go a long way towards fixing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:
duxvolantis wrote:

Against crunch races a plasma chucker has to be patient and wait for a mistake. In SFB one of those mistakes was to plot a low speed to rearm. Emergency decel was the kiss of death. In a duel a ship that performed ED against a skilled plasma captain usually died within 2 turns.


Surely you do not advoctate such a plan. Were you not one of those who look down on any plan that relies on the other guy making a mistake:

duxvolantis wrote:
However you have a plan that relies on the Hydran player being stupid.



You think you have a 'gotcha' but you really do not. There is a huge gulf between being in position to capitalize on a mistake--which even good players do make and usually more than once in a fight--and expecting a good player to be stupid.

As for the proposal on the table I could care less one way or the other as they impact at best a minor set of recurring circumstances. I think the speed 8 to speed 32 shift is weak and the impulse 8 zero-impact ED is completely lame but I can understand that FC players don't want to be bothered with such horrible accounting procedures as having to remember the speed they were just going in order to know what legal base speeds they can declare for the current turn.

My main point was to rebut the notion that limitations on speed are not an aid to a plasma ship since they most definitely are.

If I were trying to 'fix plasma' I'd suggest we go back to the SFB ruling on requiring warp engines for movement (and, re: Feds, requiring warp power for photons).. Smile
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1869

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You think you have a 'gotcha' but you really do not.


Actually I have a lot of respect for you based on what you've posted before, and wasn't looking for a gotcha - it was meant as a lighthearted jab at the whole thing about no one ever makes a mistake. Unfortunately tone of voice doesn't carry very well over the net.

took a while to find it, but this is is a good post that I rememeber you posting:

Quote:
This poses a false dichotomy: the notion that a given decision is knowable as a mistake at the time it is taken. Some decisions are only mistakes in the context of opponent reaction. Now it is harder to make mistakes in FC than SFB because there is no hidden energy allocation, etc. But nonetheless what a player chooses to do at a given point in time is only a mistake if that decision gives his opponent an opportunity that be both can and is inclined to sieze. If I split my squadron up after the initial exchange of fire to make it harder for you to keep down shields out of firing arcs or protect weaker ships is that a mistake or a good decision? Well that is only knowable a couple turns down the road. Sometimes it is a huge mistake. Sometimes it wins the battle.

If I guess that my opponent is cautious and calculating and will not take a range-8 photon shot I may duck into range for a brief time for whatever reason. If it turns out I am wrong, and worse, that he hits better than average, my maneuver decision was a mistake. If I guess right and get to do what I wanted and then surprise him with a way to avoid a closer shot, my decision was clever.



=====================


duxvolantis wrote:

There is a huge gulf between being in position to capitalize on a mistake--which even good players do make and usually more than once in a fight--and expecting a good player to be stupid.


But the other thread was not expecting a good player to be stupid. Indeed that in itself would be something of an oxymoron would it not?

The other post discussed getting the plasma ships out a specific problem as best as possible, which it did but in a way that put you in a good position to capitalize on a particular (but the most likely) mistake by the other side - i.e. shooting you in the back just after you have started cloaking. It did not rely on the mistake, but it encouraged it.

As the other post before said, it did more than just passively await a mistake, it tried to encourage one. If players can do the "In SFB one of those mistakes was to plot a low speed to rearm" then I'm pretty sure they can be encouraged to take the best shot they look like getting - shoot someone through the rear shields just as they start to cloak.

As you say (and I have essentially said before) even good players can make mistakes. But they will probably make less if you just passively wait for them.

However, getting back on topic, whilst I agree there would be some potential benefit to plasma from speed changes, it is I think very marginal in practise as someone going speed 8 in a plasma game is pretty rare anyway. Indeed it may be the case that those who would have gone speed 8 (mistakenly) and suffered as a result may not if they are thinking about the next turns speed, so it might paradoxically even hurt plasma.


Last edited by storeylf on Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:42 am; edited 14 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1954
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

duxvolantis wrote:
<snip>....I'd suggest we go back to the SFB ruling on requiring warp engines for movement (and, re: Feds, requiring warp power for photons).. Smile

Noooooo!!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
leathernsteel
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Location: Orlando, FL

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobody says you can't still play SFB, I still do. Depends on the time constraint and the other player's willingness to use the more detailed rules. Moreover, if you play SFB you don't have to use all the rules, tailor it to your gaming group and scenario.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:

However, getting back on topic, whilst I agree there would be some potential benefit to plasma from speed changes, it is I think very marginal in practise as someone going speed 8 in a plasma game is pretty rare anyway. Indeed it may be the case that those who would have gone speed 8 (mistakenly) and suffered as a result may not if they are thinking about the next turns speed, so it might paradoxically even hurt plasma.

We agree here. There are many things in FC hurting plasma and a lack of acceleration limits is probably not in the top-5. Smile

My top-5?

5- On-demand acceleration (the ability to suddenly decide to accelerate for the rest of the turn without having to plot it or burn precious reserve warp means plasma only hits when the target wants it to hit)
4- Short range tractors (combined with the sequence of play and #2 the gorn anchor is a very low percentage option)
3- Generic power (no warp requirement for movement)
2- Large pools of reserve power
1- No PPTs.
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The biggest hurt to plasma is on demand DECELERATION. Having the ability to continue to satisfy your turn mode while 'sitting and spinning' has made plasma a much weaker weapon than it was in SFB. On the other hand no wild weasels is a large boost. Speed limits and the like won't really help plasma or hurt it Lee is 100% correct there.

We toyed around with adding the EPT back into plasma, and I can't lie it was a lot of fun the few times I used it, the intimidation factor of a 100 point warhead is through the roof. If anything I would agree with some better players then myself and say that if plasma needs anything it would be a slight bump like that.

(Also on topic, there are a few broken scenarios where speed 32 ruins the game, just adding a 'place ship here, it is limited to speed 8 turn one' to the instructions should suffice).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ericphillips
Commander


Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 702
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA, Sol, Gould Belt, Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Universe Beta

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again, its about a lot more than just plasma.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ericphillips wrote:
Again, its about a lot more than just plasma.

Agreed. Indeed, this particular topic is not very much about plasma so I will stop talking about it Smile

Going from a complete 'tilt-the-camera-angle-and-hurl-all-the-officers-onto-the-floor' emergency deceleration to speed 32 in one impulse while allowing the "1 point HET" is a cheeseball loophole that needs to be closed.

Likewise, the ability to sit in the corner of the map fully overloading and then charge out a max speed is lame as well. Smart. But lame.
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The ability to sit in a corner and arm photons maybe lame but it is a valid tactic.

..."If I were Captain", I would arm weapons long before I got close into the engagement and come in at speed 24 with weapons hot, but the game doesn't allow that, instead we have start of scenario constraints that require us to adapt.

Find a solution, adapt, overcome.

Sitting in a corner and arming is no less "cheesball" then fighting a sabredancing opponent. Both tactics play to the strengths of their specific empires while limiting their opponents ability to land damage.


If it is about 'more than plasma' can someone please list the concerns for adding speed limits? I honestly don't see a need for it other than the few bjorked scenarios that should have been better vetted. Is repairing a handful of underplayed scenarios worth drastically changing the style of the game?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1869

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

duxvolantis wrote:
Likewise, the ability to sit in the corner of the map fully overloading and then charge out a max speed is lame as well. Smart. But lame.


It's also somewhat scenario specific, like the intial post was discussing. It only works if there is no need to go fast (e.g. reach some objective, or pursue someone), and if you can be certain that you will actually close to overload range quickly - far from the case on a floating map, or if there may be terrain issues. Even starting distance may make it less easy depending on who you face. Ships make a difference, are you using CAs or NCAs where the extra couple of points of power can make a difference. Size of battle makes a difference, 1 klingon at range 15 can tickle a shield, 7 can devastate a cruiser and maybe put out enough drones to stop another ship closing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group