Date sent: Wed, 6 May 1998 00:08:49 -0400 From: Steven W Rushing Subject: [B5W]: babylon5-wars-digest V2 #350 To: "INTERNET:babylon5-wars@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU" Send reply to: babylon5-wars@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU Several responses to the anti fighter EW threads Message text written by INTERNET:babylon5-wars@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU >I like this a lot...It really is a pain and somewhat unrealistic in large fleet battles to target a couple of fighter flights and then have them be way out of range but two or three other flights close in...I like the idea of allocating a couple points to "fighter EW" and then being forced to target the closest flights with those points...And I don't think a rule like this would be disruptive to game balance..< Our group adopted the new fighter rules (seperate volleys, new to-hit order, dropout) once the tourney rules established them. We like them so far and have seen them depower fighters. they seem to be about right in terms of balance but we dont have enough games with them yet to know for sure. We would be hesitant to add a new fighter weakening rule until these other rules were proven inadequate. We would certainly be very hesitant to add another rule which increases the effectiveness of ships EW vs fighters (as this one does) and assume it does not affect balance. "I like this a lot...It really is a pain and somewhat unrealistic in large fleet battles to target a couple of fighter flights and then have them be way out of range but two or three other flights close in" I would ask "why" to the unrealistic part. On a ship to ship basis, the lock-ons are talked about all the time. Its been menioned in fighter combat too. If your vorchan has 8 OEW against my hyperion and your primus does not, I am going for the primus and try to avoid the Vorchan. It just makes sense. If ships suddenly do not have to split their EW against fighter groups and instead can by some means fire at the "dangerous ones" they become more effective. "It won't be a problem, until the Warhammer wonks get into it, and lead with crappy Sentris, while the Rutarians travel 1 hex behind." Were such a non-specified EW or "reactive EW" rule to come in, I would drop any "dangerous, closest, range 5" BS and simply make you allocate it to point defense. Point defense EW could only be used against fighters, would be specifiable at instant of fire, and would cost 2 EW for 1 EW of effect. !) EW to point defense would give you 5 EW OFFENSIVELY to allocate with your fire, ONLY at fighters. Cuts out the BS and rewards those players with the uncanny psychic ability to plan their attacks an entire movement phase ahead of their opponents. "I like this alot. It keeps you from wasting EW on fighters that never even get close enough to be a theat. " If the EW was responsible even in part for keeping the fighters from closing, it was not wasted. If the EW had little to do with it and the fighters did not approach for other reasons, you allocated your ew poorly. Thats a hard assed attitude I admit. B5W requires PLANNING AHEAD. Many games, such as SFB , seem to minimize this to an extent once EA is over. B5W does not let you off the planning hook. your movement is not segmented, you dont have a zillion firing opportunities every turn, and just simply might not be able to respond instantly if the enemy surprises you. We find all these GOOD aspects of B5W. "We had an incident where an interceptor was switched to offensive mode and the single flight which was targeted with EW flew after something else, leaving other flights to attack that ship. It seems reasonable to expect that one of the attacking flights would have been targeted rather than losing the EW on some flight that was clearly *not* coming after the ship within that 10 seconds." We are discovering the tactics of dealing with MULTIPLE enemy units are just plain different than those in dealing with one. The "problem" above seems to be tactical, not rules-ical. In a recent 5000 BPV 8 ship on 6 ship battle, one turn two our opponents put ALL OFFENSIVE EW against one of our 8 ships. We, being brighter than doorposts, turned that ship off and closed with the remaining 7/8ths of our fleet. The result was a turn in which they fired at long range at one target, their twin arrays had no chance against our closer ships because of the lack of lock ons, and we fired our primary and secondary guns against their ships at closer range. That ship who tured off, got his shots in a turn or two later while we were rearming. He did not "lose" shots, merely delayed them. In another game, our 9 ships fleet allocated its offensive EW against enemy ships by having groups of ships lock-up certain enemy ships. GQuons lock up Altarian 1, rongoths lock-up altarian 3, etc. Unless he turns in his entire fleet, or way too much of it, we get targets when he comes in. No one fires without lock-on. Against fighters, say you have 3 Tloths and are worried about 6 incoming fighter flights. Keep your tloths together and have each tloth pick 2 enemy flights and divide his OEW between them. Any one fighter flight that comes in gets shot by someone with a lock-on. Ships cover each other. Plan your EW to allow each unit the number of targets it needs to maximize its firepower. Move in accordance with this. If the enemy "pulls away", presumably this creates a weakness or you have erred in your planning. > My group has found that the optional EW system already in the > core rules goes a long way towards fixing things. The optional We did not feel this matched the show or most known systems. Its easy to tell if you are targeted by a tracking system. ECM and ECCM systems often seem to allow gauging of rough levels "we cant lock on" etc. having judged allocation of ew and its affects "(including convincing the enemy to stay away) as a tactical issue/choice, we have not seen a need to experiment. Summary: We have not seen the vagaries of preplanned EW (allocated and announced at the usual point) to be a problem. We have seen it as a big tactical decision which varies from game to game and turn to turn. Any "reactive EW" would be seem by some of our players (I can hear Bob screaming now) as "dumbing down" the decision/planning level. Ship-to-ship EW is "wasted" every time one side fails to adequately predict the enemy. Seems ample reward/punishment to me and fighters dont seem to need a special circumstance. If such a rule were to be used, we advise a simple 2-for-1 type penalty for reactive EW which is allocated in fire decision step. No support on this end currently for these rules as no "problem" has been established. Steven Rushing swrushing@compuserve.com