$15.00
$5.00
$20.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Imperium» Forums » Variants

Subject: The Imperial Scout is just too good for the money, another solution. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Just about every variant has to deal with the fact that the Imp. SC is too good. The Terran SC lacks missiles and so is nowhere near as good.

The normal solution is to make the Scouts cost $2 instead of $1. At least the Imp. SC.

Another way would be to make the DDs cost $2 instead of $3 and change some of the other cheap ships also.
. . a] DD = $2.
. . b] MB = $3.
. . c] CL = $5.
. . d] MS = $4. Now 3x DD cost $6 and 3x Ftr and MS cost $3 + $4 = $7, the same $1 more that they cost before.

Results:
. . a] The SC and the TR cost the same still. Making TR less attractive as warships compared to SC and [to a lesser extent] the DD. [To make the TR even less attractive as warships, you could make them cost $2.]
. . b] Losing a SC to cut off an Outpost's income is still an even trade.
. . c] The SC still costs less than a Reg. Troop unit. So, both the SC and the TR can be used as a sort of Militia on the ground. Ftrs too, unless you let them fight troop units as if they were also airplanes, using their numbers normally. [I.e., missiles bombard, Beams fire at troop units in the "ground combat phase", and their shields defend.]
. . d] Compared to the cruisers SC are still a very good buy. But, you can only buy 11 of them before you run out of counters. It also makes the DD look better compared to cruisers.

Remember I intend to find a good way to make players see the DN and BB as "the mainstays of the fleet", which is how the rule book describes them.
. . However, the 2nd Ed. rules are such that no good player would ever buy one. The 1st Ed. rules are quite a bit better in this regard.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Taylor-Smith
Canada
Okotoks
Alberta
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Based on my play experience I don't agree DD's, particularly Imperial, should be worth less than 3 megacredits. Plus missle boats are already the most cost effective ships in the game, hence shouldn't be cheaper. The problem in the game is the production economy, ship costs are just a part of that design.

An alternative to the scout problem (cheap ships are too effective) is to limit production of ships in general. With a increasing amount of credits and a dockyard bottleneck there is more incentive to produce bigger, more expensive, ships. For example if a player could only produce three ships per turn and had 30 megacredits he'd produce a different mix than 3 scouts. The size of the player's dockyard capacity should be big enought to allow different strategies yet limited enough to make scouts a lesser choice. I'd try 6 hulls per turn or 2 hulls per world.

The rational is there is a limited production of space hulls due to material constraints. It takes many months to 'grow' the polyquark 135 lanthanum in isolation required per hull in order to survive jump space. The amount required is the same regardless of any practical hull size. Other reasoned explanations could be thought up; a limitation of pilots able to navigate to jump space, etc.

Another alternative, is to change the maintenance rules. Having all ships pay maintenance, ie. no 'frontier' maintenance, effectively makes scouts and other small ships expensive choices in the long term. Ships should still have to roll to prevent disruption if not located at a world.

2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Thanks for your interesting reply.

0] Note: below I'm using the original costs and that my system is a little complicated. A ship gets 9 points just to help screen others, but I deduct for zero str. weapons so a TR ends up with 6 pts., incl. its shield str. This gives a TR a warship value/RU of 6/RU. [Beam strengths are times 1, Missile str. are x 2 and shields are x 3.]
1] I think that the FTR are the most cost effective designs in the game when they are at an OP without having to pay for a MS. I give them a value of 16 or 18, divided by 1RU. If they have to be moved by a MS their value/RU is 6.6.
2] The Imp. SC is almost as good. I know 8 Imp. SC would slaughter 2 MB, so how can the MB be better for the money than the SC? I give them a value/RU of 15/1RU.
. . Because the Imp. Player usually controls the pairings [or match ups], he can make the MB fight SC, even in a mixed fight.
3] I think that 9 Imp. SC would easily defeat 3 Imp. DD [in a Civil War fight]. I give the Imp. DD a value/RU of 7/RU.
4] I give the Terran SC a value of 9pts, = 9/RU.
5] I give the MB a value of 24, so 24/4RU is 6.
6] Some other values are: M = 42 or 50, BB = 74 or 75, B/B1 = 58 or 57, CR = 48 or 39 [I love the Terran CR], and the CS are both 37.

So, I disagree with your claim that the above helps DD, MB and CL too much.

.......................................................................

The idea of limiting construction is interesting if you don't like my idea. However since the Imperials start with twice as many Worlds it isn't fair to have both nations be limited in the same way. Maybe 1 ship per Imp. World and 2 per Terran World. Doubling both would allow too much building. Imp. free ships are not built, they come from the Emperor's Personal Fleet. What about building M at OP? Are they free or do they count against a World?

........................................................................

I'm assuming that you meant that a ship at an OP would have to both pay for Maint. and roll as it did before. This seems to be a little extreme.
. . Also, players would need some more income or the fleets would be very small after the 1st turn. Maybe make Imp. Worlds give him an income of 2 or 3 each and the Terran Worlds have an income of about 12 to 16 each.

........................................................................

The more I think about your ideas the more I like them. While the very small ships seem to be too expensive to maintain relative to their cost, it might be OK, you do have the option of disrupting them by not paying, and they would still stop enemy movement. Or, maybe make the M#=1 ships pay half a RU each for Maint. and roll if not at a World, other ships pay their M# and roll unless at a World.

Or maybe this is better. A ship pays its Maint. # less 1 [with a min. of 1/2], so Ftr and SC pay half rounded up of the grand total of M#=1 ships you own, and if not at a World they still roll as before. And make Imp. Worlds give him an income of 2 each and the Terran Worlds have an income of about 12 each.
. . This would still make small ships expensive to maintain. SC and Ftr pay 50% of cost and DD and CL pay 33%. CR would pay 25%, B/B1 31.2%, and BB 20%.
. . You could allow TR to be disrupted all the time. Or, a disrupted TR might be limited to just 1 cargo per turn instead of the normal 2. Could a disrupted AO refuel ships?

........................................................................

These 2 rules together would go a long ways toward solving my problem of how to make Capital Ships and cruisers a better buy. Combining them with a rule that ships with a M#=4 are disrupted by a 1st hit and Capital Ships have their shields damaged* by a 1st hit, are disrupted by a 2nd hit and destroyed by 3 hits. [Also, let ships move 5 in a Reaction Move if they end at a friendly World and don't fight a battle.]

. * . "Damaged shields" means that their shield strength [only] is reduced as if the ship was disrupted. Damaged shields are repaired at the end of that complete Combat Phase [incl. the bombardment and ground combat sub-phases].
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
I saw in your reply that your gobbledygook makes only ships with jump engines be limited.

This might mean that M and Ftr are not limited at all.

This would be good I think.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
flapjackmachine wrote:
Another alternative, is to change the maintenance rules. Having all ships pay maintenance, ie. no 'frontier' maintenance, effectively makes scouts and other small ships expensive choices in the long term. Ships should still have to roll to prevent disruption if not located at a world.

The more I look at this the more I like it [if there is more income].

My thought is to --
1] Double all incomes [all the time].

2] Make you pay $1/turn for every unit [ships, troops and PDM, not OP or Worlds]. You could not pay for "warships" and they would be auto Disrupted. You must pay for troops, PDM, AO, & TR.

3] The original Maintenance rules are unchanged except that at a World you pay M#-1.

At the start both players have 22 units, which is about equal to their starting incomes. If they're doubled then they start with a little more cash after they make their required payments.

During the 1st turn of every war you just make the "required" payments. The old Maint. is free.

I always wondered why troops and PDM were free of Maint.

Your idea makes M#=1 ships very expensive to maintain, but now you will want them at a World; because 1+ M#-1 equals the M#.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.