KamikazeJohnson
08/09/17 06:46 PM
142.160.216.118
|
Something I got thinking about while I was looking over my weapon specs for the house-ruled system I'm working on: how is weapon balance affected by the way the game is played?
What I mean is, most players, to my knowledge, play "Match" style...pick your units, here's the map, who's the last one standing? Or if they play objectives, it's still usually 1-2 scenarios in isolation.
Looked at from that perspective, most players agree that weapons are reasonably well balanced in general; if a match looks to be long enough for ammo supply to be a consideration, a marked preference for energy weapons emerges.
To me, this seems backwards; looking at the sheer amount of rules dedicated to creating ongoing characters and extended campaigns, it seems a bit strange that the weapons are internally balanced for single matches.
Here's how I see it:
Ballistic/Missile weapons:
1) Limited number of shots (require reloads mid-mission)
2) Additional danger of Ammo hits
3) Generally weigh more and take more crits/unit damage.
Energy Weapons:
1) No ammo
2) Higher heat generation
If the weapons were balanced with campaigns in mind, rather than matches, I would therefore expect Ammo-dependent weapons to do MORE damage/ton/heat than their energy-based counterparts; I would say around 60% more would be reasonable. Which would mean that in a "match" setting, a Stalker should obliterate an Awesome, while the Awesome would become a much more effective unit in an extended campaign; instead the two are fairly well matched, depending on the nature of the battle, with perhaps a small edge going to the Awesome due to heavier armour and the ability to sustain maximum firepower much longer without needing to cool off.
Accomplishing this rebalance is probably not realistic within the existing rule system, but I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to shoot for that type of balance within my house-ruled system. Thoughts? Would a 60% boost in relative firepower work to make ammo-dependent weapons more desirable for campaigns, or would that just "break" the game for short matches?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Karagin
08/09/17 07:27 PM
72.176.187.91
|
Went with the rule of 120 being the base value. I will dig up the formula we used to get that and share it later.
If you change the heat/damage ratio then you might want to look at the ranges, the other paradox in the game, and figure out if that needs to be adjusted as well.
Your example I have never seen, normally the players try really hard to use some for of tactical thinking, then again there are those who run up to about 5 hexes and blast each other all game.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
08/10/17 02:46 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Interesting thing comes to mind about the ammunition weapons being a 'match' weapon of choice.
The clans come to mind in some of the writings I have seen. Set up for short brutal fights, especially things like the grand melee.
A few suggest the clans will halt a battle to allow both sides to rearm. They normally do not add in additional units, unless they want to suffer the shame of needing more forces.
But the fact remains, they were tied to ammo dumps more then what you would think, given the energy weapons doesn't rely on the dump as much.
I would think ammo dependent weapons should do more damage, as they will run out of that very ammo. Or have a greater range/better targeting as we know shooting a gun is much easier then placing the laser on the same spot for a short while to burn and melt armor.
I wonder. Does all fantasy games have more destructive power in 'bolt' style weapons, or is beams own it in the destructive areas?
|