Core range bonus instead of distance penalty?

Ironduke

Spaceman
Looking at the skirmishes we had so far, I found that it just takes too long to take out an enemy. And part of that problem seems to be that the odds are too much against hitting a given target. Which is why I thought of this: Instead of giving a penalty to the Target Roll when an enemy is further away, why not give a bonus if he's close?

Right now, the penalties are:
1-2 hexes distance - no penalty
3-4 hexes distance - TR +1
5-6 hexes distance - TR +2
7-8 hexes distance - TR +3

What I'm considering now is this:
1 hex distances - TR -2
2 hexes distance - TR -1
3-5 hexes distance - no bonus/penalty
6 hexes distance - TR +1
7+ hexes distance - TR +2

Or get rid of penalties altogether, meaning you'd get a bonus for core range (1 hex distance) and close range (2 hexes distance), and no modifiers whatsoever for any other range.
Opinions?
 

Humungus

Spaceman
Certainly a good idea, it just takes too long now...

I would keep the penalties, but maybe make them
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8+

I would definitely make the penalty range wider (like this), it applies only to flak anyway :p
 

Ironduke

Spaceman
Flak gets a general +2 penalty anyway in the next rules update... ;)
Now either I haven't understood what you suggested, or it would make hitting targets even more difficult.

(Distance: Penalty)
1: no penalty
2-3: +1
4-5: +2
6-7: +3
8+: +4

Is that what you wanted to propose?
 

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mpanty's bane
Wow, this thread almost eluded me.

Anyway, I'm in favour of reducing the range penalties, though I'd go with:

1 hex away: -2
2-3 hexes away: -1
3-4 away: no modifier
5-6: +1
7-8: +2
 

Ironduke

Spaceman
There's a reason why I'm hesitant to apply a bonus to a range of 3 hexes: It would mean that you'd always get a bonus when using neutron guns and mass drivers. I'd rather stick with the solution of 1 hex = +2, 2 hex = +1, 3 hex = +0.
I'm also thinking about getting rid of the 2d6 Target Roll dice and use 1d12 instead. And reduce all ships' Target Rolls by 1. :p
 

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mpanty's bane
Problem with number 3 :p

Indeed :).

I wanted to make sure that range 5 has at least a modifier of +1, so in the end either range 2-3 gives a -1 modifier, 4 no modifier and 5-6 +1 or range 2 -1, 3-4 no modifier and 5-6 +1.

What would be the benefit of switching to 1d12?
 

Humungus

Spaceman
Making the odds really balanced and introducing number 1... with two d6 the most likely number is 7, with d12, every number has the same chance
Therefore, critical misses/successes would occur a lot more often
 

Ironduke

Spaceman
What he said. :p
Actually, I think the game would benefit from this change. Right now, with the 2d6 system, we're seeing a lot of similar die rolls - and the odds for a lucky shot (or critical miss) are rather slim.

It's also easier to roll 1d12 instead of 2d6 for every weapon and refire - remember that WCTO is meant to be a board game in the first place. (The downside is that not-so-geeky people wanting to check WCTO out would have to buy some d12 first, of course. As if not-so-geeky people would ever lay their hands on this game, haha!)
 

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mpanty's bane
Yeah, ok, I figured that out too but wouldn't that make us see more lower numbers and thus reducing the chances to hit?
 

Ironduke

Spaceman
Yes, I'll have to rework the TRs. At least lowering all of them by 1 - I was even thinking along the lines of reducing TRs to 0+ to 4+ (or 5+) and just modifying them with the target distance. I'd like to make things easier in general, but I'm still undecided whether I should improve on the existing rules or throw some of them over board. :eek: ;)
 

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mpanty's bane
I guess it depends which rules you mean and how much you want to make easier and how much you want to keep some rules that define TacOps for you. E.g. the movement rules could be a lot simplified but then there would be no "feeling" of inertia left and that's what you wanted to include in the game.

All in all, I think improving the rules should work fine, that's what playtesting is for.
 

Ironduke

Spaceman
I'll definitely stick with the movement rules as they are right now. I'm just not happy with the whole targeting/damaging stuff. While you shouldn't be able to take down an enemy fighter within one turn, it just takes too long to place a hit right now. And we have lots of modifiers, like target speed, attacker speed, target distance, pilot skills... I was thinking about just using a basic TR for each fighter, then applying the distance in hexes and pilot skills, and that's it. No more modifiers for speed, apart from maybe a -1 or -2 penalty to the TR when a target is moving on afterburners.
I'm also pondering the refire rates - maybe get rid of them altogether and introduce energy levels instead. This wouldn't make things easier, though, as you'd have to keep an eye on your energy levels, and I'd also have to consider how much total energy each ship has available. However, it would definitely make things more tactical. Currently, you just use all your refires whenever you have the chance - with energy levels, you might want to save some energy for the next turn (if you see a chance for tailing, for instance). Which also means that using up all your gun energy in one turn would leave you dry for the next 1 or 2 turns, depending on the energy recharge rate.
Maybe I'll make up my mind in 2009! :p
 
Top