by hudcrab
Donkler wrote:
Sounds interesting, but I agree, perhaps a little too powerful. I don't think the proper balancing solution is to make the rules more complicated, though.
I would handle it more like retreating: Instead of attacking in a round you would place your ships on top of the enemy ships that they are ramming into. The next round, those that are left alive ram the enemy ships, and just automatically take them out. Finally, do not allow the person that used this tactic to draw any reputation tiles for this battle.
This requires less calculation, gives the defender a choice on which ships to shoot down, and is thematic in that the history books will certainly not look fondly on the empire that employed suicide tactics.
I would handle it more like retreating: Instead of attacking in a round you would place your ships on top of the enemy ships that they are ramming into. The next round, those that are left alive ram the enemy ships, and just automatically take them out. Finally, do not allow the person that used this tactic to draw any reputation tiles for this battle.
This requires less calculation, gives the defender a choice on which ships to shoot down, and is thematic in that the history books will certainly not look fondly on the empire that employed suicide tactics.
I agree with this. If you're really worried about an interceptor destroying a dreadnaught then you can always say that:
- a single interceptor can only kill another interceptor or a starbase
- it takes two interceptors to kill a cruiser
- it takes three interceptors to kill a dread