A casual search on the forums turns up quite a number of threads discussing the "problem" of the boost action between small- and large- base ships. Specifically, that the large base ships manage to get a lot more out of it than small-base ships do.

Most suggestions to deal with that involve a nerf to the large-base boost in some way. Template moves of front-to-front instead of front-to-back, placing the movement template on the outside of the maneuver rather than center, etc. Lots of ideas - up to, in some cases, suggesting an outright ban on large-ship boosts (this one, clearly, impossible - 'engine upgrade' only comes with large-ship retail kits, and in the IG-2000 there is at least one large ship that has boost natively). Almost all focusing on a nerf to large bases.

But...

...and here's where my weird thought comes in...

Why nerf the large-base boost? Why not buff the small-base boost? In a small way, but with the idea of bringing it up to parity with large-base-boosting. Something like...

Leave large-base boost as-is. Use a speed-1 bank or straight template. But when a small-base ship boosts, it may choose to use the speed-1 or speed-2 bank or straight templates.

*boom* - problem solved. Large-base ships are no longer speeding ahead of their small-base brethren when boosting. Indeed, the 'front' of the base now moves the exact same distance between the ship types. And who knows, maybe people will start flying A-Wings or TIE Interceptors again...

I actually like the idea of the large ship using the 2 base from the rear of the ship better. It makes them feel more lumbering. Someone had a diagram in a past thread, but I cannot find it.

Personally a fan of restructuring so that large ships can only boost 1 straight and smalls can boost 2 straight or 1 bank.

But I'd be happy with the smalls get 2 speed boost too.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of why Large Boost is a problem.

It isn't "it's faster than Small ships."

It's "it boosts so far that it arc-dodges and ranges away from retaliatory fiirepower."

Your solution wouldn't be bad if the first thing were the actual problem. But it's not.

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of why Large Boost is a problem.

It isn't "it's faster than Small ships."

It's "it boosts so far that it arc-dodges and ranges away from retaliatory fiirepower."

Your solution wouldn't be bad if the first thing were the actual problem. But it's not.

You're re-stating the same problem, differently.

Boost is a thing that you have to pay for, after all - either a 4-pt upgrade or built into the ship cost. Spending 4 pts for an upgrade that doesn't actually give you an advantage doesn't feel right, to me.

So the problem as you state it would be more accurately phrased as 'it boosts [large base ships] so far that it arc-doges and ranges away from retaliatory firepower [while small base ships are paying the same cost and cannot do that]'.

Which is the same thing I'm saying. Right now, boost provides an advantage to large-base ships that small-base ships don't get, for the same price. This proposal solves that. Whether or not it makes sense for any ship to have that advantage for "merely" 4-pts and the opportunity cost of using up their mod slot...is maybe something worth debate. What I think we both agree on, though, is that it is silly for that same price and opportunity cost to provide that benefit to only large-base ships and not small base, yes?

IE., you seem to feel that neither should have that ability (I'm sympathetic to that idea, but given the price and opportunity cost of the upgrade not endeared to it), my preference is for both to have that ability, the current state is that one has it and one doesn't ...which I imagine we are in agreement is the least desirable state.

29 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Why nerf the large-base boost? Why not buff the small-base boost? In a small way, but with the idea of bringing it up to parity with large-base-boosting. Something like...

My opinion is:

Why not buff? Because small-base boost should be left as-is.

The game should, in general, try to maximize the importance of the planning phase. Using post-maneuver repositional abilities should have a non-negligible yet not-excessive impact on the game. The problem is, it's very difficult to hit that middle ground. So, on most small-base ships, the existence of boost or barrel roll on the dial amounts to little more than "I guess I'll adjust so that I don't clip that rock next turn, but I'd rather take a focus." Sometimes you can dodge or gain a shot because of them, but not particularly often. If you can do either one for free (looking at you, FAA, Advanced Optics) then the story's different, but outside of a few cases they're an opportunity cost not often worth taking. And on a select number of small-base ships, having both boost and barrel roll on the dial amounts to, "either I use my actions to deny you having any good shots on my ships or you win". It swings to the extremes and no one is happy about that, but it's hard to articulate, and there are more pressing issues that need attention.

The problem is amplified on large base ships because of the problems articulated in all those nerf threads, but that doesn't take it out of the "extremes" territory. After all, most of the large bases that are going to barrel roll or boost are going to be ones that have upgrades or squad-mates who will help negate the opportunity cost of boosting or barrel rolling. For instance, you're not going to put Engine Upgrade on Resistance Bombers. Torpedo U-Boats didn't have boost (although barrel roll was native) because there's more than just the point cost to consider.

Another problem is one of distortion: there aren't as many large ships as small ships in the game, and the large ships that make it to the tables are the ones that are already taking the best upgrades thanks to their generous upgrade bars, which are often helping alleviate the opportunity cost of boost/barrel roll, so you see large ships with boost a lot. That doesn't make it universally good, though. You can't just take EU on a large ship and have that make it good. But if you have the good chassis already, and the upgrades to make it work, you should always at least ask the question, "would having the ability to boost make this ship do better?"

And the proposed fix you have would not address the actual problem with boost, because it's not doing anything to make boost a generally worthwhile action; it's making the extremes a little more extreme-y. Definitely, arc-dodgers would love you forever, and arc-locked ships would be disgusted. I don't really want to play a game where my only realistic options are "take arc-dodgers, because the opponent's maneuvers don't matter" or "take turrets, so that your maneuvers don't matter".

39 minutes ago, xanderf said:

You're re-stating the same problem, differently.

I'm not.

39 minutes ago, xanderf said:

So the problem as you state it would be more accurately phrased as 'it boosts [large base ships] so far that it arc-doges and ranges away from retaliatory firepower [while small base ships are paying the same cost and cannot do that]'.

No. I chose my words pretty carefully.

The problem is that Large ships -- especially those with turrets, which are pretty invariably the ones on which Boost is a problem -- are supposed to have downsides to make up for their upsides. Specifically, but not limited to, they're supposed to be theoretically catchable by multiple arc-locked ships so they can get burned down.

Large-based Boost makes that intended drawback not actually be a drawback. With Boost, because of the distance it pushes them, Large-based ships (again, turrets) can either arc-dodge arc-locked ships or range away from retaliation such that they are only trading fire with a small fraction of enemy forces.

That is the problem with Large-based Boost. It has nothing to do with Small-based Boosting ships, at all, unless you're positing that every squadron that takes on a Large-based Boosting turret must also be a composed of all Small-based Boosters.

So, again, you're misunderstanding the problem, which is why your fix isn't a good one.

The problem isn't "it's faster than Small ships."

The problem is "it boosts so far that it arc-dodges and ranges away from retaliatory fiirepower."

Yeah, Jeffs right on this one.

Allowing small ships with boost to outperform small ships without boost in the same way large ships do =\= fixing a problem with large base boost.

Simplest fix is large bases only get to boost forward.

55 minutes ago, xanderf said:

You're re-stating the same problem, differently.

Boost is a thing that you have to pay for, after all - either a 4-pt upgrade or built into the ship cost. Spending 4 pts for an upgrade that doesn't actually give you an advantage doesn't feel right, to me.

So the problem as you state it would be more accurately phrased as 'it boosts [large base ships] so far that it arc-doges and ranges away from retaliatory firepower [while small base ships are paying the same cost and cannot do that]'.

Which is the same thing I'm saying. Right now, boost provides an advantage to large-base ships that small-base ships don't get, for the same price. This proposal solves that. Whether or not it makes sense for any ship to have that advantage for "merely" 4-pts and the opportunity cost of using up their mod slot...is maybe something worth debate. What I think we both agree on, though, is that it is silly for that same price and opportunity cost to provide that benefit to only large-base ships and not small base, yes?

IE., you seem to feel that neither should have that ability (I'm sympathetic to that idea, but given the price and opportunity cost of the upgrade not endeared to it), my preference is for both to have that ability, the current state is that one has it and one doesn't ...which I imagine we are in agreement is the least desirable state.

49 minutes ago, Sparklelord said:

My opinion is:

Why not buff? Because small-base boost should be left as-is.

The game should, in general, try to maximize the importance of the planning phase. Using post-maneuver repositional abilities should have a non-negligible yet not-excessive impact on the game. The problem is, it's very difficult to hit that middle ground. So, on most small-base ships, the existence of boost or barrel roll on the dial amounts to little more than "I guess I'll adjust so that I don't clip that rock next turn, but I'd rather take a focus." Sometimes you can dodge or gain a shot because of them, but not particularly often. If you can do either one for free (looking at you, FAA, Advanced Optics) then the story's different, but outside of a few cases they're an opportunity cost not often worth taking. And on a select number of small-base ships, having both boost and barrel roll on the dial amounts to, "either I use my actions to deny you having any good shots on my ships or you win". It swings to the extremes and no one is happy about that, but it's hard to articulate, and there are more pressing issues that need attention.

The problem is amplified on large base ships because of the problems articulated in all those nerf threads, but that doesn't take it out of the "extremes" territory. After all, most of the large bases that are going to barrel roll or boost are going to be ones that have upgrades or squad-mates who will help negate the opportunity cost of boosting or barrel rolling. For instance, you're not going to put Engine Upgrade on Resistance Bombers. Torpedo U-Boats didn't have boost (although barrel roll was native) because there's more than just the point cost to consider.

Another problem is one of distortion: there aren't as many large ships as small ships in the game, and the large ships that make it to the tables are the ones that are already taking the best upgrades thanks to their generous upgrade bars, which are often helping alleviate the opportunity cost of boost/barrel roll, so you see large ships with boost a lot. That doesn't make it universally good, though. You can't just take EU on a large ship and have that make it good. But if you have the good chassis already, and the upgrades to make it work, you should always at least ask the question, "would having the ability to boost make this ship do better?"

And the proposed fix you have would not address the actual problem with boost, because it's not doing anything to make boost a generally worthwhile action; it's making the extremes a little more extreme-y. Definitely, arc-dodgers would love you forever, and arc-locked ships would be disgusted. I don't really want to play a game where my only realistic options are "take arc-dodgers, because the opponent's maneuvers don't matter" or "take turrets, so that your maneuvers don't matter".

Wise words from both, I believe we are at a design crisis because of this.

Measuring from the back won't happen, it is just too large of a divorce from the core mechanics. Not until a second edition.

The planning phase is becoming less and less important, which is sad for this game. On the other hand, neither large bases or turrets were designed by careful examination of the possibilities.

Without a drastic rewriting of the rules and mechanics, a solution where both of these (and many other important) questions are answered in an equally satisfactory fashion is not possible.

Actually, fixing Large-based Boost is trivial. I've posted how to do it on these boards probably 10 times. Should be searchable.

My solution even has the tiny additional advantage of being, at worst, neutral in impact for arc-locked Large Boosters, which is good, because they really aren't the problem. (For example, "only Boost straight ahead" is a punishment for an Aggressor or for many non-problematic ships with Engine, such as the Lambda, YV-666, Upsilon, U-wing, and so on.)

"A ship that performs a Boost action may not fire outside its primary arc for the remainder of the turn."

Is this random/silly enough?

How about:

You may perform attacks outside your primary firing arc... then receive a stress token?

The age of arc dodgers being dominant may be a little behind us, but the idea of a soontir that got to use a 2 speed maneuver to get out of arcs... ya that sounds awfffffful.

What if large bases got the phantom decloak treatment? Everything works the way it does now BUT if a large base ship wanted to boost it must be declared at the beginning of the turn before reveal and the boost must happen before anything is revealed. That way large bases could still boost but it would not be a positioning tool for arc dodging but a calculated risk of hitting the gas in a ship that is not designed to be an awing on hyper steroids.

18 minutes ago, LordFajubi said:

What if large bases got the phantom decloak treatment? Everything works the way it does now BUT if a large base ship wanted to boost it must be declared at the beginning of the turn before reveal and the boost must happen before anything is revealed. That way large bases could still boost but it would not be a positioning tool for arc dodging but a calculated risk of hitting the gas in a ship that is not designed to be an awing on hyper steroids.

That becomes a whole different problem. Now you would end up with high PS ships that are some of the best blockers in the game. Especially with things like ion Projectors or Anti Pursuit lasers out there.

Boost, block a couple small bases, cause a damage or two, then do your maneuver and hit them with your turret while they have no tokens because they lost their actions.

Change EU to cost 2 and Small Ship only like Vectored Thrusters. As we've seen time and time again, large bases get too much movement out of any reposition action. It happened with Barrel Roll back in the day when the YT-2400 rolled out when it got specifically changed to work differently for large bases and the Roll was definitely a factor in the power level of the JumpMasters (and still is for Dash). "Fixing" it may be viable, but Vectored Thrusters was more than a tacit admission that repo moves on large bases should be more tightly controlled than they have been.

1 hour ago, MasterShake2 said:

Change EU to cost 2 and Small Ship only like Vectored Thrusters. As we've seen time and time again, large bases get too much movement out of any reposition action. It happened with Barrel Roll back in the day when the YT-2400 rolled out when it got specifically changed to work differently for large bases and the Roll was definitely a factor in the power level of the JumpMasters (and still is for Dash). "Fixing" it may be viable, but Vectored Thrusters was more than a tacit admission that repo moves on large bases should be more tightly controlled than they have been.

Due to which packs come with EU already, change EU to cost 5, then release a new card called Upgraded Engines, cost 2, Small ship only.

I've never had a problem with it. Bigger ships can afford more powerful engines, but they're rarely anywhere near as agile.

4 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I've never had a problem with it. Bigger ships can afford more powerful engines, but they're rarely anywhere near as agile.

So you agree with me?

Small ship Upgraded Engines 2 points

Large Ship Engine Upgrade 4-5 points

6 hours ago, pickirk01 said:

So you agree with me?

Small ship Upgraded Engines 2 points

Large Ship Engine Upgrade 4-5 points

Sure.