Topic: #10. shields up cloak, flame retardent suit on

[Gook]

10. Deepstrikes no reason that these should not be permitted anywhere. A combination of missions makes them more difficult and NOT having a secure flank and rear adds piquancy.

We did have some discussion in the original thread. Nothing conclusive. Post preferences with (cogent) reasoning please.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

My preferences:

Deepstrikes allowed with minor limitations, these being:

#1  Cannot flip an enemy planet without an LOS although defense value could be lowered to a degree, I like 20% origional starting value or if we need a round number say 10 DV.

Reasoning:  Without a LOS it is hard to concieve of an Empire being able to ferry in troops and supplies needed for a planet-wide assault and occupation.  Attack against the DV would be possible as key installations were knocked out and the population panics causing the state of the defenses to decline.



#2  Cannot raise the DV of any hex taken over without an LOS to above 1/2 its maximum value

Reasoning:  Without LOS and firm control of an area the capabilities of its defenses could never be fully utilized, a large part of an areas defense would depend upon resupply of equipment, manpower, and munitions.



#3  Anyone caught more than 2 hexes behind enemy lines must fight to the death unless the mission allows for victory without destroying your opponent.  This would mean a convoy raid, a scan, a data recovery etc.

Reasoning:  You have been found out the enemy would notify his/her superiors and a posse would be formed.  If no players are online with a ship or combo of ships that could deal with you there is no reason to suppose a non player posse couldn't as large units could be deployed in a "real"  SFC universe, therefore a fight to the death would seem logical. 



The reason I think the other missions should allow a disengage if the objectives are fulfilled would be they were designed that way and in each case are encounters that would be planned and not a happenstance discovery by a patrol.  I would assume a retreat route already carefully planned in these cases.  Now the fact that other plaers might be relaying info on voice comms presents a reasonable hazzard in this case.

***A side note***  I think the disengagement rule should be dropped in the case of the defender of a deepstrike, ie any player who is at least 2 hexes deep in his own or allied territory.  No reason a deepstriker should be able to prevent moving through your own space.



#4  special VC hexes should not be able to be flipped without a LOS other than to neutral.

Reasoning:  Game imbalance,for example  a side with no players online should not lose control of a VC hex due to a group of dedicated deepstrikers taking that hex without a LOS.  If it is flipped neutral, fine, one mission will restore ownership.



#5  No deepstriking in hexes directly adjacent to homeworlds

Reasoning:  The amount of traffic and defenses in these systems would make such attempts suicidal in a 'real" future sfc universe IMHO.  Now once the front moves within 2 hexes it is feasible as the defenses and patrols have been stripped for front line duty.

[Cleaven]

On the basis that 1.) bases are destructable, 2.) planet DV only increases by one on flip, and 3.) missions are always drawn in neutral and enemy space..

I think there should be no rules on "deep strikes". The rules are cumbersome and open to arguement, eg when people log back in to find themselves in "the deep" etc.

I don't even think that Line of Supply should be required for a base, if they can be easily destroyed. People have complained that bases should be able to provide a locus for battles but I think planets can serve just as well as that locus.

There should not be any rule to stand and die either, just the rule to not return to a hex they have run from. Yes this means a deep striker can run around like a hare but he can't return to the spot he was working on. Somebody may have to go around and clean up the big K in Fed space or whatever but, as long as friendly space missions are easier to run, who cares.
I don't think the D2 should be locked into entrenched front lines but non friendly space must be a hindrance to movement so that taking of hexes is encouraged.

Did I mention less rules?

[Capt Jeff]

I completely agree with what Cleaven posted.

Less rules, more fun.

[Kroma BaSyl]

On the basis that 1.) bases are destructable, 2.) planet DV only increases by one on flip, and 3.) missions are always drawn in neutral and enemy space..

I think there should be no rules on "deep strikes". The rules are cumbersome and open to arguement, eg when people log back in to find themselves in "the deep" etc.

I don't even think that Line of Supply should be required for a base, if they can be easily destroyed. People have complained that bases should be able to provide a locus for battles but I think planets can serve just as well as that locus.

There should not be any rule to stand and die either, just the rule to not return to a hex they have run from. Yes this means a deep striker can run around like a hare but he can't return to the spot he was working on. Somebody may have to go around and clean up the big K in Fed space or whatever but, as long as friendly space missions are easier to run, who cares.
I don't think the D2 should be locked into entrenched front lines but non friendly space must be a hindrance to movement so that taking of hexes is encouraged.

Did I mention less rules?

Completely agree.

[el-Karnak]

Disengagement rule should be sufficient to deter deep strikers. If they keep running from pursuing forces, sooner or later they will run out of hexes to go to. If the deep striker got their escape route cut off by incurring a wall of banned hexes  that cuts their path back to home space then they they did not play it right.

On the subject of simpifying rules, I would like the disengagement rule modified so that the banning time for ship destruction is the same for taco-belling so as to stop any gratitious suicide runs in dirt-cheap ships just to save on hex banning time.

Just one banning time limit to remember. So easy, so simple, just dial 1-800-BAN-TIME and you're all set.

[Lepton]

I have no problem with restricted use of deepstrikes, with a 2 hex-deep limit.  It is consistent with logic of an LOS rule.  If there are no restrictions on deepstriking, you might as well not have an LOS rule at all.  There is an internal logic there that I think is undeniable. 

If you want a simple rule set, nothing is simpler than LOS.  Deepstriking is always going to have a layer of restriction on it as people don't want hexes flipped, planets flipped, or bases flipped without the work to get to that hex, so by definition deepstriking will always have more rules to it than a simple LOS.

I could make long conjecturable arguements about space and defenses, etc, but I will simply say this.  If you can merely pass through a hex that is not yours, then DV effectively means nothing.  It is no mistake that there are mandatory missions in neutral and enemy hexes.

Further, those races that have expendables as a primary weapon get magic replenishment of those assets which is not accurate nor fair, therefore the LOS rule is meant to constrain that error in Taldren's expendables system

Finally, if deepstriking is restricted in some manner, then it is likely merely to be a nuisance and a source of more rule-debating and flames whereas LOS is transparent and fair.  Can we imagine the first instance where some deepstriker crashes through no fault on his own in a mission with a significant force sent to intercept him??  That kind of system will merely sow the seeds of distrust.   Hell, we had people crapping themselves over supposed purposeful disconnections on RDSL.  Can you imagine the flak that will ensue when this happens to a deepstriker whether or not it is intentional?

BTW, It is a total misnomer that any front is protected under LOS.  One need merely build an LOS to it.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Lepton:

Drone boats of all races have approxamently 5000 or so drones on them at the beginning of every cruise.

And there's 3 primary ways of storing them:
Live on the rack, armed and ready to fly
In reload storage, armed but safetied
In deep storage, probably semi-disassembled, fuel tanks empty, etc.

Due to the concerns in packing "live" drones, they need to be properly secured in large reload racks, limiting the number of drones available for any given mission.  The dedicated crew needs hours in-between scenerios to assemble, refuel and reload the drones.

Hence the "free" reloads.  They're not free, they're on the ship waiting for a space on the racks to open so they can be prepped.

Why the crews don't automatically reload the racks to full capacity is beyond me, that's a flaw in the system I want to see corrected...

[Lepton]

That may be SFB canon (yet you have cited no source), but it is certainly not the SFC system.  If ships had 5000 drones, why would there ever be a need to buy any drone reloads in the D2??  This is the logic of the system we are operating under.  One can run out of drones and they need to be bought often (a common drone user complaint), not 5000 on board.  The error is the magic regenerating reloads, not that there should be 5000 on board and basically free of charge. 

[Cleaven]

That may be SFB canon (yet you have cited no source), but it is certainly not the SFC system.  If ships had 5000 drones, why would there ever be a need to buy any drone reloads in the D2??  This is the logic of the system we are operating under.  One can run out of drones and they need to be bought often (a common drone user complaint), not 5000 on board.  The error is the magic regenerating reloads, not that there should be 5000 on board and basically free of charge. 

The business of buying stores (incl drones) is a holdover from the Mplayer/GSA style of measuring combat capability. It was obviously easy from a coding point of view to just plug in that part of the multiplayer game, and keep using the economic BPV's for the ships. I don't think anything can be done about mines or spares, but the free reloads are pretty correct.

And I find it's damage repair and fighter loss that keeps me close to a base. If a player chooses to fly off in a less consumable (spares/fighters)  dependant ship then he should not be too restricted.

Now if you just want to stick to the logic of the system we have, then there should be no rules at all.

[Lepton]

I agree provisionally with a free downloads system up to a point, but SFB canon drone outloads are not a justification for deepstriking rules or lack thereof.  The D2 is based upon a cost for ships and expendables.  In the later case this requires droners to be in close proximity to supply.  That is the system in place and unless we are prepared to alter the standard drone outloads and the corresponing BPV, that is how it will remain. 

Given this system, which may or may not be a holdover from GSA style play, taken in tandem with the concept of DV and mandatory missions in neutral and enemy space, what this speaks to me of is almost by definition an LOS type server.  While there is certainly nothing within the D2 engine to prevent deepstriking, the logic of a hexed map with contiguous spaces that have defensive values and obligations to take missions suggests to me significant impediments to deepstriking and reveals an intent on the part of the designers.  Why have intervening space on the map if bases and planets are the only areas of interest and all space between is perfectly permeable to enemy probes?  Answer is that it isn't and was never meant to be.  The intent of intervening space is that it is to be captured, not by-passed.

There is also nothing to prevent people from moving in obligatory mission space by logging off and logging on or from alt-f4ing whenever they so desire, but neither are within the bounds of the social contract we have as D2 players.  Provisions against deepstriking fall into such a gentlemen's agreement to refrain from what is possible not desireable within this environment.

[Cleaven]

What you are saying about the hexes requiring missions etc is my justification for not having a rule on whether you can go into enemy space or not. The penalty for "deep striking" is built into the system in that you are far away from supply, and you must take missions in every hex. Why add extra rules on top of that?

Now if there was no impediment to how far you could range without hindrance, then yes some sort of constraints would have to be imposed, but we do have constraints in place. Therefore we don't need additional constraints like LOS.

I remember the old days where part of the purpose of the behind the lines raids was to weaken the defences so that when an offensive went in it was quicker to make the road or tunnel or whatever. We still made roads even though there was no rule, simply because it was the most efficient way to move. Now I say we don't need rules that the basic laws of economy of force are going to make you do most of the time anyway.

[Lepton]

There is virtually no impediment in practice when AI missions are simple to beat.  The intent of having DVs are to my mind exactly that, an impediment.  Why is it called a defensive value if the hex is not defended?  Why are missions mandatory if there aren't meant to stop you? 

I understand your point as to how one could view it as an impediment, but an impediment is not an impediment if it does not really impede.  Folks could pretty much deepstrike all day against the AI and this is exactly when this deepstrike tactic will be used, when only the AI remains.  In the depth of night or when server numbers are not in balance, folks will soften stuff up with impunity.  That's not tactics.  That's opportunism and I think it's just the kind of thing you dislike about the D2 as much as I do.

LOS is the simplest possible rule.  Deepstriking will be restricted in some manner as people will not countenance their homeworlds or some such being flipped without LOS, therefore deepstriking will be by definition more rule intensive than LOS.  How low can the DV go when deepstriking?  Can a hex be flipped at all? What type of hexes?  Can deepstrikers disengage or not?  Yada, yada, yada.  LOS is simple.  Don't attack a hex that isn't beside your own territory.  Simple.  Clean.  Unconfused.  Intuitive.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

  Simple.  Clean.  Unconfused.  Intuitive.

Boring, Uncreative, Strategically Limiting.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

The more I think about it the more I like Cleaven's idea of even fewer regulations than I proposed.  Although I think the actual homeworld should still be protected.  It seems like currently the only thing we don't have a rule for is premature ejaculation - but I hear that that's coming quickly.*






*credit to Mel Brooks

[Cleaven]

There is virtually no impediment in practice when AI missions are simple to beat.  The intent of having DVs are to my mind exactly that, an impediment.  Why is it called a defensive value if the hex is not defended?  Why are missions mandatory if there aren't meant to stop you?

The manditory missions are not ment to stop you, otherwise you would be facing impossible missions. Even PvP missions don't stop you if you are good enough. So I think we should not be hearing about how a DV is supposed to stop you.  Instead the impediment is a time impediment and an accumulation of damage from fighting missions without access to resupply.

I understand your point as to how one could view it as an impediment, but an impediment is not an impediment if it does not really impede.

I think you need to get some air.

Folks could pretty much deepstrike all day against the AI and this is exactly when this deepstrike tactic will be used, when only the AI remains.  In the depth of night or when server numbers are not in balance, folks will soften stuff up with impunity.  That's not tactics.  That's opportunism and I think it's just the kind of thing you dislike about the D2 as much as I do.

"Ahem, sorry lads the enemy have only put up one player this afternoon so no attacking them until there are a few more on deck. It wouldn't be fair you know."

I'm sorry but if you want to restrict actions on the basis that the enemy is not there to oppose it then you will need to regulate the server all the time not just after dark (GMT).
Essentially you can't base restrictions on what happens with player numbers at any time of day.

LOS is the simplest possible rule.  Deepstriking will be restricted in some manner as people will not countenance their homeworlds or some such being flipped without LOS, therefore deepstriking will be by definition more rule intensive than LOS.  How low can the DV go when deepstriking?  Can a hex be flipped at all? What type of hexes?  Can deepstrikers disengage or not?  Yada, yada, yada.  LOS is simple.  Don't attack a hex that isn't beside your own territory.  Simple.  Clean.  Unconfused.  Intuitive.

LOS rules are not the simplest rules, by any stretch of the imagination. As it stands the side with the greatest numbers of high playing hours captains (greatest number of missions run) will usually win, so why complicate things by limiting where and when the more numerous side can attack? If the weaker and therefore more likely defending side can't patch up the holes in their home space how can they resist the frontal assault? On the other hand having access to a variety of tactics may well turn the game from one of a simple head on slog to some thing a little deeper and requiring more leader management. Will the missions behind the lines have an impact or will they be wasted missions easily cleaned up afterwards?

I don't intend to list the issues with LOS rules that have been used so far.

[Kroma BaSyl]

No deep strike rule, just a LOS for flipping enemy hexes. Simple.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

No deep strike rule, just a LOS for flipping enemy hexes. Simple.

Ahem.......this is an oxymoron

[Kroma BaSyl]

No deep strike rule, just a LOS for flipping enemy hexes. Simple.

Ahem.......this is an oxymoron

no it isn't. Simply remove the deep strike rule, but make sure that there is a rule that requires a LOS for flipping hexes. I would even go as far as LOS only for flipping enemy planets or bases (if they aren't distructable. Thus it is only an oxymoron if your prespective is that deep striking must include flipping planets or bases, or it isn't deep striking. I would like to see the removal of the fight to the death rule, so long as the disengagement and LOS rules are in place. Still lots of mischief to be had behind enemy lines.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

An LOS is a rule which limits the actions allowed by deepstrikes and is thus a deepstrike rule whether you call it one or not. 

Are you recanting your earlier position Kroma?

On the basis that 1.) bases are destructable, 2.) planet DV only increases by one on flip, and 3.) missions are always drawn in neutral and enemy space..

I think there should be no rules on "deep strikes". The rules are cumbersome and open to arguement, eg when people log back in to find themselves in "the deep" etc.

I don't even think that Line of Supply should be required for a base, if they can be easily destroyed. People have complained that bases should be able to provide a locus for battles but I think planets can serve just as well as that locus.

There should not be any rule to stand and die either, just the rule to not return to a hex they have run from. Yes this means a deep striker can run around like a hare but he can't return to the spot he was working on. Somebody may have to go around and clean up the big K in Fed space or whatever but, as long as friendly space missions are easier to run, who cares.
I don't think the D2 should be locked into entrenched front lines but non friendly space must be a hindrance to movement so that taking of hexes is encouraged.

Did I mention less rules?

Completely agree.