Topic: Fleet Poll

[Gook]

Seeing how polls get a wider response than threads on a subject, here is another, on fleets.

If you choose option 3, please add a few lines as to what you think the CnC should be. If you refer back to a previous server, please still say what the rules were

[Holocat]

I'd try to keep it as simple as possible.

You'd take all the ships that can fly solo and designate them something.

You'd take all the ships that can command a fleet or fly solo and designate them something else.

You'd take the ships that can fly in a fleet (but not solo) and designate them something else, if they exist.

And that'd be about it, unless you want to do PF and Fighter CnC.

To be clear, this is just a renaming of existing non-restricted ships.  Let's try this as an example.

The first ships (solo only) would be called STRIKE ships, and have that designated.  Therefore, you would have FFS, DDS, CAS, BCS, DNS, CVS, and so on, appending whatever else you want afterwards to designate it's particular type.  A solo drone cruiser would then be CASD.

The second ships are COMMAND ships, and would have that listed, meaning FFC, DDC, CAC, BCC, DNC, CVC, and so on.

The last ships are ESCORTS, and are thus called FFE, DDE, CAE, BCE, DNE, CVE and so on.


Now, this dosen't do anything to controling or policing CnC that Cleaven has brought up, and is a legitimate concern.

However, it makes it blindingly obvious to anyone who reads the CnC rule which ships can be combined with which.  xxSx must fly alone, xxCx may have another ship, and xxEx must have a xxCx around with them.  Secondly, anyone who reads this rule can quickly see if anyone else is following the rule or not, which may not be immediately obvious otherwise.


This may grate on a lot of people that want 'correct' tags, but this won't bother me much.

[el-Karnak]

CnC Rules

[Bonk]

CnC Rules

All cool except: "In order to form a 2 ship fleet, the Primary vessel must be, at least, a CA-class vessel."
Which leaves out frigate squads and light cruiser squads, which do have leaders. If using this rule then leave frigate and light cruiser leaders off the list as they have no place. (similarly for #8)

[el-Karnak]

CnC Rules

All cool except: "In order to form a 2 ship fleet, the Primary vessel must be, at least, a CA-class vessel."
Which leaves out frigate squads and light cruiser squads, which do have leaders. If using this rule then leave frigate and light cruiser leaders off the list as they have no place. (similarly for #8)

Valid points. We could modify  "In order to form a 2 ship fleet, the Primary vessel must be, at least, a CA-class vessel." to be "In order to form a 2 ship fleet, the Primary vessel must be, at least, a CA-class vessel or, for the CL and under classes, a shplist designated leader-class ship."  Then modify #8 to require for leaders of CL-class and below the secondary ship must be the same class or below as compared to the leader's ship.

BTW, everyone may notice that I did not restrict Escorts but say that they can be flown solo.  That's because we are using fleets. And, no, you can't have a fleet of all escort ships.

As for disengagment rule concerns with fleets, that's easy to handle: 

The following rules of disengagement apply if, and only if, in the mission the winning side's smallest player fleet has a less than or equal number of ships per Human player as the losing side's smallest player fleet.

Note:  player fleet definition would be inclusive for cases where a player is flying only one ship.

If you are forced off the map by an enemy team, you cannot take missions in that hex for 10 game turns, or 1 hour, 40 minutes.

If your ship is destroyed by an enemy team, you cannot take missions in that hex for 5 game turns, or 50 minutes.

If a mission is buggy or has some other problem such as lag requiring a Alt-F4 or disengage,it will not count as a disengagment.


Basically, players flying solo would control when the disengagement rule applies by simply flying solo.  Those players with multi-ship fleets would have to hope the enemy plays ball by matching their fleets for the disengagement rule to apply.

[FPF-DieHard]

Might as well throw this out here . . .

SGODev CnC Rules (under Contruction)
Hull Size:
For the purpose of CnC/OOB classification, below are ship size classes:

BB (2 Move Cost)
DN/CVA (1.5 Move Cost)
BCH/CA/NCA (1 Move Cost)
CL, HDW (K-D6 variants)
DD/DW
FF


CnC Rules:

All Bombardment Ships, Fast Cruisers, PF Leaders (Not attached to a tender) and HDWs must be flown solo.

Command Cruisers:

Pilots may fly 2 ships. The first ships must be a command ship and the second ship is a vanilla-line ship of the same Hull Class or smaller.
EXAMPLE: K-C7, K-D5W and F-CLC, F-NCL+ are legal combos.

True Carriers and Tenders:

Pilots may fly one ESCORT ship with the carrier/tender provided it is 2 Hull Class sizes smaller than the Carrier.
EXAMPLE: F-NCV, F-DWA, and K-C7V, K-FWE are legal combinations.

Only ESCORTS may escort a carrier/tender.


PF CnC:

Full Tenders: Full Tenders are ships with 4 PFs. They are allowed the following:
1 PF Leader (May be a Leader Variant)
1 Variant PF
2 Standard PFs

Below are examples of legal flotillas:
G-PFDL, G-PFD, G-PF+, G-PF+
K-G1DL, KG1D, K-G1, K-G1

Casual Tenders: Casual Tenders have 2 PFs. Casual tenders are limited to standard PFs.
EXAMPLE: K-C7F + K-G1(x2), L-CWLF + L-PF+ (x2)

Solo PF Leaders:  PF leaders will be available as flyable ships.  Each PF leader will have 4 PFs attached to it.   This is to simulate a flotilla of PFs operating independently of a mother ship.  Solo PF leaders may take:
1 Variant PF
3 Standard PFs

Additional PF leader rules:  

In PvP, solo PF Leaders MUST deploy their PFs at the start of the battle.  The PFs CANNOT be recalled during the course of the battle as the PF leaders are not supposed to be able to repair the PFs in combat nor are they actual tenders.  



Fighter CnC:  TBD

[Bonk]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

I also think one bombardment ship should be allowed in a fleet, they really shouldn't be out there on their own... (half of why they are so hated by many...)

[FPF-DieHard]

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

Then don't fly one , they'll be real cheap so who cares?

This is part of my "War of Attrition" angle that I am going for.  I want to make certain ships exempt for the disengagement rule if killed in combat.  Solo PF leaders would be included in this list.

[FPF-DieHard]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Edited "Command Cruiser" with "Command Ship."  F-DWC and F-DW would be a legal combo, I am all for small-ship squads.

What i like about my CnC setup is i do not think people will be FORCED into flying fleets to be competitive. 

[FireSoul]

I really like it, DH. It makes sense to me, and sounds better than my own ideas.

-- Luc

[Bonk]

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

Then don't fly one , they'll be real cheap so who cares?

This is part of my "War of Attrition" angle that I am going for.  I want to make certain ships exempt for the disengagement rule if killed in combat.  Solo PF leaders would be included in this list.

Cool, they do sound like fun.

[SPQR Renegade]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

A possible fix for this is to add HUGE amounts of extra damage to the flyable leader (like 50 points). That way, the leader can still be crippled with very few internals, but wont pop at the prick of a pin. Once the real fighting is over, 50 points of damage for the kill is easy to generate (at least for any ship that shouldn't have been quickly killed by the PFs).

[Bonk]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Edited "Command Cruiser" with "Command Ship."  F-DWC and F-DW would be a legal combo, I am all for small-ship squads.

What i like about my CnC setup is i do not think people will be FORCED into flying fleets to be competitive. 

Its pretty good, I'm just picking at it here...

So no 3 ship fleets?

The closer it is to true SFB CnC the easier it will be for me to remember. Probably more natural for others too.
(As I see it a F-DWC and F-DW is not legal but a F-DWC and 2 x F-DW would be...)

[FPF-DieHard]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

A possible fix for this is to add HUGE amounts of extra damage to the leader (like 50 points). That way, the leader can still be crippled with very few internals, but wont pop at the prick of a pin. Once the real fighting is over, 50 points of damage for the kill is easy to generate (at least for any ship that shouldn't have been quickly killed by the PFs).

Not a bad idea but why bother?  I't only going to be priced at about 500 PP and will be exempt from disenagagement when (notice I said when, not "IF"  ) killed.  

If you want something rugged, fly a real tender.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I like it, except I would allow FF and DD fleets of 3 ships. 1 command, 2 vanilla.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

A possible fix for this is to add HUGE amounts of extra damage to the leader (like 50 points). That way, the leader can still be crippled with very few internals, but wont pop at the prick of a pin. Once the real fighting is over, 50 points of damage for the kill is easy to generate (at least for any ship that shouldn't have been quickly killed by the PFs).

Not a bad idea but why bother?  I't only going to be priced at about 500 PP and will be exempt from disenagagement when (notice I said when, not "IF"  ) killed. 

If you want something rugged, fly a real tender.

Actually I think it is a great idea. Otherwise every battle will come down to trying to protect the leader as the opponent realizes how easy it is to just kill the one PF.

[FPF-DieHard]

Its pretty good, I'm just picking at it here...

So no 3 ship fleets?

The closer it is to true SFB CnC the easier it will be for me to remember. Probably more natural for others too.
(As I see it a F-DWC and F-DW is not legal but a F-DWC and 2 x F-DW would be...)

Closer to SFB, yes.   But as much of a hardcore SFBer I am I have to accept the limitations of the SFC game engine.

Yes, I am saying no to 3-ship fleets.  Two-ship fleets are a lot easier to control and won't force people to fly fleets to be competitive.  

[FPF-DieHard]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

A possible fix for this is to add HUGE amounts of extra damage to the leader (like 50 points). That way, the leader can still be crippled with very few internals, but wont pop at the prick of a pin. Once the real fighting is over, 50 points of damage for the kill is easy to generate (at least for any ship that shouldn't have been quickly killed by the PFs).

Not a bad idea but why bother?  I't only going to be priced at about 500 PP and will be exempt from disenagagement when (notice I said when, not "IF"  ) killed. 

If you want something rugged, fly a real tender.

Actually I think it is a great idea. Otherwise every battle will come down to trying to protect the leader as the opponent realizes how easy it is to just kill the one PF.

I disagree, I want these to be a "Flavor," not the meal.  Again, if you want a tender that can take a beating, fly a real tender.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Yes, I am saying no to 3-ship fleets.  Two-ship fleets are a lot easier to control and won't force people to fly fleets to be competitive. 

That is true, but on a server that had FM like spots for fleets it might not be a bad idea.

[KHH Jakle]

Since people are talking about CnC and 3-ship 'fleets':

Patrol Battle Rules (GZ's 'CnC')

The Rules:
http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/Final_PBR_Rules.htm

The Matrix:
http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/Patrol_Battle_Rules3.htm

All in all, a lot of similarities with what DH put up - just a different approach.  The whole idea behind the Matrix is to provide a reference aid as to what ships fall in what bucket (as defined in the rules).  I know - needs a neater presentation....