Topic: Bases for the Base Assaults

[KHH Jakle]

So you guys can factor this into your planning:

Per the SFB campaign, a Y168 campaign would use the following BATS:
K-BTSF+ (with a stock load of Medium Speed Drones)
H-BTSF+

I know the OP+ shiplist gives them a YFA of 7, but I am going with the campaign.  If you think it's fair enough, I'd say allow each BATS to have whatever Type II fighters the owning player wants.

The final BPV of the BATSF+ (including fighters and drone speed upgrade) will be factored into that Scenarios Victory conditions

[KHH Jakle]

Due to defects in the Sector Assault script, specific fighters can't be chosen for the BATS.

Not a huge impact, but just an FYI

[KHH Jakle]

Special Consideration About the base assaults:

The BATS factor in the match scoring just like any other ship.

After doing a little play testing over the weekend with Mini-Me, I realize the potential for ....crappiness (for lack of a better word)

Mini took a force rated at about 300BPV.  I took two Hydran Frigates rated at about 150, but when I include the BATS BPV, we're up to about 470.

This means that because of the Scoring set up, Mini started with about 170 Victory Points in the bank, provided he satisified the disengagement requirement (he not leave the map until after 2 minutes had passed and he cause internals on at least on Hydran ship.

Now, since it was just the two of us, we both had AI wings.  I didn't do so great a job at controlling mine, which exposed the one to fire more so than if a human controlled it.  So once Mini got his internals, he was like "I can book, right?" and he did.  I got 25% of his BPV, but that was only about 75 points, compared to the 170 he banked from the BPV mismatch and the 10% from causing internals. 

Since BATS are about 325 BPV across the board, adding any ships to their scenario is almost garunteeing a sizeable BPV advantage to the attacking player.  I am hoping that by having all human players will offset this and still make the mission challenging for both sides and not just a points cash-in.  Additionally, this should be factored into ship deployments, with the defending player most likely wanting to go into the match with scant defensding ships (in order to minimize the BPV lead on his opponent).

A further consideration would be to reduce the BPV allotment to purchase ships.  The original Mini-Camp had 1250 for this time period.  I went with 1850 to provide each side with enough to be able to get 18 ships (with a decent hull distribution).  I am thinking that 15 ships might have been better, although allowing players to get as many as 18 (or as few as 6), but have the BPV balanced for 15 ships, with them spread out across the 5 other scenarios and leave the BATS to it's own defenses (and resulting in a more balanced battle)

Anyway, we'll go as is: I just want to throw this out up front in case the Base Assualt/Defense scenarios for both sides turn out to be kind of stupid.

This is a concept playtest afterall, so I imagine we might come out of this with some obvious

[762_XC]

I think a simpler solution would be to require the attacker to score internals on the BATS before disengaging.

It would also be more realistic.

[KHH Jakle]

I like that - there are some concerns that come out of that - like what if the defender takes a powerful enough defensive force that they essentially lock the attacker in, unable to disengage because they can't get in at the base to cause internals.

Might be no big deal though...we'll go with internals on the Base

[762_XC]

OK, make it they can disengage if:

1) They score internals on the base

OR

2) They have one ship destroyed, or 2 crippled

That should keep it realistic. Their mission is to take out the base, not do a touch-and-go for easy points.

[Dfly]

I think the 1 destroyed or 2 crippled would necessitate that they really think about getting out as there would essentially be no way they would continue.  Also doing internals on the base is a sound tactic, though I would bet any team doing internals on a base most likely would have enough an advantage that they would persue the option of killing it, which is the main objective of almost any base attack, short of trying to win it via attrition of defences over a few scenarios, and that is not what this is about.

[KHH Jakle]

That should keep it realistic. Their mission is to take out the base, not do a touch-and-go for easy points.

Right - that'll work

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Jakle,

One point on the base assault script.

The base pilot NEEDS to be the host.

Also, since you can't just take the base, you need to take a ship & SD it if you are going to have no other ships for the base commander, you need to take a toss off ship and SD it.

So make sure you don't include those points in any victory tally.

[KHH Jakle]

Yep - shouldn't be a problem

[762_XC]

So how do we work this then? Assume the base defense mission will only have 2 ships assigned to it?

17 ships @ 1850?

[KHH Jakle]

You can still get 18 - but one player will have to manage both a ship and the base when doing Base D.

technically, you can have a minimum of 6 ships...actually as few as 5 (since you could technically leave the BATS undefended) - obviously with 1850, 5 ships is rediculous

the 1850 BPV was supposed to allow for 18 ships so the 6 scenarios could be 3v3 - but allowing for other purchases (fighter upgrades/drone speed upgrades) it could very well be less than 18.

I would imagine anywhere between 15-18 ships in any given campaign - I still want these to be team battles, but they don't all have to be 3v3

The 1850 is a test number for us to see if that's good for the above purpose.  If it seems like a workable number for late Mid era, It will go up or down about 25% for the other eras (down 25% for early, up 25% for the 'Early Late' (that's around Y12) and another 25% for Late Late (about Y18)

[Kougar_XC]

You can still get 18 - but one player will have to manage both a ship and the base when doing Base D.

Okay, had been wondering about that. It's really pretty easy to manage if you know all of the AI controls, bugs, and the backspace key