Topic: SFC: F&E Rule debate #1

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Ok, first rule that I want to propose is dealing with squadron size....

I will point out that I will need to get my hands on something with a command rating for ALL ships on the shiplist.  (fun, fun for me...)

FLEET BREAKDOWNS:

*All fleets will follow PBR breakdowns.  Only one 'special', one support ship, and one true carrier per fleet. The only exception to this is commando ships that are organized to assualt a planet/base. Any conjectural ships (if we decide to use them) will also be limited to 1 per fleet.

*All ships will be organized into squadrons and have a squadron leader.  (yes, it can be a squadron of one)

*Each sqaudron will have a lead command ship. (but not necessarily a 'leader' variant)

*All FLEETS will also be organized into squadrons. The over all command ship will command one of those squadrons.
(reason for this is for any large battles, IF a breakdown is needed, the squadrons are already set up)

*All ships will have their true SFB/F&E command rating

*All true heavy carriers will have 2 escorts (at least one of which will be CL sized).  All escort carriers will have at least 1 escort (any size)
Hybrid carriers are exceptions from this rule. (ie anything not marked as a true/escort carrier, such as war destroyers that carry less than 4 fighters)

*All ships will have a 'Ship Command Cost' that is determined by its placement in the shiplist.

This goes as follows:

• FF Class: 1 command cost
• CL Class: 2 command cost
• CA Class: 3 command cost
• DN Class: 4 command cost

*Fighters & PF squadrons will have no 'command cost' as they will always have their 'homebase' with them.

*Bases have no 'command cost' as they will always be the 'command ship' in any scenario.

*The first scout in a fleet will have no command cost.  (762 & I are working off an idea that MaxPower had for scouts to make them actually useful, not too mention they will be useful for larger Line of Site stuff on the map.  Yes, that means I will try to introduce a fog of war if at all possible) Any other scouts added to a fleet will be counted using command points as per hull size.

*When mixing fleets, add one point to the 'command cost' for the hull size.  This is to simulate language and other difficulties of two different races working together.

Example of a fleet breakdown:

F-BCV has (IIRC) a 10 command rating.

It HAS to have 2 escorts, so the Feds assign a F-NEC (2 command cost) and a F-FFE (1 command cost) to  it.

3 of the 10 points are taken up.

Added to the fleet is a F-CLC (2 command cost) with a F-NCL+ (2 command cost) and a F-FFB (1 command cost) assigned under it as a squadron.

That is another 5 command points tallied to the F-BCV.

This would give the F-BCV 2 'command points' left over to use.

If the Kzinti decided to 'loan' the Feds a ship for this fleet, they could only send send a FF sized ship to complement this Fed fleet as the Kzinit FF would have a command cost of 1 plus an additional 1 command cost for operating as a 'mixed fleet'.  For this example, it will take up the remaining 2 command points of the F-BCV.

Now, the Fed command will organize the fleet into squadrons in case it is needed in a breakdown battle.

The lead squad will be the F-BCV and its two escorts (F-NEC & F-FFE)  and its second squad will be lead by the F-CLC which will command the F-NCL+ & F-FFB.

The Kzinti FF would be able to be assigned to either the F-BCV squad or the F-CLC squad by the Fed command, as both ships would have the command rating to handle the additional 2 command cost the K-FF represents. (IIRC, the F-CLC has a 6 command rating & is only using 3 of them) But this will have to happen when the Kzinti ship is first assigned to the fleet.

This gives the Feds a 10 point command rating ship with a total of 7 ships in it.

(did I mention that some of us will have to learn how to fly 2 or more ships at times? )

Questions?  Comments? Complaints?

 
 

[Skaren]

Someone will have to get me the command ratings for all ships on the OP 4+ ship list, could someone help with that

Thanks,
S

[762_XC]

The SIT's have them. Those are ADB-official btw.

I have a few concerns about this system.

In your example Bear you have a full capital ship commanding the following fleet:

BCV
NEC
FFE
CLC
NCL
FFB
Z-FF (which could be subbed for another NCL)

7 ships with a fairly light hull distribution. This is the best a 10-point ship can bring to the field. It seems pretty light.

I would restructure it so a 10 point ship can field 9 ships with a median hull distribution. I also don't like the idea of making CA's more expensive to operate than CW's. CW's have only marginally less firepower and their economic cost will have them built a lot more. If you give them too many advantages you will never see a CA on the field.

[Skaren]

Thanks 762 for the command ratings

?,... are you suggesting that our battles will be loaded and I mean loaded with AI ships ?  So I am running one ship of seven ship fleet ?  Even if my other players join in and fill the other 2 slots then still the majority of ships are AI ?  If I am reading this right you want to up it to 9 ships meaning at best 3 human run ships and 6 computer run ships? 

One thing is that it will balance the game,....  a fantastic player is still got the majority of his fleet tied in A.I. so battles between poor flyers and great flyers will even out a little.

I guess you folks are talking HUGE fleets, imagine how many Federation ships your talking about if have 9 ship stacks ?

I am game, it is the ref that has to deal with it all 

[762_XC]

No, I am suggesting they still be broken down into 3 ship squadrons, just that the overall fleet composition be tweaked upward slightly.

I am not in favor of using AI, even in fleet control. The fleet interface is horrible and works better with some races than others. If you think this would improve balance, I disagree.

The battles should be fun and skill-based, and not require the insane levels of micromanagement that fleet control demands.

[Skaren]

Cool I am not a fan of AI either but would have dealt with it if needed

So if I get this right you propose 9 ships mostly cause it fills out 3 players running three ships each in the fleet,.. up against say a similar 9 ship fleet on the other side.  For a kick ass 3 on 3 player battle ,...

That makes sense,...

Up to this point I was unsure if I alone would be flying my 7 or 9 ship fleet in combat.  Now I realize that you want the entire team (well at least 2 others) to be present for the battle.

I like the ideal if it doesn't bucnch up the ref's shorts

[762_XC]

I think that's what Bear intended.

[762_XC]

What do you think of this Bear.

Make CA's (not BCH's) 2 points

Add 2 to all command ratings

So a DN could field this fleet:

DN (command rating 12)
CA/CW/CL (2)
CA/CW/CL (2)
CA/CW/CL (2)
CA/CW/CL (2)
FF/DD/DW (1)
FF/DD/DW (1)
FF/DD/DW (1)
FF/DD/DW (1)

A CC could field this fleet:

CC (command rating 11)
CA/CW/CL (2)
CA/CW/CL (2)
CA/CW/CL (2)
FF/DD/DW (1)
FF/DD/DW (1)
FF/DD/DW (1)
FF/DD/DW (1)
FF/DD/DW (1)

I like the idea of making DD's and FF's a big component of fleets, but don't want people to get bored because they have to fly them all the time.

[FPF-DieHard]

Cut command ratins in half 

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

No, I am suggesting they still be broken down into 3 ship squadrons, just that the overall fleet composition be tweaked upward slightly.

I am not in favor of using AI, even in fleet control. The fleet interface is horrible and works better with some races than others. If you think this would improve balance, I disagree.

The battles should be fun and skill-based, and not require the insane levels of micromanagement that fleet control demands.

That is the main reason why I included the 'all fleets must be broken into squadrons' part.  Most squads will have only 2-5 ships in it. 

Perfect for several 3 players on 3 players (all piloting one ship battles) when agreed upon, but also allowing a fleet who has an advantage, (ie they brought in 8 ships and the enemy only managed to bring 3) to use 4,5, or 6 ships against an enemy who only has 1-3 ships.

And I do agree with you on the command costs.  Let's leave the CC's & carriers at 3 though so we don't end up with some munchkin fleets.  All other CA's will be delegated to a command cost of 2.

[Dfly]

I have flown in similar campaigns before and from past experience I recommend not to have fleets of 9 ships where most are CA hull class.  I would rather see the say 9 ship TF(taskforce) be comprised of 1 DN 2 CA and 6 light-frigs, which not only represents much more the actual builds of the time, but also most of those ships will be closer in size(light-frig) than what you can find in the CA size.

I have also participated in campaigns where the max fleet size is 6.  One primary reason for this is that when you add drones, fighters, plasmas, ect to a 12 ship battle, even at speed 7 things can lag big time and need reflying(even though most are now speed capable). It also makes that you can control up to 1/2 of your ships by using 3 pilots.

What t00l is suggesting will make a great amount more of 9 ship TF out there therefore forcing more AI ships flown than ships actually piloted in a game.  If a 9 ship TF hits up against another 9 ship TF(and it happens a  lot later on in a campaign) you are talking 18 ships with how many fighters drones plasmas, of which only 6 (1/3) would ever be controlled by humans.  In such a battle speed 6 or even 5 would be needed(have done many like this, some as slow as 4, takes 3 full minutes just to load ship before you even get your team formed up).

Not sure about all the others here, but how many of you have ever flown in an 18 ship battle?

[KHH_Jakle]

How big do you plan on making this? 

If you keep this to a front/border size action, you can model the available ships off of 'Historical' orders of battle - which will provide a very mixed and healthy assemblage of ships with which to make a fleet. 

Think of the aborted Economy of Force effort...just with multiple turns and a behind the lines Construction Schedule.

[762_XC]

DFly, I think you are getting confused between FLEETS and SQUADRONS.

A fleet is a stack of ships, the most allowed to be in a battle hex at one time.

For battle resolution the fleet would be broken down into 3 ship squadrons. So a 9v9 fleet battle would be resolved by three 3v3's.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Um... no, not what I am planning....

We will make the squadrons as small as possible, but I will not force a commander who brought more ships to the fight to leave them behind if they don't want to.

That means if they bring 5 ships to fight your 3 ships, they can fly with 2 AI ships. (or what their 'lead' ship's command rating will allow)

I won't penalize someone for giving themselves the better position in a fight.

This is being set up to simulate a war. 

Things are not always 'fair' in a war....

[Skaren]

I also strongly disagree with breaking a 9 on 9 into 3x 3 on 3's. 

By doing this you triple the number of battles that needs to be resolved, thereby tripling the number of errors, dropped games, time load on players etc.  Just how many battles would actually be required per turn?  All of this has to be kept track of recorded and digested by the ref.

I feel the scale of this game is growing and that is a mistake.  9 on 9 with fighters, drones, plasma, etc, will cause lag and dropped game issues.  I will go with it, but don't feel it is wise.

It is great and fun to think big and some of the funnest battles are huge ones but I would rather see the game succeed.  It is easy to get carried away and bigger always seems better but I think it is the wrong direction.  I have seen many campaigns fail because of this in the past.

In reality the ref should also keep track of everything all players are doing.  This includes monitoring stack legality, fighter loads, drone loads, movement, nation building, etc.  When you start talking hundreds of ships with hundreds of little things on each ship to monitor your creating a situation that in reality cannot be overseen by anyone unless they are unemployed and have no family.

This campaign could be equally as fun if the Federation has 30 ships or 150 ships.  It is not the number of ships, stacks, stack size, etc that will make the game fun.  Those things do have the strong potential to destroy the game.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

OK, one more time... the set up is made to allow a 'fleet' to be broken up into 2 or more squadrons.

Each squadron will be able to independently do battle IF the commanders agree to this.

If Force A has 2 squads and Force B has 3, there are only 2 choices to be made in this order:

Either Force A can subdivide its squads from 2 to 3 to match up to Force B.

If Force A does not want to do this then:

Force B will be allowed to add ships from the spare squad(s) to one squad or the other provided that it will not disrupt the command rating of the lead ships in either squad.

Force B does not NEED to bring the additional squad(s) into play if the commander does not want to.

So we will not have 9v9 battles, but we won't be forcing 3v3 battles either.

That would be punishing the commander who out maneuvers the opponent and gets more ships to the scene of a battle then the enemy does.

Will we end up with 9 ships flying on one side against some one or two enemy ships?  Maybe, but would you have your ships stick around to duke it out with those odds?

Maybe, just maybe, if what you are defending makes it necessary. But that is the only way I can see it happening.

BTW, in such a situation (9 ships v 1/2 ships) I would expect the smaller force to acquiesce an additional slot to the more numerous fleet giving them 4 or 5 pilots vs the 1 or 2 pilots they are sporting.

[Skaren]

Oh boy 

"acquiesce an additional slot "

Oh boy, this is another can of worms that best be addressed. 

[Hexx]

I think I understand where you're going with this Bear.. but...

Speaking (obviously) as a Lyran..

Allowing the bigger fleets (with AI control) gives a huge advantage to Races using
drones. 6 AI ships with drones will annihilate 6 AI ships that don't have drones or any
automatic PD .

I'm not suire how this will play out- so I don't know if it will be a concern, but it's somethiong that
should be considered.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Oh boy 

"acquiesce an additional slot "

Oh boy, this is another can of worms that best be addressed. 

I figured I would start using my allotted 'big word of the day' early... sorry....

And it is not really a can of worms,  we as a whole want as little AI as possible while still preserving the feel of an embattled galaxy.

If one side only has need or 1 or 2 pilots, why should the other side be forced to use 3 pilots with 3 ships each when an additional slot is available.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

I think I understand where you're going with this Bear.. but...

Speaking (obviously) as a Lyran..

Allowing the bigger fleets (with AI control) gives a huge advantage to Races using
drones. 6 AI ships with drones will annihilate 6 AI ships that don't have drones or any
automatic PD .

I'm not suire how this will play out- so I don't know if it will be a concern, but it's somethiong that
should be considered.

But that is where the squads come into play.  You can only have 6 AI drone targets for 6 AI droners IF you have a 9v9 battle.

The use of squadrons will ensure that this does not happen. We may have a 6v4 or 5v3, but the possiblility of a 9v9 fleet engagement under these rules is nigh impossible.

[Skaren]

I feel some folks will not voluntarily give up that slot because it will make the opposing team stronger and no one unless forced by the rules will voluntarily give up slots so the other team can play with extra aces.

So you will most likely have to make some rules governing the forcing of those slots to smaller sides.  That why I mentioned it, just that if you don't work on rules for it I don't think it will get done out of the goodness of peoples hearts.



On Hexes note:  I thought you had said players could break down a large battle if they wanted to,.. clearly some folks will not want to,...   due the AI advantage in drone using races, one example.  From my perspective I would only want to break down the battles if I thought my flyers were better than my opponents.  If they were not as good I would not want to break down a battle into smaller components. 

Personally I think you cannot try to balance everything, you'll drive yourself crazy.  If one race has an AI advantage with drones in large fleets then so be it.

[762_XC]

I think I understand where you're going with this Bear.. but...

Speaking (obviously) as a Lyran..

Allowing the bigger fleets (with AI control) gives a huge advantage to Races using
drones. 6 AI ships with drones will annihilate 6 AI ships that don't have drones or any
automatic PD .

I'm not suire how this will play out- so I don't know if it will be a concern, but it's somethiong that
should be considered.

Hexxyp00 touches on a valid point here Bear. AI Kzin and AI Lyrans are not even remotely comparable in terms of contributing to the battle.

I think any AI is going to be baaaaaaaaaaad.

[Skaren]

If you do not want AI then you force the largest stacks to be 3 ships all run by human up against a max 3 ship stack all run by human.

Gee,.. what a coincidence, that is what my current campaign runs as.

Over many years we have found this to be the best.

It unfortunately causes small fleets, and forces the game scale to be small (A absolute blessing for the ref) but it produces the best campaigns capable of duration, fairness, and tons of fun.

Dreadnaughts are rare in our games, a handfull at best, usually we see CA hulls as flags escorted by CL's and FF's.

There are no monstrous 9 vrs 9 multiplayer battles, keeping track of stuff is easy for a ref.  It allows Fog of War to be done, it produces campaigns of outstanding quality.  Those successfull campaigns keep players around, keeps interest high and we have had many of them

It has always equated out that the larger your game gets in scale and scope the more you lose in Quality.  Dynaverse is the penultimate example of sacrifices needed in order to accommodate 100's of players.

I do not mean to Dis Dyna or the folks who put lots of time into it, I respect the work they do a lot.


This above and my years of experience are why I would like to see things small scale and high quality for this campaign.  Not all feel that way and that is fine, I am excited to just run in a game no matter what the final setup is.

[KHH_Jakle]

Just to toss this out there...

Start from an F&E standpoint.  There is no limit to what you can have in a stack.

When two stacks collide, you have to form your fleet - here standard S8.0 comes into play, with full use of CMD ratings.  Lets say for arguments sake this creates a makes for a maximum of a 12 ship fleet.

So far, everything samey-samey.  So how do you eliminate the AI?

I think of the Economy of Force set up.  Imagine a 'Battle Board', with a maximum of 5 boxes on it.

In the 12 ship fleet scenario, the owning player would divide his fleet up into 3 ship squadrons (subject to PBR, which is squadron sized S8.0).  He then, in secret, allocates his squadrons to any 4 of the boxes, leaving a 5th blank.

His opponent does likewise.  If his opponent has fewer ships, he still must produce as many full size squadrons as possible, with the remainder being the odd ship out that has to hold a box with a reduced squadron or alone.  He then allocates his ships to the boxes in secret.

When all is done, the dispositions are revealed and the battles are then fought.  Whichever side wins the most hexes holds the hex.  If the 'loser' won a box, those ships are considered disengaged and those ships pull out.

The mandatory empty box is an allowance to permit a heavily outgunned force to slip away - a wild card.  The number of boxes is determined by the size of the largest fleet - 5 for 10-12, 4 for 7-9, 3 for 4-6 and 2 for 1-3.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

*sigh* OK, this is my little rant before I head off to babysit tonight.

Have any of you notice that using the example in my first post, any 'fleet' engagements would be fought through 2 battles with 3 ships in one squad and 4 ships in another?

There is a reason why I stated that fleets are to be organized into the squads so we don't have any freakin' 9v9 ship battles.


The fleet listed above would have 3 players and, AT MOST, 4 ships in any battle it fought. 

If you don't want to fly with ANY AI, then set your fleets up so they only ever have 3 ships in any one squadron.

But if you find the enemy kicking your tail b/c he brings 4-5 ships up against all your 3 ship squads, don't blame me. 

The rules will allow it.

You will have to improvise, adapt, and overcome, or you can lose.

Personally, I am happy with the rules as stated above. 

It cuts the massive F&E fleets down to, at most, 13 ships. (a DN & 12 FF sized hulls)

And it provides so that 9v9 ship battles are not possible. So stop worrying about it!!!!

The only thing I will add is that only one fleet can attack another fleet at a time. 

After those two fleets engage, if one side has another fleet, they can then attack again with the extra fleet. 

At that point, the enemy can choose to evade and escape or fight on with what ever damage it has substained to that point.

Are you really that afraid of ONE OR TWO AI ships flying on your side?

If so, I think we should just drop the whole thing and just go back to GSA, Economy of Force, & PBR.

B/c there you can have all the 3 v 3 'even' BPV battles you want.

[Skaren]

Well let us know when your ready, we are looking forward to it.

[Hexx]

Ahh Bear, dicovering what it's like to try and present new ideas around here.. 

I understand the concept of what you're saying , that it shouldn't play out so that there are a lagre number of AI involved battles.
I can speak from my (albeit limited) experience and say that people will try and win- so if they can discover a way to use huge fleets expect them to.

I'd also put forward a proposal.
This game is based on the F&E battles of the General War
Now we know the General War info comes from a biased Starfleet centric history download.
However- let's notice something

Of ALL the seven major powers that fought in the General War- only ONE -even in the Starfleet praising "histories" -
never had any known large scale invasion of it's territory take place.
The Lyrans.

Obviously- given the preponderance of fighters and drones on all three of it's known borders the lyran Empire must have had some better defence against attrition units than the ESG.
Just because it's not mentioned by Starfleet (obviously unable to figure out how it worked and bitter in their inferiority) doesn't mean that it didn't exist.
I think the intelligent thing to do would be to place PlaD racks on all Lyran ships. This not only allows some historical accuracy to be achieved but also would solve the problems mentioned above.

[Skaren]

Ya while your at it can you modify the other races that have weaknesses  too   

Just kidding,..

Yes poor Bear must find that rustling this campaign up is similar to,,,......    trying to Herd Cats !!!

We are behind you Bear, and thank god your in the front 

[762_XC]

AOTK3 here we come. 

[Skaren]

762,..... what does that mean ?

[762_XC]

AOTK = Attack of the Kitties

AOTK was a server from way back when whose most notable feature was its heavily modded shiplist. Basically people submitted scaled up designs of their favorite ships and the result was a humongous pile of cheese.

So any time someone starts talking about improving weaknesses on ships, inevitably a reference is made to AOTK.

Lesson learned from AOTK: Ships are supposed to have weaknesses.

[KHH_Jakle]

Call me thick, but I am just trying to figure out how when y ou have a fleet broken into squadrons and it goes up against another fleet broken into squadrons, how do you determine which squadron goes against which squadron?

[Skaren]

I was wondering that but I think his intent is that the squadrons columns are numbered, you place (and break up the fleet)your squadrons in these columns and I believe neither player knows what is in the other guys numbered columns.

A concern I had was so if I have a large DN fleet up against another DN fleet, it seems likely the DNs will not fight each other due to them not landing in the same column.

Maybe I am all wet behind the ears, this is very new to me, it sounded like this was used before in a campaign and that is where the ideal might have come from.  I just hope it works as it seems rather ungainly, as now for every battle I see having to do many little battles. 

But as always support your ref and give it a try, if it doesn't work then so be it.

[762_XC]

I think the easiest way would be to force the squadrons to be broken down somewhat evenly. Since the counters have combat factors on them already, it should be fairly easy.

Carriers should stay with their escorts of course.

Certainly the three highest command ratings should be commanding a squadron.

[FPF-DieHard]

AOTK3 here we come. 

I have the map, I have the VCs, could be ready to go in a week . . .

[KHH_Jakle]

That's been tried before, and the problem that arises from that is this scenario:

Opposing Forces:

D7C, D7, D7, D7, F5, F5

vs

CC, CA, CA, CA, CA, CA,

Break down is as follows:

D7C, D7, D7 v CC, CA, CA

D7, F5, F5 v CA, CA, CA

As a fleet, the Fed should be going in seriously outgunning the Klinks, but this break down system allows the Klinks to go into the important first round on an even footing.  The 2nd round is a throw away.

The above scenariso occured back in '00 with the old SL Beta campaign.  When it was all said and done, the Klinks killed the CC, CA, CA combo without a loss and did a taco bell on the on the other, effectively ending up unscathed with the Feds down 3 Cruisers.

Now, Bear is allowing the addition of AI should a team choose to stack a round, so that would be different - but something to think abotu when determining fleet breakdowns

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

AOTK3 here we come. 

I have the map, I have the VCs, could be ready to go in a week . . .

KEWL! 

[Skaren]

Jakle, good input.

Taco bell,..  you mean ran away,...   What is running away auto in this game ?  If that is the case I would think there would rarely be battles as when I have allowed that in my games people never fight a loop sided fight.  If someone doesn't feel they have an edge they run and both sides rarely think they both have the edge.

Ya,.. not sure what Bears thoughts are on that but it is an interesting point you bring up.

My guess is he has a solution to it, or is now working on one.

[KBF-Crim]

Under SFCC ,the ships that ran would be "routed" and unable to engage for a certain amount of turns...

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

So far this is just covering fleet make up.

I am working on combat sequences right now....

Looking at blind draw for match ups or a vanguard-Main body-rearguard as the two main approaches right now...

Ship damage will be dealt with as well as retreat and 'routing'.