Topic: SFC: F&E Rule debate #1

[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'.