Yes Ken,

What I am saying is that a system's CAN of initial Fighter/PF is 10. It was only a suggestion open for discussion and in no way would be a counterdiction of anything that has transpired in this camapign yet. A solar system is big, it makes sense that all fighters in a system would need time to engage an enemy force. Closer based fighters would obviously beable to engage faster then others based farther away from an attack.

Yes if you have 300 fighters at a system and some show up late for the party then they can either surrender or fight until they are destroyed. A large system battle that would have 6xSBs would last at least 10 combat turns, enough time for atleast two and as many as 5 sets of fighter reinforcements to make it to the party.

I picked 10 because for no reason other than a number smaller would not make much sense and a number larger would not change much in any situation.

Who cares about Velera. Big deal, you think you can make a killing field, I know you've told me a thousand times, your going to build a fortress with 11xSBs and hundreds of fighters and your going to kill Feds by the thousands. Now everyone knows that Velera is were your going to Kill the evil Federation and its Evil Allies. Its a good strategy. (If it works) But you just got done saying above "The bottom line is if some nitwit wants to make a stand on a fortress I will let them. Because any race can win against that player". Gee did you just call yourself a nitwit? Looks like the Evil Feds and their Evil allies are going to win against that player, oh, I mean you....

There is no guise against the Jins that is ment to benefit the Alliance(F,S,Q), this is only a debate about a possible game rule that may or maynot need to be fixed. And by the way, I have not heard one Federation player chime in asking that fortresses not be allowed, just a Klingon, a third person and GMs.

So as I said before, until we find that these strong holds will excist (they have not yet shone their face) I believe we should leave things as is. But if a fix is needed I have some ideas and am willing to listen to others ideas.

Mike Incavo

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 01:30 am: Edit

Mike

So even if you have 6xSB each with 36 fighters not all of them would defend their SB's at one time? Why stop at that point, why don't we say every sqdn of fighters has to roll to see when they get activited due to command and control problems? Why stop at 10 sqdns only.

See the problem is not each combat round. It is the concept that a system can not defend itself with it static forces. Each turn is 6 months, so one battle occurs over a 2 month period, given the movement rate activated on impulse 4. So let me see, if we where defend the Sol system in 2 months we could not concentrate our defenses in one location? Does that make sense? No.

This is a strategy game. If some nitwit, me included, wants to fortify a system so be it.

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 08:25 am: Edit

Please note that I am not saying fortresses should not be built. Whatever the limits, we will have fortress systems which is fine. I'm just concerned that the current limits may be too high and will cause the mid or late game to stagnate.

I disagree there would be delays on fighters responding to attacks. The star base's special sensors can see the enemy coming something like 2 months away! Obviously all of the star bases are in close proximity, otherwise the enemy could take them out one by one. Ground fighters might take a minute or so to scramble, but when you can track enemy units at long range with your sensors, that shouldn't be an issue.

Does anyone have module J handy? J4.61 is supposed to be about "true carriers".

By Mike Incavo (Kavo) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 08:31 am: Edit

Ken

That would not be a bad idea making each individual fighter squad roll to determine when it can arrives at the battle. I fully understand the concept of our game turn and that each battle represents the occurances of a 6 month peroid. But if is determined that such static defenses are not restricted enough, why not add in a rule that would represent the statiscal chances of based fighters engaging an invading force. Carrier based fighters are much more beneficial because they can be carried to the fight.

Remember, you have only bested a system with 2xSBs and 2 or three BATS that had no fighter support. That is not even close to what this discussion is about. And you lost what 30 ships doing so? What if the Feds had fighters, you would have lost another 10 ships. Double the ammount of bases and add a couple of hundred fighters, I would deem this system un-takable. (Or at the very least not worth the losses that would be incurred) Lets face it Velera's last three battles have not been fought for any other reason then the system is in a strategically advantagious position, a very hard target to just bypass. So just keep in mind that no one has had to deal with a fortress yet, although my version of a fortress seems to differ from yours.

Mike Incavo

By David Kass (Dkass) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 10:38 am: Edit

Sounds to me like the problem is that bases are too cheap. In F&E, SB (especially) have a high cost surcharge over their combat value (to represent their non-combat abilities and their ability add combat beyond command limits). Maybe the solution is to quadruple to cost of SB...

P.S. It seemed unclear from someone's post, but in both SFB and F&E, the maximum is 3 fighter squadrons or 3 PF flotillas (or a mix of both, to a maximum of 3), not 3 of each.

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 06:13 pm: Edit

David

You do have a good point. Bases do get a DF bonus combined with GBDP DF bonus makes taking a system very differcult. Just so you understand the basic combat system follows the simple rule every bpv is divided by 7 and that gives you your basic AF/DF for each unit. So a normal empire's SB is 600 BPV or 85AF/85DF base, then you add in all your modifiers.

The main problem in this game is the Jindarian SB is only worth 196 BPV. So if the Jindarians place 5 in orbit around a system then the maximum they can have compared to all the other races is 1/3 the defenses. Since the Feds want to retake the Velara system due to its importance it is in their best interest to bend the rules to disallow the jindarians from using the maximum defenses allowable in the game. Even with the maxed out defense it would only equal what they currentlly have on all of their current systems.

So from all of the Jindarians point of view, and I am their spokesperson, we cry foul on them. They want to limit our use of fighters so as never equal their current defenses. It is just not a balance in the game. It is ok for them to have 2500 bpv worth of Defenses but not anyone else. All of the Jindarian players see this as wrong and only design to harm our empire.

Now if you want to cap the defenses of a system at say 4200 BPV or 600AF we can live with that. But to now change the rules just when they have to take something that cost us 30 ships that is not view as fair.

We don't want to come across as not wanting to find a solution to a very major problem, but we don't want the rules changed on us just when we are about to use them after being abused by them.

Mike/John

A possible solution could be to max out the bpv allowed on any system say 4200 bpv for all static defenses including ground or orbital based fighters/PF's. The idea that a system cannot get their act together over 2 months before they are attacked by an enemy force is simply unbelievable so the idea of max only 10 sqdns of fighters/PF and the rest have got to come into combat at a later time is not usable. It would have a negative impact on the Jindarians and we will not stand for an unbalance game system.

Speaking on behalf of the all the Jindarians, we would agree to a max number of 4200 bpv per system. Remember the Feds and Quari currently have 2500-3000 BPV on all of their key systems facing us now. We can not place that much into a system due to our smaller bases so why should we be penalized?

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Although it might improve playability, I can't think of any believable explanation why fighters, especially those on bases, would have to roll to see when they could launch. There is also the extra work for the GM when resolving battles.

I didn't know the Jind. SB was weaker than the regular SB. I assume the Jind. must have other advantages to make up for that, such as much higher unit density perhaps? I've not seen the Jind. module for SFB. If the Jind have major advantage(s) over "normal" empires, then I would say weaker SB's are just part of the package deal. Otherwise it does seem a bit unfair to the Jind if system defenses are capped per base.

Mr. Kass: I believe you are correct and it's 3 squadrons total of fighters and PF's, at least in F&E. Of course all fighters and PF's on bases and planets are exempt from this limit in F&E.

An overall BPV cap on system defenses is an interesting idea. Sounds fair even if it's a bit more work. I don't think I would change any of the current restrictions like max. of 24 ground bases though. What about home worlds, should they be allowed a higher BPV limit? And is there some basis for 4,200 BPV or is that just a number offered for discussion? I suggest setting the limit somewhere above the average AF/DF strength of 3 powerful SQ since that's the max. that can AM and still move 2 (assuming normal units). Perhaps the limit should be raised when PF's become available so people can add PF's without doing a major restructuring of their defenses. And again when X ships become available.

By Mike Incavo (Kavo) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 08:31 pm: Edit

A BPV cap, increasing the EPV of bases and limiting the number of fighter/PFs a system can control are all viable solutions to the possible rules flaw that we may have. But for now, and I think Berg agrees that no changes need to be made concerning max system defenses until a problem occurs.

Ken, I wish you would stop trying to make it out like I am trying to change a rule to benefit myself, its getting alittle agrivating to listen to your pleads and propaganda. (most of which is false)

"So from all of the Jindarians point of view, and I am their spokesperson, we cry foul on them. They want to limit our use of fighters so as never equal their current defenses. It is just not a balance in the game. It is ok for them to have 2500 bpv worth of Defenses but not anyone else. All of the Jindarian players see this as wrong and only design to harm our empire".

Save all your propaganda for the next Pravda, your waisting it hear.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Well you all can continue to digress about system defenses, but unfortunately it is a non problem. It hasn't happened after 15 turns or so..despite that several empires could have made such an entity. Perhaps it just isn't good strategy to place so much money in a object that can be bypassed.

By Dr. Clayton Sager - Pravda (Crsager) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 01:46 am: Edit

Why is it that every time somebody takes a rule and uses it, people start talking about changing the rules?

There is already a cap on system defenses. It is set. There are also caps on shipyards, and CAN, and a great many other things.

If one race has a particular weakness in light of a particular cap, like a partcularly weak SB (because the race was not envisioned as one which would take and hold planets) well, let us not forget that each race also has various advantages in other areas, like maybe the fastest cruisers in the game, or maybe mobile shipyards.

As for the possibility of MASSIVE numbers of fighters at a system, recall that destroyed fighters must be replaced by shipyards or SB production facilities, using available funds. THEY ARE CALLED ATTRITION UNITS FOR A REASON. If your attacking force cannot kill more fighters then they can produce at a blockaded planet, then you should not be attacking that planet.

All massive defenses do is turn a seige into a longer, more careful seige. Why is this a problem?


The one area associated with this discussion which is not clearly addressed in the rules is the ability of fighters and PFs to sally from the system to attack a blockading force. The rules say little on this subject regarding questions like AM ability, CAN, etc.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 11:42 am: Edit

A lot of traffic over the weekend. I'm still not clear on what the "current rule" is?

Do all fighters in a system participate in a battle at once? Or is there a CAN limit to the number of fighters participating at once?

Surely fighters can attempt to break the blockade of a system. Fighters can attack anything within the hex of the system (that is their range).

Dazed and Confused!

Tarkin

By Mike Incavo (Kavo) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 12:14 pm: Edit

Most of the last 12 or so messages concern the possibility of a rules problem. The creation of super fortified systems. The debate has been whether or not to further restrict the number of bases,fighters and PFs a system can have stationed there to defend it. The current rules allow as many fighters/PFs as you wish as long as they have a controlling base. So a SB can contol 10 CAN slots of fighters/PFs. If you have 5xSBs you can have 50 CAN slots of fighters/PFs present at a system battle, but I think that this would be impossible to do because you can only hang 36 fighters per SB.

As Clay pointed out, the rules do not have alot concerning based fighters and there ability to break a blockade or preform any other duties on there own. My gut feeling tells me that fighters can break blockades because this would not require any movement points. But if this is the case it will become increasingly easy to break a blockade as time advances and more and more races utilize fighters as static defenses. I'll talk with Berg and see if we can clear this up a bit more.

Mike Incavo

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Hurrah for Clay!

I agree the system defenses are set, so why mess with the rule. If someone wants to place a gazillion ep into a system let them. The other players can always bypass it or as Clay says: "All massive defenses do is turn a seige into a longer, more careful seige. Why is this a problem?"

I do think Mike and Clay are right the rules regarding using attrition units to break a blockade need to be review and clairified. I don't see a problem with fighters/PF's trying to break a blockade. They are allowed some movement points. So they can use them to go forth. A couple of questions jump to mind on how to do it but I would like to hear from John on this issue before flapping my gums.

Mike

Franking speaking, what you dislike is not to me or any of my commanders a concern. I do speak on behalf of my fellow commanders and if you don't like it that is your problem. We do speak with one voice and it is mine! As for the proposed system defense rules changes - YES - they would have a clear negative impact on the Jindarians and I think most readers who are following this debate can see how and why. Do you really think we wanted to point out one of our major weaknesses? All the Jindarian commanders talked about it and we felt if nothing was said you would have unbalanced the game. Knowingly or not it would have created a mess.

I will continue speak out to protect the jindarian best interest and if I want to spin it to show everyone our best point of view you can call it propaganda, half-truths, or poop for all we care.

We will let the readers of this fine mouthpiece draw their own conclusions.

Oh, if i do say something that is totally off the mark or false, then it is ok with me to correct my errors, because I would never want to be wrong or misled anybody. I am sure you would agree with me.

By Mike Incavo (Kavo) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Ken

Your points have been recieved by myself. Keep in mind that this issue was not brought up by myself. In fact Berg called me up and asked my oppinion on the possibility of large unbreakable systems. My initial thought was that if someone wanted to dump alot of money into a system thats fine. Berg asked me to post a couple of ideas on how to fix this problem if it were deemed a problem. (Right now it is not deemed by myself or Berg as a problem) That is when this debate started back and forth on how you percieve me as trying to change the rules to screw you (Jins). They were only ideas open for discussion. We'll see if this evers becomes a problem and maybe three years from now we'll be having this same arguement.

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 06:32 pm: Edit

Mike

Thanks for clearing that up.

Ken

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 01:54 am: Edit

John/Mike

I understand your concern regarding the superfortress system being created, but let me run two things by you two or anyone else for that matter.

1)What is the basic amount that any give system can keep 100% oiled/manned and maintained while under blockade? Or cut off from its core empire?

I suggest it is not 10k ep worth of equipment, men and machines. I would put forth the opinion that yes someone can create a superfortress system if they want to but if that system is cut off from the main empire, either by blockade or via annexation then all bases they would start to breakdown. I would even put forth the idea that a system can only support a base amount of equipment/men/machines everything would become junk.

This would solve two problems, a)leave the current system in place, and b) allow fleets to completely bypass the enemy strong point via annexing it from its core support. That way you dont have to dump 1000AF worth of ships into the system hex or even the surrounding 6 hexes, just completely cut it off from its core empire, i.e., homeworld. So, the question comes back to what can a system support for undefined timeframe? Is it 700, 1400, 2100, 3500, or 4200 ep worth of military stuff? This would make Superfortress system useless unless they are supported by a fleet.

2) Another idea would be for each turn a system is cut off from its core empire its morale declines and it is more apt to revolt from spies and the like. These two suggestions could be an idea to the possible problem from creating superfortress systems.

Both of these ideas can be combined to add more value to fleets and not to static defenses unless they are backed by fleets.

Just something to help solve a problem that is going to become very real very soon.

My own opinion is we should create two new rules. A) cut off systems start losing their defenses after x turns and/or start to be discard (they are there but can not be used in combat) for combat. If the system falls while the bases are disabled the enemy can repair them at a cost to be used by them. A SB does not just go poof but if you dont have the men and supplies it can and will fail to operate.

B) systems cut off from their homeworlds start to lose 1 morale point after 2 turns per turn until it's morale is cut in half.

The lesson of all this is being cut off is a very bad bad thing to happen to you.

A good example of this was Great Britan during the early part of WWII, if it was not for lendlease and those 50 DD's the Brits would be drinking coffee and eating knockworst. They could not keep their war machine running and they were almost self sufficent country at the time.

So here is a good lesson if you cut off the Homeworld from its empire the empire will slowly die away.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Gentlemen, I've done some reading.


D6.0 Stacking:

The maximum number of ships in a given SQ will be
determined by the SFB command ratings (i.e. CAN).

Home World has a CAN of 10
Major System has a CAN of 8
Minor Colony has a CAN of 5

D6.60:

Unless using various forms of RX MV, only one SQ. may operate in the same tactical area at one time.

Reinforcements SQs arrive after the battle is over
or in 2-5 combat rounds.

D6.80:

Anytime two or more friendly SQ's end up in the same hex they must be ordered. This ordering declares who will lead any hostilities. The lead SQ (the first to see action) would be number 1, the second to see action, number 2 and so on. Without special RX MV forms all numbers but 1 enter the battle as a sequential set of reinforcements.


Gentlemen, this tells me that the unit with the largest CAN fights the battle with rest being reinforcements. A Starbase (CAN of 10), could command 10 fighter SQ or 120 fighters) at one time. Alternatively, the Star Base could command 4 ships and 6 fighter SQs.

Looks like to me the second Star Base (and the fighters it commands) would be #2 in ordering, fighting as sequential reinforcements allow.

But, all small ground bases are allowed to defend the system. (However, they can not defend the strategic hex. It is possible to attack the strategic hex without attacking the system.)

A quandary. It seems to me that all orbiting "bases" would defend the system (like small ground bases), but the individual fighter SQs would be reinforcements.

Further, the 10 fighter squadrons commanded by the second Star Base would enter the battle on the 2-5th combat round.

Is this the "current understanding"?

Tarkin

P.S. I see no problem with a Star Base, commanding 10 fighter squadrons, to attempt to break a blockade.

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 02:00 pm: Edit

John

A fleet engagement is different that a planetary attack. Since it takes at lease one segment to conduct an attack (or two weeks)all the defense of a system can be marshalled to support their defense. You are correct that without using AM movement, Fleet reinforcements would have to come in every 2-5 combat rounds. Attrition units are part of the system defenses and they are assign to that system they would be included in any defense of the system.

What Mike is talking about is some races will very soon be able to put up some mega superfortress like defenses on some systems. In that case what do you do? There is no way with the current construction and unit density that any race could take down such a system. What I am suggesting and I would like to hear Mike's comments on this would be to allow those races the ability to create these mega systems, but if they are cut off from their core worlds (either by blockade not likely since they would be able to break it, but isolation from their homeworld or the homeworld from its empire)would be a solution to this soon to be problem.

My own experience is losing 2 turns worth of production to take down a little fortress is very costly. What would i have to lose to take down a mid size or large fortress system? 6 turns worth of ship production? It cuts both ways, we just want to make the game flow without getting stuck in a WWI type trench warfare game mechanics. A fluid game which allows for bypassing enemy forts and later their elimination due to starvation is a good strategy. Better yet it is very real.

By Dr. Clayton Sager - Pravda (Crsager) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Tarkin

What you have not read is that is that the planetary defenses, and their fighters, do not count for CAN any more than a CVAs fighters count for CAN.

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 04:41 pm: Edit

I'm not too keen on the degrading defense idea. We are talking about star bases, which must have their own shops and labs and such, not to mention those on the planet itself. The bases need raw materials, but they have an entire planet to draw from. At worst, maybe they would degrade some after several years. I also don't think that being isolated would necessarily result in eroding morale. Sometimes being besieged has the opposite effect, especially if people are not starving. The British public was not exactly rioting in the streets and sabotaging the RAF, a lot of them were joining the Home Guard, training with pikes if they couldn't get a gun. Why would the inhabitants damage the very defenses that are keeping their hated enemy from conquering them? It doesn't make sense. The only way I can see major morale problems is if there was evidence there was no chance the blockade would ever be broken.

It does make sense that mobile units such as fighters could attempt to break a blockade. It might even make a good fight if there were hundreds of them.

By Dr. Clayton Sager - Pravda (Crsager) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 06:30 pm: Edit

The current rules include an explicit statement that blockaded systems do not degrade. Also, in terms of using the Battle Of Britian as an example, GR rules do not recognize anything like continious bombardment of industrial centers.


Felten has identified the major problem area where the rules are not defined.

If a system has 150 fighters, and it is under blockade, how many fighters can engage the blockade at once? If it is only one squad, then the effort is likely to be futile. On the other hand, if it is all of them, then it is clearly a violation of CAN.

If a warship is present to 'lead' the fighters against the blockade, then the warship's CAN is relevant, and the rules do, at least as I read them, allow the warship to lead 12 fighters per CAN slot against enemy forces in the hex.

But what if there is no warship? Can groups of fighters sortie together? Perhaps with the SB lending it's CAN (and maybe its special sensors to extend the CAN) as the basis for a patrol?

Or what if there are several warships in different squads, can they each lead fighters and use normal AM rules?

Another aspect is turn-around. Fighters can cycle at a much higher rate than warships. So are fighters limited to only one sortie per turn? Or could they concievably fly several times against a blockade? It is not inconvievable to rule that a fighter squad could engage in 6 or 12 actions per turn.

Perhaps a reponse rate, in actions per turn, could be used in place of the strategic movement speed, which fighters do not have. This might be doubled for fighters operating from a base in their own territory as opposed to carrier-based fighters in enemy territory.

Of course, whatever rules are constructed should consider PFs, with their variations (range, leaders, etc.). And Klingon SWARMS will have special rules in any case.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 08:45 pm: Edit

F&E gives fighter squadrons and PF flotillas CAN values (IIRC, both 3). It also has special support rules for swarms.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 10:45 pm: Edit

It should be noted that PF's do have a strategic MV speed (see C20.20) of 3. With those rules in mind they could break blockades. This does bring up some unresolved rules I am working on:

a PF has a CAN of ?

How many can operate as a single unit?

Are bases considered true PFTs and/or true CVs?

jdb

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Another point you did not consider is the effect of surface large bases on morale. One of those bases blows its an environmental disaster.

Its risky business to place them on the surface..the people might not like it and morale could go down.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Well, that's why I'm asking about fighters, CAN, who controls them, etc. Looks like there are two realities.

1. Defense of a system. I hear that all units may defend a system at once. All ground bases, all orbital bases, all defsats, all fighters, all PFs, all civilian ships, all miliary ships fight to defend a system.

2. Defense of a stategic hex. Only 1 SQ (subject to RX movement) may defend a strategic hex, with reinforcements as allowed. As a corollary, only 1 SQ may attempt to break a blockade (at least from inside the system).

Is this the correct understanding?


I remember hearing (and its been reinforced here) that systems do not degrade. Blockading a system would only limit the economic points it can use to what the system itself can produce.

Defeating a mega system is a matter of attrition. Maintain the blockade, and attack it periodically, causing more losses than can be replaced. It is assumed that the blockading fleets will replace their losses quicker than the system.

Some related thoughts. If fighters have no strategic movement, can they participate in Reaction Movement? PF's do have strategic movement, no problem with them.

1 SQ of PF's contains 6 PF's. Don't know the CAN offhand.

I suppose that bases would not be considered true PFTs and/or true CVs because they do not have the required escort ships. IMO, they are an entity unto themselves.

Tarkin