S8 aggression incentive rule proposal: rough draft.

One of the basic assumptions of a scenario in Star Fleet Battles is that the battle is taking place because one side must hold their space for some reason. This is handled fairly well by the use of closed map but on open maps there are non-aggression tactics that are less that are unrealistically functional in the game. The retrograde is particularly well used by the Federation and by the Tholians when armed with web casters. Parking and star castling is another problem. To solve this I propose the median line rule.

At the start of an open map scenario each side notes the direction of home space (A-F). This is usually the map side they started on. At the start of the scenario, the hex in the center of the map (2215 on the tournament map) is the median point. From that point on the median point is in the center of the average distance between the two sides.

If the median point moves off of the starting map (or thirty hexes from its origin point on multi-map scenarios) in the direction of your home space, then you lose one VP per hex per turn. Note that disengagement by separation still applies and if your enemy disengages in the direction of your home space then he will, instead, be considered destroyed, and lose the scenario.


This preserves the general realism of the open map and leaves open all tactics but provides consequences to some tactics that... well, aren't fun. It should encourage more aggressive play. If play remains aggressive on both sides then the median line will likely never need tracking. Note that planet and base scenarios are typically fixed maps be they large or small and would not use this rule.

I've no doubt there are things I haven't thought of so I invite comments and suggestions.

By James Cain (Jcain) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 01:12 pm: Edit

"if your enemy disengages in the direction of your home space then he will, instead, be considered destroyed, and lose the scenario"

The goal of a raider may indeed be to bypass a patrol in order to hit a target deeper into that empire's space. The wording you suggest for this rule would penalize a raider for doing so.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 01:33 pm: Edit

I don't really see a need for this. I've frequently played under "house rules" for "Patrol Scenario" type battles and those house rules were tailored for the specific game style we wanted to play. The house rules were "customized" depending on factors such as time available, specific empires involved and year of the battle, and preferences of the individual players. That strikes me as a lot better than trying to shoehorn people into a "one size fits all" published rule.

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Loren,

While we might want to tinker with the specifics (for instance, James Cain's point is valid), I think your notion is a good one.

One possibility is to have a general rule, with specific scenario exceptions and/or additions. This would provide the desired results, but keep enough flexibility to deal with a given scenario's objectives.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Loren,

The key to avoiding the kind of problem you describe is good scenario design. Your proposed rule would work just fine as part of some special scenario rules, and would probably make sense for certain campaigns, but does not make sense as a general rule.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 02:08 pm: Edit

The rule as written forces a certain scale on the engagement, which may not alway be appropriate (but usually is). There's a scenario where a Fed DNL disrupts the support convoy for a klingon starbase raid. The map is open for a reason, allowing the freighters and small ships to fan out in all directions to mke themselves harder to run down and kill.

I would not want to adopt rules that penalize the klingons for doing so. Since any direction is a good one for getting away from the Fed (this is behind the lines) again, one wouldn't want to force disengagement restrictions.

But as a generally-accepted limit on an open map engagement it works. You just need the scenario to call for it and the assumption that an open-map pickup game includes this rule unless the players agree otherwise.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Specific scenario rules would always trum this rule, of course.


The core idea was to find a medium between fix map and open map. The basis of the solution was that you have the all the maneuver room you want and if youare playing aggressively then you don't usually even bother but if you don't play aggressively you give an advantage to the enemy (and it works both ways).

There are some issues that came up and I need to think them over. I want to make this a calculation on a per qualified unit basis. The idea is that, against a star castling fleet you could send an unit behind the lines to start gaining victory points. The enemy could send a unit after your "raider" to stop you from qualifying. How this is worded is what I have to think on. One thing is to keep it simple, provide enough maneuver room to maintain 98% of normal play but cut off the value of non-aggression.

Alan: The problem is that I'm still seeing posts, for years now and a recent discussion about a retrograding Tholian casting web, regarding non-aggression. Currently the fix for non-aggression is to complain on a meta-game level. I would like to see a tactical way to punish non-aggression in-game. House rules don't work for campaigns.

Andy, yes but as a general S8 rule it would then apply to campaigns. Since ADB isn't going to produce campaign rules then it would otherwise be a house rule (and those aren't allowed here).

Joe Stevenson: I agree and thanks. The rule does need tweaking and simplifying. I don't want to be creating more than a quick and simple calculation or two.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 03:49 pm: Edit

I've used a 'semi-floating map rule' for generic patrol fights for many years now. It seems to work, and its specifically for 'pick-up fights', not 'covers all scenarios great and small'.

Very simple.

Center of map (2215, in most cases) is objective.

Any ship/unit more than 50 hexes from objective hex at the end of the turn is considered to have disengaged.

Gives you room to run around on, and keeps certain BS tactics from ruining the fight.

Another rule I've used is that whoever has the ship closest to the objective hex gets 50 bonus VP per turn...

So yeah, you can starcastle...but you had better be starcastling IN the objective hex....

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 04:08 pm: Edit

Loren,

I'm still not understanding your argument, I'm afraid. You say that "House rules don't work for campaigns." But every campaign I've ever played in has used house rules of various sorts, including rules for ending a battle. With all due respect, I don't see how your rule works for campaigns. It's based on "victory points", which are a criterion for scenario. What do victory points even mean in a battle that's part of an ongoing campaign? The point of the battle is to advance your strategic objectives and that's what determines if the battle was won or lost.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Loren, I see what you're trying to do, but I'm not sure if this is the way to go... most of the campaigns I've been in usually have some way of dealing with such, and there's already (S2.27) Stalemate, to keep things in line.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Alan... you make a good point and I'm glad that everyone is at least seeing the concept. But you are right, VP don't have much use in campaigns. I still see people complaining about non-aggression tactics. Perhaps instead of victoy points some other award is given for use in campaigns. Perhaps some sort of intel bonus that applies to the next battle if enough points are gained?

What I keep asking myself is what is the point of a battle in the SFU? Well, there are several for sure but some are lost or carry little weight in a balanced situation. That is, balanced battles should almost never happen of their own accord.

Reason for empire ships to battle are (but not limited to):
Destroy a fixed instalation.
Destroy enemy logistic or assets.
Destroy enemy ships.
Pin enemy ships.
Draw the line against an advance or raid.

The last two are battles where you use what you have and if it's balanced you still have to fight. These are the battles I see as most represented by S8 pick-up games. Published scenarios have their own build-in motivations and can even have imbalanced forces if there is some other way to achieve victory points.

So the proposed rule is meant to set up a sort of line in space that you must protect or pay the consequences of not doing so. But the rule should not overwhelm the VP system. It isn't right to have the rule virtually castrate any tactic. If star castling will absolutly win you the scenario then it should remain an option. I think that it will encurrage more aggressive tactics to have some sort of something to protect that the enemy can take IF you don't do enough to protect it.

Sort of like unrestricted hocky. You have two options to gain points. Beat the crap out of the other team or score a goal. If you don't protect the goal then you are giving it away. If you just make a stand in the middle of the rink then the other team just bypasses you and racks up VP at their leisure.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Loren maybe a rule from F+E could be modified for SFB: that being the battle intensity one. In F+E the two sides in a battle pick an "Battle Intensity" and then a random roll to add or subtract from this intensity is made. These numbers are added together and modified by EW and this number decides the row on the CRT that damage is determined on. Battle Intensity could be included in a SFB scenario that doesn't already have historical objectives built in. The intensity could represent "orders" from the admiralty. In this way a player may have orders to "Attack with extreme prejudice" or "delay and screen". VP's could be assigned based on these orders and the execution of them by the players.