Limit on superstack fire
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Rules: (D) Combat Rules: Limit on superstack fire
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
Archive through June 17, 2010  25   06/17 11:11am
Archive through June 17, 2010  25   06/17 01:54pm
Archive through June 17, 2010  25   06/17 10:02pm
Archive through June 18, 2010  25   06/18 03:54pm
Archive through June 18, 2010  25   06/19 02:14am
Archive through June 19, 2010  25   06/20 12:57pm
Archive through June 20, 2010  25   06/21 01:21am
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 11:58 pm: Edit

Gentlemen, cool your jets. You do not get to give orders to the President of the company that he not be involved in the decisions of the game he designed.

The Steves have NO desire to bury SFB -- that would be financially stupid and the Steves are not stupid. Anyone who thinks that SPP doesn't have a major say in SFB doesn't understand the dynamics of the company.

SVC has said that there will be time to playtest any proposed rule. I know him well enough to know that if the playtest shows the rule is unbalancing, then the rule will be refined until it is fair. I feel confident that talented and concerned players will find any flaws and report them.

Peter, the information on PDFS and e-books will be lost here. Please post it in the appropriate topic.

Jean
WebMom

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 12:36 am: Edit

Peter Thoenen: So way uncalled for and so off the mark.

Unbelievable.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 01:06 am: Edit

It's somewhat interesting, considering the point raised earlier about modern naval warfare vs. that in the Star Fleet Universe - from what I gather, one of the most notable aspects of the rules in Klingon (and Romulan) Armada is that (if I recall correctly; my Starmada books are mostly buried under even more boxes in storage than they had been before yesterday, sigh) the ships are all much slower than any drones or plasma torpedoes they may fire.

(It's too soon to tell what fighters will look like in that system, though there are regular admin shuttles already. I don't recall how fast they are, though.)

That said, I'm not going to rush to compare that game system with either SFB or FC - since it's already a less than wholly welcome thing to even refer to FC (a game system which, unlike that powering Klingon Armada, has SFB as its primary source of design heritage) it seems.

Although, I will note that in SFB itself, if you really want something missile- or torpedo-ey which can go faster than the ship launching it, there are speed-64 accentuated HEATs, speed-128 ultrawarp missiles, and launched-as-direct-fire-weapons-with-funny-rules-when-they-get-in-close mass drivers to consider.


When it comes to the idea of whether or not more than one rules issue might be worth raising for debate, I agree - but not in the way some others might think.

That said, SVC has stated in this thread that only the superstack issue is up for discussion at the moment, so I'll hold fire on anything else until, or unless, a better time and place comes up at some point in the future.

When it comes to the superstack, I find it to be an example of the kind of thing which works against proper maneuver and formation tactics which fleets (some more than others, perhaps) really ought to be about, in my view at least.

Plus, you'd need awfully big hexes on your board in order to fit a fleet's worth of minis bunched together like that...


EDIT: Oh, and before I forget - modern naval warfare is what it is, but arguably the essence of SFU naval combat owes more to the Age of Sail, or perhaps the Age of Dreadnoughts, than to your average 2010 fleet. Ships of either era have enough padding relative to the weapons being used against them to not go poof in one go (unless you're un/lucky) and early assault fighters at least are more like sending a flight of Fairey Swordfish biplanes against the Bismarck than launching a Harpoon missile from an F/A-18E against an enemy aircraft carrier.

Even so, naval combat was no less 'real' in those eras than contemporary naval combat is (or, well, would be) in ours - to say nothing of how 'real' the technologies and tactics of various navies in the SFU are to those looking at them from an in-universe context.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 01:10 am: Edit

I think it's a trifle premature to be drawing lines in the sand over this issue. I've already stated my opinion about changing rules in chain reaction after other rules were changed. But as SVC said we're exploring POSSIBLE solutions. He's not even said there WILL be a change. Just that he wants to LOOK at some ideas. So lets not polish our guns and meet at Weehawken at dawn just yet...
regards
Stacy

PS My solution is that every time someone superstacks the Tholian war production triples for the next five years. In no time at all we'll establish dominion over the galaxy, and we won't let you fly starships any more and you won't have to worry about the matter.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 01:21 am: Edit

Stacy:

If you left it open like that, you'd just end up with someone stacking a Seltorian fleet around a pair of Battlewagons.

No prizes for guessing where said fleet would be headed...

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 01:54 am: Edit

SVC:

I've been reading this thread since it started and, over the past hour, I've been re-reading it. I have experienced super-stacks in the game, more often than not in point of fact. I'm having problems coming up with any constructive additions to the conversation, however, and after thought, I beleve it's because I've somewhat lost focus based off of a number of "dead end" paths that have been pursued extensively and alternating viewpoints.

It would help me greatly, and would possibly help others, if I could request a restatement of the actual problem trying to be solved. Not the symptom, but the effect.

Are you concerned about long-range DF assaults on a single shield over distance? Are you worked about excessive point defense? Are you worried about the coordinated fire effect? Are you worried about the mitigating factors against plasma races? I'm doubting that it's the aestetics of it, so what is it about the tactic that concerns you.

Lots of people are taking different tacts and many of them are attempting to solve what they perceive to see as the problem. I think I heard loud and clear the desired goal (stop the superstack), but I don't know that I clearly heard why that was a goal. Maybe that's because I haven't seen the Top 10 Things Wrong with the Game, which was cited early on. I'm just thinking that maybe more common ground could be found if everyone was on the same page about the desired effect. It's clear to me that there's the perception that there will be several, and I'm not sure that everyone is focused on the same discrete goals.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 07:45 am: Edit

Oddly enough, the artwork of many SFU products suggests superstacks fight superstacks. Making a rule to negate superstacks (or punish same) will result in CL52 showing a classic duel of a klingon and a fed, and with a magnifying glass, you can make out a very distant fed and klingon ship, and perhaps with notes in the inside cover, you can read that some of the stars are actually ships that require the Hubble to be viewed.

By Michael Bennett (Mike) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 08:49 am: Edit

Some random observations and thoughts...

1. There was an episode of ST:TNG (gasp!) in which the Ent-D pulled up to a Borg cube and someone on the bridge announced that they were 40,000km away and holding position. From the outside view that flashed up right after that comment, it looked for all the world as if the Ent-D was only a few hundred meters away (and I think that is taking into account the enormous size of the cube).

2. IIRC, the inspiration for SFB came while playing a game of Jutland while an episode of ST was on TV way back in the mid-1970's. That would be WWI naval tactics influencing the design.

3. If I was watching people play SFB for the first time and saw a big blank hex map with tall stacks of cardboard counters being moved toward each other, it would be a major turn-off. And that is not even considering whether skyscraper stacks give advantages or disadvantages offensively, defensively, or in maneuverability within game terms and tactical considerations. Just the aesthetics are unappealing, not to mention what happens when the map is jarred or people with fumbly fingers work their magic on those piles. Surely point #3 is not what this debate is all about, however.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 08:50 am: Edit

* Looks at Glenn *

CL#52? Glenn, we've told you about the effects time travel has on you....

By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 09:52 am: Edit

I'm not sure the rational for changing rule C1.6 ?

As mentioned in previous posts many times, after the 1st battle pass, the super stack is downsized considerably !

For those who like the super stack, let them play with it, those that don't, then don't play with a super stack.

Make it an optional rule to satisfy everyone !

Personally for what its worth, I will not be using any rule that limits ships/units in a hex.


Cheers
Frank

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 10:12 am: Edit

I'd actually love to see a number of things like anti-superstacking rules in a module that I think was once called "Extreme Missions". Would have been a great way to let people have their cake and eat it too...lots of rules that could adapt SFB to different tastes and perspectives, on common ground rather than house rules. If the content is optional (other rules in the existing rules are optional) I see it as a win-win. Folks that want dispersed formations, double reverse movement costs, reinforcement changes, etc, can have them and enjoy them. Those that are content with SFB as it is can rock on.

Any setting, campaign, tourney, the pick-up battle on Friday night could us some, all, or none of the "Extreme" rules. The benefit over "house rules"...a common sheet of music. We don't all have to like country music all of the time, but when it is time sing, we can all be in tune.

While I'm not in favor of changing the core rules, I would welcome such a module. I might not use everything in it all of the time, but it would provide a great common ground for folks to tailor the game to their preferences, and would provide GMs a mechanism the don't currently have in their tool bag.

Finally, if the decision is the sanctioned tournament format needs one of these optional rules, no problem. It becomes a standard tourney rule, but it remains optional in other formats. Still, its out there, players know about it, and they can choose to use it in their regular gaming or not.

Like I said, I don't know what ever happened to the idea, but I would strongly prefer and support such a thing instead of amending or altering the current rules. It also means I don't have to buy a bunch of new modules...I buy just one book. A lot more acceptable to life with mom and the kids.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 10:33 am: Edit

Quote:

Ted: So, let me get this right, never do anything because something might happen? So, I should not drive to Origins because the van could be swept away in a lava flow from a volcano that erupts in the middle of Oklahoma? Seriously, if you cannot show me something you CAN predict, I'm not taking that "maybe something might happen" thing seriously. Remember that this isn't going to happen Wednesday. As I have said over and over, this is CL42 at best, and will be tested, or do you object to testing this because the test might cause something to happen?

There's nothing wrong with playtesting a new rule.

I have given specific examples of what I think are issues with limiting superstacks.

1) The first is the advantage to seeking weapon races by limiting defensive fire, particularly against plasma. You addressed this issue by suggesting possibly allowing superstacks to fire at seekers, or possibly based on size. My remaining concern is that this suggestion doesn't solve the problem because you give up offensive capabilities in order to improve your defense. That discourages the player from superstacking at all, so we return to the problem in the first place. Thus, the seeking races retain an advantage, though I agree the issue is mitigated.

2) The second is that empires with short range weapons will suffer relative to races with long range weapons. The extreme examples are the Hydrans (even with hellbores they are substantially affected) versus the ISC (who have one of the longest range weapons and are designed to discourage superstacks). For example, if I have a Hydran fleet of 12 ships versus an ISC fleet of 12 ships, I will have no more than 3 ships in four hexes under one version of the proposed rule. Even flying in tight formation, that extra one hex to the leading ISC fleet elements relative to two or three of the Hydran elements could have a profound effect on the exchange. At range 16-20, where the ISC want to fight anyway, they can avoid a substantial amount of the Hydran's massed firepower altogether, or through maneuver blunt fire among different shields. At close range, the entire ISC forward fleet can engage the lead Hydran ships at ranges 2-4 (very close with phaser-1s), but two or three stacks of the Hydran fleet will be firing at ranges 3-4. At those ranges the return fire from massed phaser-3s will be negligible.

The problem becomes much worse if fighters are not allowed to stack. You will have many stacks of fighters and ships, very much diffusing Hydran firepower.

3) The third issue I raised is that superstacks are not really a problem. Some players object, I understand that, and some of them do so vociferously. I also understand that you think that they are a problem. However, from my 20+ years of *play* experience (and that's all I'm talking about here), superstacks are not a problem. Sure, on the first pass the two fleets will blow up a ship on each side. However, after that, the superstacks will collapse due to maneuver, different shields being hit, seeking weapons forcing superstack elements to leave the stack, and other considerations. The result is that initial superstacks usually devolve into dogfights.

So, in my experience against many experienced players (and I count myself an experienced player) superstacks are just not a problem in SFB.

4) On the unpredictability of play balance, I agree that you can't do nothing simply because something could happen. Like, you shouldn't fail to go to Origins just because your van might be in an accident. However, given that I have already demonstrated at least one play balance issue with respect to Hydrans and ISC, it is reasonable to believe that other play balance issues that are unforseen are likely to arise. At the moment, the issues I identified are seeking empires and short range weapon empires.


So, my personal opinion, based only on my experience, is that 1) rules against superstacks are not needed and 2) rules against superstacks will definitely affect play balance with respect to seeking empires and short range weapon empires. Further given that superstacks have been with us for so long, I respectfully submit that the cost/benefit analysis with respect to what is good for the game favors retaining the current rule.

Thanks.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 10:36 am: Edit

Quote:

Ted Fey,

Please forgive me for this. I owe you a debt for your assistance some time back with that very enjoyable phone call. I just have to ask though, you keep say changing the rule is a bad thing but there isn't a rule changing here. There's no rule about superstacking. A Superstack rule would be a new rule.

Sorry. It's just each time I read that my right eye twitchs.

Loren, no problem. :)

The rule I'm talking about is C1.6. While there is no super-stack rule per se, C1.6 says there are no stacking limits. It's easier to refer to this rule as "the superstack rule" than "the rule which states that stacking is not limited." I picked expediency over accuracy, sorry. :)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 10:41 am: Edit

My only request is that any rule published be listed as optional. I fear upsetting players that weren't aware of this conversation.

SVC ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY THIS WAS NOT WORKABLE.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 11:30 am: Edit

"I'm with Jeremy on this one, this (along with a couple other recent posts) is just SVC's attempt to bury SFB and/or whore SFB: Revolutions (another topic on this BBS) to force everybody to rebuy everything."

This comment in totally false and extremely insulting and makes me VERY much want nothing to do with you guys.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 05:43 pm: Edit

I am unsure what to do about "superstacks" as Star Fleet Battles is not Federation Commander.

I have reviewed the discussion on "superstacks" and find no need to continue this discussion or to make any changes to the rules. Star Fleet Battles is not Federation Commander. There might be some other FC rules that might be considered for SFB at some future point.

The limit on the number of units that can fire out of a hex works for Federation Commander in part because there are only eight "firing pulses" giving opposing sides the opportunity to maneuver for four pulses before another shot can be taken. Most ships can turn a new shield in that time.

In Star Fleet Battles weapons can be fired every impulse, and you can know your opponent's turn mode and how soon he can turn a new shield. Even at that, a restriction of three units firing on an impulse simply means that (as an example with my opponent moving at Speed 20) I can fire three ships on Impulse #24, and three more ships on Impulse #25 while my opponent cannot change the facing shield (without an HET) of the target ship.

Further, forcing a player to operate his ships in "stacks of three" would have very little effect at most ranges. Until you are at very close ranges a group of nine ships operating in three adjacent hexes can all hit the same shield on a target ship (yes, four adjacent stacks would be a little more restricted). So I do not see that anything is being gained by forcing an arbitrary three ship stacking limit per hex (which would be what it amounted to). And the player might just operate in two adjacent stacks of six ships using the above noted "consecutive impulses" firing system.

Now, yes forcing staggered fire (as noted above) would allow some reaction by the target (a scout could lend the target ECM before the next volley, the target could HET, if the target was already doing erratic maneuvers it could increase its own ECM with reserve power).

In the final analysis, the way SFB works means that any fix to this problem would be ineffective and artificial and other than the "it just feels wrong" aspect there is nothing that is a problem.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 07, 2010 - 06:25 pm: Edit

My apologies for the fuss. This came up in a conversation, and it reminded me of the FC design process when it was one of the "stupid SFB rules" we were determined to eliminate from FC. There seemed to be support for a change, but others contested the need for any change. Petrick has asked me to discuss any future similar situations with him off line before starting a topic on them.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation