Archive through June 17, 2010
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(D) Combat Rules:
Limit on superstack fire:
Archive through June 17, 2010
It's about bloody time that SFB had what FC has, a rule limiting the number of ships that can fire OUT of a given hex through a given hex side to THREE.
No more superstack!
I shall discuss this with Petrick on the drive and leave him at Sweetwater if he doesn't do what I say!
A cold hard rule like FC could work but SFBers will analyze "Why?" to death (if only amongst themselves).
So how about this,
For every ship over three every ship in a hex has one point of natural ECM applied to it. This does not apply to bases.
One might get a little more detailed and say for every move cost starting with 3.1 total in a hex every ship in that hex gains one points of natural ECM.
For non-EW play, for each ship (or move cost) each suffers a +1 on all weapons fire and an unfavorable shift of one for purposes of Info Gathering, Identifying Drones etc.
Does not break lock-ons.
I like the cold hard rule.
Like leaving Petrick at Sweetwater is much of a threat.
"ships" or "units"?
John, the FC rule is "units".
In FC, you get one firing opportunity per four (SFB) impulses. This, plus the me-too firing system and structure of the DAC tends to favour hitting hard by firing big volleys. At least that's how I play. As a result, you often want to have all your units firing at once and will need to spread them out.
I suspect that if you did directly import the cold hard FC rule into SFB, without changing the wording, the impact would be less than it is in FC. The extra firing opportunities, hidden decision firing system and "Mizia-enabled" DAC would make smaller volleys more attractive. I think it would probably still have the effect of emphasising fleet maneuver more though. The effect on duels and small squadron actions would probably be about zero. It would be more of an issue with lots of attrition units around, potentially making carrier fleets less attractive. Flying a full S8.0 fleet it would definitely affect.
As for Loren's proposal, I think it's rather overcomplicated. If there is one way that SFB can be improved, it's simplification (in my humble opinion). If a proposal like this is adopted, I beg you to keep it simple, for SFB's sake.
A simpler way to end the SFB superstack is to simply add a rule to the effect that any unit caught in the same hex when a ship explodes takes double damage.
Thus, a frigate/escort blowing up will (probably) knock down a shield, or at least dent it. Larger ships will DEFINITELY knock down a shield, and do internals, etc.
You could get really nasty and say due to the numerous warp fields being so close to each other, a ship explosion is magnified by the other warp fields (or insert favorite Treknobabble here), and thus is MULTIPLIED by the number of ships in the same hex (and only affects ships in the same hex...explosion damage would remain the same in adjacent hexes). This would mean that an 11 ship superstack of a DN+10CW could conceivably go POOF! if somebody managed to blow up any of the ships......
Would probably end superstacking, altho if a player really, truly wants to take the chance....well, he was warned, wasn't he?
Are we killing Phaser capacitors next? Doubling the cost of reverse movement? Getting rid of EA forms? I'm not in favor of porting rules from FC into SFB. If we're going to do Commander's -> Captain's again, I'm probably not coming along for the ride.
If we want to turn SFB into FC, lets not kill ourselves making the two game systems match. Just stop printing SFB, guys like me who don't play FedCom will stop buying products, and I'll go on playing the so called "dead game". Fewer products for ADB to print and fewer crotchity guys like me who prefer SFB to worry about.
As shocking as it sounds, there are some of us who like the SFB rules the way they are and don't feel the need to tinker with them.
Well, SVC doesn't like it so that's that, but I'm not for changing SFB to make everything more simple. What SFB needs, IMHO, is to perhaps do away with some over complication, and new rules also not be overly complex but should still reflect a finer definition than the lower granularity of FC.
I love SFB for is high detail and the devil you can find in those details. I identify with Jeremy's possition a lot.
Of course, a simpler form of EW would cut practical play time in half and leave more room for maneuvering rules and combat rules. 
Lets just take SFB out back and shoot it and be done with it. FC is king, long live FC!
I'll go play Chess.
Seriously...If folks don't want the superstack or EW, or EA forms, or (I could go on but this site doesn't have the bandwidth), they can play FC. The point I'm trying to make, and I tried to make it back when FC came out, is that as soon as the decision is made to make SFB more closely match FC, we should not continue screwing around with two parallel game systems. Declare FC the new form of SFB and be done with it. You're going to lose players (I'm probably one of them), but I do wonder, if the games are going to become the same with different covers, then what's the point?
I know that's not what's being suggested here...the superstack thing is one rule. I have no particular attachment to the superstack. But, how is this going to be imposed on the game. Slipped into a module like R13? A new basic set? An Addendum Module? An optional "Make SFB play more like FC" module? I don't know how many rules proposals over the years have been rejected in that they contradict the existing core rule structure of the game. I like that consistancy. There has been talk of a new edition of SFB before, with new SSDs, and that immediately led to talk of new rules too. Hell, it happened here in space of like 1-2 posts! As consumer, I'm not prepared to start investing in a new version of the game. That's part of the reason I'm not interested in FC. I'd prefer not to see SFB start down the slippery slope of becoming a clone of FC either. I'd rather not tinker with something I believe works just fine.
Jeremy I don't think the intention is to turn SFB into FC. FC is a game, SFB is a simulation. Chalk and cheese. You can't turn one into the other and I am sure SVC & SPP don't want to.
The proposed change seems similar in scope, to me, to the auto-kill rule introduced in F&E 2010. The game is not working the way the designer intended it to work, and this will help to make it work 'correctly'. It's been pretty thoroughly tested in FC, where it works fine, and FC in this respect is similar enough to SFB that I think it would be good for SFB.
Edit: And the point I was trying to make in my earlier post, but apparently didn't, is that adding an anti-superstack rule increases complexity. And if you are going to increase complexity to improve realism, the change should introduce the least overhead necessary to get the job done. Which is why I did not like Loren's counter-proposal.
Terry, I seriously mean no offense, but I have never bought "FC is a game, SFB is a simulation". Neither simulates real life. They are both games, and they share many common mechanics. It would not take a rocket scientist to close the distance between the two and make the two games indistinguishable from each other.
If SVC wants a new (C_.0) or (D_.0) rule that covers same hex fire, fair enough. Somebody better tell any new SFB players that they need to buy module R13 (or whatever its going to be in) to get the correct direct fire rules. Or, are there no new SFB players anymore? But if we're making SFB be more like FC to attract FC players to SFB, I'd suggest the dog is chasing his tail.
Petrick, just say no man and stay in Sweetwater!
Make the rule optional, so that those that want the rule can use the rule, those that don't like the rule will not use the rule anyway. Won't affect tournaments as they are one ship per side, anyhow.
I, personally, would not mind an SFB Admiral's Edition.
It's been 20 years or so since Captain's Edition was released.
While there is the MRB, I think its time for another clean-up of the SFB rules ala what happened from Commanders to Captain.
Things that could be addressed could be a revamp of the EW rules, revisiting the mine rules, and reducing the complexity of the tractor beam rules.
And Jeremy, I'm sorry, but if only one thing from FC gets ported over to SFB, lets make it the ESG rules.
On the actual subject of the thread I like Mikes proposal best. Of course there is a need to work out why the explosions don't affect the hexes around the ship, like a T-B would.
• Someone said something about SFB overcomplication; There are THREE rules for handling such a thing as repairs. Wouldn't mind seeing a leaner and meaner SFB. It could only be for the good of the community. Which leads me to...
• SFB Admiral's Edition. Sure, why not? The Captains Ed was an attempt to end the constant stream of addendas by producing the definite rule book. Sort of the peace of the Chancellor in Star Wars... it was a success, but now it should be possible to look at a new, IMPROVED, version. We have 20 years of experience
to guide us.
Really, we are talking about at least three different subjects here. The Superstack, General improvements to the game -> The Admirals Edition, and wether or not to make changes at all.
Additional threads for the later ones would be good to have as I think this is something the community feel it need to discus.
Quote:Terry, I seriously mean no offense, but I have never bought "FC is a game, SFB is a simulation". Neither simulates real life.
True, neither simulates real life. They do simulate the fictional reality of SVC's vision of TOS. SFB tries to be true to the engineering, while FC is much less so.
I don't think that this particular proposal is an attempt to make SFB more like FC in order to attract new players. From the designer's notes and other comments that have been written about this decision and others, the superstack thing has been considered a problem for a long time (at least by the designer(s)). An actual, this-doesn't-work-right problem, not a cosmetic change.
Are there new SFB players? Well, SFB Basic Set is still AFAIK the biggest seller in ADB's line, so somebody must be buying it.
Carl, I don't think that simplifying (for example) the repair rules would be good for SFB. You have three different repair rules, true. Those rules are different because they simulate three different kinds of repairs. That gives you the gritty detail that makes SFB what it is. That must be preserved. Only loopholes or unforeseen interactions which cause the game to be played in a way which does not reflect the 'reality' of the SFU should be changed.
While I actually play FC, I do admire SFB as a game, even if I don't play it, and I would deplore any changes that altered its fundamental character.
"Only loopholes or unforeseen interactions which cause the game to be played in a way which does not reflect the 'reality' of the SFU should be changed."
Then why change this? The superstack has existed since the Designer's edition. Its a tight formation of ships. It favors some races more than others. Its a tactic. And it can be broken up pretty easily.
Example: Playing a game against Dale McKee on SFBOL right now. Fed vs Romulan. I started with the Feds in a superstack. It took the Roms exactly two turns to break it up. Select a few ships as seeking weapon targets, beat up some shields to make manuever in formation difficult, and bang, it comes unglued.
Sometimes, you can really make the other guy pay for doing it...like when he stacks all the little guys on top of his DN instead of spreading out a little to protect it. You sail into overload range and blow the DN to atoms, ignoring the little ships. Nice job stopping that mister Superstack.
Making ships stay out of the same hex will not do much to solve "the problem". So I have to pile all the ships into two hexes. Or three hexes. If I'm a direct fire shooter, I'm still going to get concentrated shots on single shields. I can acheive pretty much the same result, single hex or not. What's next? We going to put a limit on how many ships can be within 10 hexes of each other?
I do play SFB, in fleet battles, all the time. I'd be willing to bet I've played more large SFB battles in the last year than many of the folks posting on this BBS. I use superstacks. It gets used on me. It doesn't in any way gaurantee victory. If anything, it makes it a little easier to handle large numbers of ships in an already complex game. This is an unneeded change that's been advocated by people for a long time who would rather change the rules than beat the tactic.
I hate fighting cloaks...maybe we should get rid of those. Attacking web is really a pain in my backside...let change them rules. In fact, lets get rid of Tholians all together. I really hate it that other races have more power than my beloved Feds, and that their weapons can't hit the broad side of the barn. I hate it that Klingons with UIMs are so good at the Sabre Dance. Or that Gorns can run me over, anchor my ships, and whip me like a rented mule. PFs overwelm ships too easily and fighters slow down the game to much. Lets break out the eraser! Lets go play ping pong and tic tac toe!
(Yes, I'm being over-dramatic. Trying to be funny here, but I'm also trying to make a point. While there is a camp of people out there that have always wanted the superstack to go away, there has also always been a camp of us who think there are plenty of ways to make somebody pay for doing it. Its not a big deal, and it not worth launching the next edition of SFB over it.)
Not that it matters, but I personally would not want to see superstack restrictions in SFB. SFB allows plenty of stuff FC doesn't; they're different games.
To add to what Jeremy said, superstacks also come with some disadvantages - such as explosions affecting all of your ships. They're not a panacea, nor are they invincible.
Or collateral damage. Ted, I believe you've used that one on me when I was unfortunate enough to stop all my ships in the same hex. Nothing quite like having four ships try to WW plasma in the same hex and proceed to have four of their shields torn to shreds. Better than getting blown up, but I believe I departed that battle soon after.
Or having Dale outflank me with two pincers of a plasma attack. Superstacks are pretty easy to outmanuver because they don't "deny" much space.
I don't agree with the modifications of superstacked units. That is a fundamental change to a captain's tactics.
If, however, it must be, I'd suggest this Treknobabble . . .
Each ship's warp field produces 1 pt of ecm for those in the same hex.
... wait, don't get excited.
Each ship's internal computers can compensate for up to 6 WI (warp imposed) EW.
... Still hold on.
This EW is completely unrelated to any other EW (different frequency) and cannot be compounded by enemy or friendly EW affects including natural EW. But once there is a 7th ship in a hex, it will add a +1 to the firing solution.
Units with positional stabalizers would be excluded from this calculation.
However, I'd like to re-emphasize . . . I really don't agree with the SVC proposal (sorry). It's not necessary to the game, and I'm fully backing Jeremy's view and those who support him.
"Like leaving Petrick at Sweetwater is much of a threat."
It is if you don't leave him with any credit cards or cash.
I am GREATLY offended by the histrionics and overdramma in this topic. I expected far better of you guys. Hyperbole and sarcasm are not helping. We're not talking about changing SFB into FC. We already had that discussion and EVERYONE agreed that bringing ALL of the FC rules into SFB was the wrong way to go. (Some do want the FC ESG rules, and may get them. Some are already talking about the FC Andro rules being SOOO much better than SFB.) We're talking about fixing the ONE single greatest thing WRONG with SFB. And it is wrong, and all of the threats about "I won't buy products any more" is just people who want to continue playing the game WRONG. We had this same nonsense in F&E over autokill and when it was all over the autokill rule had ZERO effect on the game and actually improved sales AND IMPROVED THE PLAY OF THE GAME. And there was never any talk about phaser capacitors. So just limit this discussion to superstack and calm down and BEHAVE.
While I don't play SFB anymore:
I can easily see why three is the lowest number of ships that could fire out of a superstack. Three Tholian PC class ships in the same hex to form a pinwheel. But what about PFs? All six can be dropped from a tender and depending on their initial speed may or may not have had time to separate to become less vulnearable to explosions.
For the most part I always tried to keep my ships out of the same hex except for Lyrans when fighting Hydrans or Kzintis because of the ESGs vs their weapons.
My biggest problem with SFB as a game is that I didn't have a good mentor and lost every game I played because I didn't understand to how use the tactics of one empire versus the other. That is not to say that I don't like or enjoy the game. I believe that I would enjoy it if I understood parts of it better than I do.