I would agree there are certainly ways to deal with the superstack. And after what Rich Sherman did to my Andro superstack a few weeks ago, I can say with certainty that the stack is not invincible. I vote to leave this one alone.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 10:36 am: Edit

Ships or units: I dunno. Let me think about it. comments?

Double explosions: Not a bad idea, and it's not from FC, which has no explosions.

Terry O'Carroll has a point you all need to pay attention to. With 32 firing chances, this has far less impact than it does in FC.

"Make the rule optional so I can ignore it." Uh... NO.

"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. " Correct. It outsells FCKB and FCRB, but not FCKB and FCRB combined. A LOT of FC players are buying SFB and they think superstack is a stupid rule and use the FC rule. I don't need to kill superstack to get new customers; we all need to kill superstack because it's stupid and wrong.

"if the games are going to become the same with different covers, then what's the point? " They aren't going to become the same game with two different covers, nobody is saying that but you, and I'm not convinced that even you actually think that's true.

By Fred J. Kreller (Kreller1) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 10:45 am: Edit

Maybe say any ships SC 4 or larger in the same hex..

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 10:48 am: Edit

The idea of inharrent disadvantages of a superstack was what I had in mind. By adding an EW penalty for too many ships it gradually increases the penalty, which can be offset to a degree with ECCM, but makes it difficult to have an entire huge fleet in one hex because you can't counter the effect beyond nine ships (ten if they are X-ships) without a scout. If you really want a super stack, then you have to work for it. It's super NOT complex if you just don't super stack.


Admirals Edition: I could only go for that IF it were a single book like the MRB. I would have to walk away if it were an entire new line of modules.

Optional Rules: What happens when one player wants to play with the super stack rule and the other does't because that's how he has fun? Such rules as optional work if groups descide, but it splits the player base when the decision is up to individuals. Given the nature of the player base, I think there are more individuals than groups. (SFB probably has the highest ratio of players that don't actually play of any game in the universe.)

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 11:11 am: Edit

Glad to see action on this, fleet games are so much more interesting when you have a fleet rather than a stack.

Hoping for a simple rule.

My take: A maximum of one unit may use direct fire out of a hex per impulse. No exceptions; if you have three swordfish drones stacked and they all trigger at the same time, they all fail to fire (and can trigger again next impulse). A PPD counts on every impulse it pulses.
Seeking weapon launch has an identical but seperate limit.

My reasoning behind limiting to one is that it feels less arbitrary and more closely matches the FC rule in effect (less units firing per firing opportunity, more units firing per 1/8 turn).

Other than massive direct fire fleet battles I expect the biggest changes to be on carriers (especially those with direct fire fighters) and convoys - a big stack of civilian freighters and shuttles won't be quite so dangerous up close.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 11:17 am: Edit

So how about 3 "points" of units can fire any impulse at any 1 target. Any additional ship gains +1ECM applied to it for extra ship firing.

Where each ship (only ships, not bases, fighters, or PFs) counts as:
SC-2=1.5
SC-3=1
SC-4=0.5

I'd make a DN firing effect more over a FF firing because it is unloading about 3 times the firepower as a FF (compare a C9 to F5), or 3 D7Ks firing would equal 6 F5Ks firing. So an example of a Superstack (C9, D7W, 3D5W, D6S, 3F6, 3F5W), a C9+D7W+F5W could fire w/o effect, or D7W+2D5W, or C9+3F5W/F6.

Leaving PFs out would make packs of them dangerous, as they should be. And fighters, well are fighters, let your opponent superstack them to be hit by a t-bomb.

I think bases should be left out because they should always be able to fire without effect by whatever ships are guarding it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 11:31 am: Edit

This is the last thing I'll say about my idea, but another thing about the EW penalty is the cool maneuver where an enemy ship enters a superstack causing the EW penalty to apply to the entire enemy fleet. The fleet can blow it up but will take damage to all it's ships.

Hee, hee.



PFs and Fighters should be counted by flotilla and squadron like F&E counts them as "ship equivelants".

By Patrick H. Dillman (Patrick) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 11:32 am: Edit

---

Quote:

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 09:18 pm: Edit
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!

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 11:36 am: Edit

Loren: Your EW idea is too tedious and fiddly.

Scott Tenhoff: you've got to be freaking kidding with that kind of proposal. Go to the booth. Six tribbles. Jean will be singing "His heart belongs to me."

"I'm just guessing here but this hulloballoo is all over how a superstack can destroy a single ship in less then a turn, am I right?" No, you're not.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 11:48 am: Edit

Terry, I didn't suggest simplification, rather merging the various repair rules. I can see one rule cover all types of repair, and if SVC said he would consider it if sent inn I could write one.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:02 pm: Edit

I guess I just don't see superstacks as being a huge issue, and I've played the game for decades. Their inherent problems (lack of ability to deny space, multiplying the effects of explosions, increased WW collateral, difficulty in maintaining the stack after engaging the enemy, especially as multiple shields take damage) make up for their advantages (concentrated firepower). Usually what happens is that the superstacks split after engagement with the enemy, so you get a huge WHANG on both sides after the first battle pass, but after that it devolves into a dogfight.

SVC, no histrionics here. Change the rule if you think it's that important, but IMHO the problem in SFB is not really a big issue.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:04 pm: Edit

This decision is made, and its clear I need not comment on it further. The rule is going to happen (in some form or another, and I honestly prefer what SVC is proposing to some of the others I've seen, if it has to be) ...'nough said. My sense is more will eventually follow. Nothing I can control apparently.

As for FC and SFB just becoming one game, I honestly hope not. Unlike what seems like the the vast majority, I really like SFB and don't care much for FC. If that hurts feelings, I'm sorry, but that's my opinion. But, at times, it seems like just making FC the new SFB does makes sense. More effort devoted to what appears to be the hot commodity and less time wasted on something that feels like a dying breed to me. Probably not the best way of putting it, but there it is.

All too often I hear how clunky/broken/wrong SFB is and how great FC is. I go to Origins and see droves of folks playing FC and a handful of folks still playing SFB. I struggle to find SFB players locally anymore. Its gotten to a point where I can only play on SFBOL. If the plug ever gets pulled on that, I'm done. I don't begrudge ADB the success of FedCom...good for them. They are a business after all. But its made me defensive when ever the subject of porting FC concepts into SFB comes up. If I wasn't a player, but I was a game designer...I dunno...I'd be tempted to go to a single game just to reduce the work.

Am I attached to the superstack? Nope. I actually don't know that making me split my ships up over a handful of hexes will make much difference. My concern is simply what I perceive to be an increasing cry to make SFB more like FC, and thus my reaction.

Call me a crotchity ol' SFB player if ya like. If its a crime to like the game the way it is, I'm guilty as charged. Good luck with the rule...I'll stay out of the way and hope for the best.

By Oliver Dewey Upshaw III (Oliverupshaw) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:11 pm: Edit

I'll just say that my experiance matchs that of Ted Fay in his 12:02 post.

Patrick Dillman"I'm just guessing here but this hulloballoo is all over how a superstack can destroy a single ship in less then a turn, am I right?" SVC"No, you're not."

So the question then is what do you SVC see as the problem of the superstack. The rest of us are just guessing here as to where you want to go with this and why. If you want more informed debate from us we need more information.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:14 pm: Edit

Jeremy:


Before you feel too hard done by, I might point out that FC itself is not immune to certain SFBisms - not least when it comes to Borders of Madness.

BoM is set to include the likes of carriers, special sensors, maulers, and other units which are not a factor in vanilla FC.


Yes, the BoM rules are optional - but who knows how popular an option they may end up being?


On the subject of the superstack, I can think of one example in SFB where I'd find ditching it to be quite useful.

When I look at, say, Iridani ships, it seems fairly clear (to me, at least) that the ships are supposed to echo the kind of tactics seen in the Age of Sail - flying your fleet in line abreast or line astern formations, crossing the T, and so forth. (Crossing the T would be useful against Andros, with those panel facings leaving a lot of room open for coordinated broadsides.)

However, right now, an Iridani player can side-step that kind of tactical planning, by simply stacking his entire fleet in a single hex and waiting for the target to end up in the right place for a full-on shot.

Taking away the superstack will force an Iridani player to think like an Iridani admiral!


Of course, in the Alpha Octant, a more well-known example might be the ISC Echelon - which, if the superstack went away, would perhaps have room to breathe once more.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:15 pm: Edit

The company is committed to keeping both games in production, and keeping the separate identities of both. We did look into "merging" the systems and it's not possible. Players like both games. I am, frankly, not hearing any cries to end SFB or make SFB more like FC. I am hearing cries from all customers of all games to fix what's broken, independently of and irrelevant to what the other games do.

Borders of Madness cannot replace SFB as it doesn't play like SFB. What it does do is provide a faster way to play big F&E-generated battles than SFB does. You cannot play F&E-generated battles with FC since FC has no scouts, carriers, maulers, etc.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Nine ships in three adjacent stacks can blow up a frigate four hexes away just as easily as 9 ships in one stack four hexes away. That was never the issue.

Stacking all of your ships in one hex is what's wrong. It's just ... WRONG. Nothing more I can say about it.

As for a "decision made" I am not sure that's true, but I haven't seen any reason yet not to do it. I wanted to eliminate FFF in F&E-2010 and got talked out of it, and out of five or six other things I wanted to do (there's a list in CL41) that didn't happen (and a few that did). What's GOOD FOR THE GAME is the ONLY criteria for those decisions.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:19 pm: Edit

And something else, guys. It's a game. It's a game SVC controls. If he wants, he can change it.

And nothing prevents you from playing with a house rule in which superstacks are allowed; you can play with any rule you like and get rid of the ones you don't for your local play group.

So, do I want to see rules against superstacks? No, I don't think they are needed, and I'd rather not have to delve into the tactical considerations of changing the rule or playing with the changed rule, when I perceive that the change is not needed. But, whatever. If SVC changes the rule, SFB will still be fun and I'll be buying ADB products regardless. (shrugs)

So, I guess, chill out.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Why is superstack such a big deal anyway, how is it such a game killer? Since both sides can do it I don't see the disadvantage.

In the past we used to play tons of fleet battles and what eventualy happened was that we stopped playing them. If both players are evenly matched, generaly both sides would lose one ship a turn and in the end you end up with a duel between the two last surviving ships, so you spent four-six hours to end up playing a duel anyway. If one player was much better than the other having more ships just seemed to amplify this and the battles would become even more lopsided than would happen if one player was much better in a duel. The only time fleet battles where worth the trouble was in a scenario or an assault of some kind. Fleet vs fleet was just too time consuming.

I also ask this, will it be posible to take down a starbase without a superstack?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Wrong, Ted. I cannot change what I want. I can only change what is GOOD FOR THE GAME. If I could change what *I* want, you'd all be playing PzKw-IVs against T34Cs.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Another issue that has to be addressed by this rule is planetary bases. I believe that a planet can have up to 4 small bases per hex side. So a one-hex, Class-M planet could potentially have 24 bases in the same hex. What restrictions, if any, will they be under for simultaneously firing?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Ships stacked together have overlapping warp fields or whatnot which might leave some sort of limitation. (Or at least you could say as much.)

On the surface of a class-M planet, there's a lot of rock between bases in separate facings, and not so much overlapping fabric-of-reality-bending to worry quite so much about. (The fields an on-planet APR or AWR would produce are not the same as those created by true impulse or warp engines.)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:43 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Wrong, Ted. I cannot change what I want. I can only change what is GOOD FOR THE GAME. If I could change what *I* want, you'd all be playing PzKw-IVs against T34Cs.

---

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 12:57 pm: Edit

My instinct, such as it is, would be to double in-hex ship explosion damage to allied units. That creates a definite disincentive to stacking in the same hex while not creating a new incentive for having own-side ships blow up.

(No, I don't have any technobabble to justify it.)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 01:07 pm: Edit

I was under the impression that the Hydrans were one of the Alpha empires who were best able at playing the faux-Echelon trick, since by the time the Concordium shows up the Kingdom has plenty of ships armed with... a certain long-ranged weapon of their own. One which, unlike the PPD, can be mounted on SC4 units.

I won't bore you to hell about it, though.


If SFB is meant to be more of a simulation than a game, it might raise questions about how good a job it's doing at that if some of the historically successful tactics (like the Echelon) can be so easily side-stepped on-table with superstacks.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 01:09 pm: Edit

I'm not for or against a limit on the superstack, though I attest that I have don't see it as a problem.

I too would agree that the easiest solution would be to return to something more akin to the explosion strengths of old, at least within a hex and if you still want to stack, I'll pop your frigates and watch you fry.

Scott Tenhoff: I like your proposal, but thats cause I prefer to fly with smaller rather than larger ships. With your proposal, it would spawn a HUGE spike in the frignaught population across the universe as everyone looked at how 6 frignauts were taking down DNs because they could out-fire them.

Andrew: While I agree that your proposal would tactically change the game, it would greatly upset some balances already in place and make some forces considerably more difficult. WHile putting some limit on the superstack might not have a huge effect on the game, limiting it to one unit per hex per impulse means that:
- Swordfish (from your example) are less effective. You'd have to string them out, which is a mixed blessing for a drone user.
- Ships wifh a VRF become more powerful as you've got ships either taking bad shots or taking shots in serial.
- Turn mode becomes more important as lower turn modes mean I have more power to rock damage between shields then I do today.