Archive through June 18, 2010
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(D) Combat Rules:
Limit on superstack fire:
Archive through June 18, 2010
I have no preference for or against "superstacking". If we are going to add/change rules we should do a comprehensive set of changes i.e. go to the Admirals Edition. We do not need to go back to the "Addenda Era" of SFB. Starting with this idea, as an article in Captain's Log, it is a good way to gauge interest in a larger group than those of us that populate the boards, a rather small and insular group, in my opinion.
We did that, ADM, and there was no interest in an Admiral's edition, although there WAS interest in fixing the top ten worst rule problems, of which Superstack was the first eight. This is not the topic or the time to discuss the other two.
So, I don't know about everyone else, but I am of the belief (and happily so) that SFB is _more_ of a simulation than FC, and one f the reasons I prefer it.
If the rule is of the line "no more than 3 allies may fire out of a hex in an impulse", I'm not going to be happy with it. Not because I like stacks, because I will have nothing but arguments with co-players.
I just reread all of the SH modules, I was bored. Fully 20% of them seem to involve someone changing sides mid-battle or of undecided side at the start of the battle. That'll start a see of people opting when they "flip" not to get the "good shot" but rather will play crazy games and start arguments on whose fire you disrupt.
Having It effect all units is no better. People will try crazy things like, as was stated earlier, putting 3 howlers at range 0 from a DN off an arc that's blown it's wad, and shooting a P3 from each to give a long window during which the DN can't fire (as the 4th thing in the hex). 3 howlers getting to R0 on a full DN shield is highly unfortunate, having it stop the offensive output of you DN enabling a force of whatever to close and hose the helpless DN.
SVC:
Not to debate the point, but to understand the strong reaction, what's the concern with tweaking explosion strength?
Redoing Crawford Boxes from R8/R9/R11/X1R/and soon to be R12.
After that, what little hair SPP has left shall either be white or gone.
I do not, and will not, believe that anywhere near 20% of historical scenarios are that way.
Large explosion strengths (and explosions that went out to four hexes) caused all sorts of suicide tactics that were just silly. Imagine a War Eagle, holding an EPT-R in the tubes, with a NSM and full t-bomb load, diving into a black hole so that the resulting pulsar blast clears the map. Andros with full PA panels self-destructing to wipe out the enemy fleet. And so on.
A modest increase in range-0 explosion strength would probably be OK, and create a penalty for big stacks, but you wouldn't want to go too far down that road.
I am not suggesting the number of players driven away by superstacks is zero. However, I think the number of players driven away by this change (depending on how it is handled, not just by the company, but "in the wild" by gaming groups) will be larger. SFB players for the most part are tenacious and almost fanatical. A rules change (and that is what it will be) that invalidates the practices of established groups will put the choice before them: Ignore the change ("Optional" or otherwise), or accept the change. Not all groups will make the same decision.
Then when the members of said groups interact, arguments will ensue. Games will not be flown. Groups may fracture.
I know from personal experience that some players refused to switch to Captains and still (to this day) play Commander's edition - just adapting new modules to it, if they allow new modules at all. This means they are, for the most part, "cut off" from the current SFB community - which is a shame on both ends.
I know a friend who plays SFB who moved to a new city, met a group of SFB players, and never met with them again. It wasn't that they were creeps or he was a snob - he didn't like their house rules, preferring to play "by the book" as he learned it.
Not every SFB player follows this BBS, or even keeps up with Captain's Log. I see this as a significant change in the rules - enough that disparate groups will no longer be able to fly together unless they can agree on "house ruling" or "new rules".
Based on my own experience at running (non-tourney) SFB events at cons... SFB is a thinning crowd. I taught a bunch of new players the game, only to be heckled by FedCom players DURING THE DEMO ("Why are you playing that old dinosaur game? Come check out THIS game!"). Sure enough, after the con, I spotted my new recruits carrying FedCom books.
I expect a change in long-standing rules (and the tactics therein) has the potential to exacerbate this trend. Not just for the superstack - this will smack of "Addenda" ("What rules will they change next?") As a long-time SFB player, I don't want to see that.
I am not in any way trying to riot or sow discontent. Simply expressing my views on the game I love and hold dear.
hear hear, Dale.
Adjusting explosion strength would be addenda. Addenda is bad and verboden after Doomsday.
A superstack rule would just be a new rule.
Dale is right, I have been playing now since what 1977, players keep leaving because of changes, I have over the years watched our group shrink, not all the time because of rules changes, but several hve been just that. their comfort level with the game is no longer there. Would I quit, probably not. I play feds most of the time and they are a race that probably benifits as much as any, but I also see reasons not to stack, drone defense, id of seeking weapons, avoiding explosion damage. You can still get the same concentration of fire power without the stack. I guess even after all of the discussion above dont really see the reason for the change if it comes about.
"Based on my own experience at running (non-tourney) SFB events at cons... SFB is a thinning crowd. I taught a bunch of new players the game, only to be heckled by FedCom players DURING THE DEMO ("Why are you playing that old dinosaur game? Come check out THIS game!"). Sure enough, after the con, I spotted my new recruits carrying FedCom books."
This is VERY disturbing. It sounds even worse than the divide between SFBers and F&Eers (who, at least, have a basic respect for each other and similar love for the SFU).
I'm sorry, but I believe that blaming the superstack is pointing the finger at the wrong problem.
I suggest that the actual problem is coordination of fire. When a single player is running multiple ships, or when a group of players make committee decisions before every fire phase, you end up with optimized fire plans. (OK, the CA will target drones x, y, and z, the DN will target plasma 1, the DD will target plasma 2, and the CVS will target plasma 3, and everybody will fire heavy weapons at the Sparrowhawk.) It's amazing, there's no duplication of fire against seeking weapons. Combine that with a single decision on movement, and you have perfect coordination. Whether in one hex or three, a coordinated force will thrash an uncoordinated force, and the blame will end up with the superstack.
I've seen coordination vs uncoordination at Conventions. While the uncoordinated team has more say, it's disappointing to be beaten by a single minded blob. (Which is why I tailored scenarios to prevent coordination and encourage individual thought and actions.)
Given equal levels of coordination, as has been pointed out, a stack is only going to stay together as long as the other stack can't disrupt it.
From a pseudo-physics point of view, it's hard to understand how a ship can target something 750,000 kms away, but have problems targeting if there are more three other ships firing from less than 10,000 kms away.
duplicate post deleted by author
When I first saw this topic I wondered if SVC had just gone back over the FOG6 results.
I remember in the wash-up of FOG6 there was a LOT of debate on whether it was the Superstack which won the day, or whether it was more the disorganised shamble of the losing side (both in planning and execution). Many, many options for breaking a Superstack were given, and Id have to say I agreed with a lot of them.
I think there are a few issues I would struggle to get my head around:
1. the idea that 4 tiny blobs of metal in a monstrously large area of space will somehow interact with eachother differently to only 3 tiny blobs.
2. the idea that you cant still have near identical results by stacking 3 ships in a row/line/circle of hexes.
3. that a Superstack is in of itself such a terrible thing for the game.
4. concentrating your forces is hardly a new military tactic.
I will happily admit Ive not done a lot of big fleet engagements. FOG6 was the first time I saw a Superstack used really well, but as Ive said above, Im not sure it was the reason for victory. That very same fleet spread out would still have won the day.
Its unfortunate that minor changes to make stacking more risky are off the table, and the only options are whether to allow it, or disallow it.
[I said we were not going to change explosions.--SVC]
Increasing explosion strength absolutely isn't the solution. The current explosion strengths are about the same as the old one-third of (weapons + power), it's only the excessive bonuses that were removed (plasma strength especially). The current bang is enough to already make stacking dangerous once ships can die in one shot. So just like now, with larger explosions I'd keep my direct fire fleet stacked until either transporter range or at risk of my smallest ship being one-shot. The reduction in explosion radius with commanders actually discouraged superstacking - it's much more attractive to destack when you only need to be two hexes apart than if you need to be five.
Jeffs points about coordination of fire are what really gives the stack its real power, but in reality what can you do. If all the ships are operated by 1 player then he will cord his fire. Only if each ship is operated by different people and there is no communication will it work. there was a person at Gen-Con that ran what he called the Eat Static game. All ships were run by separate people and you could only communicate during EA. Made for interesting decisions.
Did I not say we are not going to change the explosion rules? I do believe I did say we are not going to change the explosion rules. Shall we have no more mention of changes to explosion rules?
Well, you DID say on June 17 that at least doubling the explosion strength was 'not a bad idea', so...I think that's what opened that can of worms...
Quote:no more than 3 allies may fire out of a hex in an impulse
I'd railed against that back when FedCom was in development, too. It always seemed a silly rule, given that:
- It requires the weirdest technobabble to explain to players when they ask. What do you say when they are asking "So why can 3 ships fire out of a hex with no issue at all, no impact on firing, but adding a fourth ship and it's suddenly 100% impaired? Aren't the hexes 10,000 km apart?" And you reply with something 'about the warp bubbles', and get interrupted with "10,000 KILOMETERS!! Why would it have any effect at all - I should be able to put at LEAST 6 ships in the hex, in the various corners, and they are as far apart as two ships in adjacent hexes center-to-center"
- With FedCom, this wasn't as big an issue, but with SFB (at least in 'Y' and the middle years) - SUBLIGHT COMBAT! Lots and lots of turns are possible when entire fleets spend the whole turn in a same hex, not moving, due to only having NTW engines.
- Another FedCom -> SFB difference is in tractor rules. Can't tractor ships in FedCom. CAN in SFB. Sooo...you think you can shoot your Warbird's laser at me next impulse? Nope - I'll just push you into that stack of 3 Snipes that have already fired this turn and HAH! Can't shoot me, now, for the whole turn. Games with sublight Romulans will become a shuffleboard match as the tactical warp-fielding races push them into little stacks of ships that can't fire!
- I dislike 'hard limits' and would prefer to avoid them when possible. Increase explosion strength (OR WHATEVER) allows players to TAKE the action...but at increased risk. So they have to choose...does this tactical situation give me an advantage that outweighs the risk? Or not? A hard limit gives no choice - you can simply...not do it. Period. Introducing new and difficult tactical choices is ALWAYS my preference, when possible.
Quote:just push you into that stack of 3 Snipes that have already fired this turn and HAH!
OK, this is I think the 2nd time I've seen something like this. The idea is for per impulse not turn shooting.
So if you have a stack of C10+D6S+[3D5+3F5W]+5D5W, you can have 3 ships shoot out of the stack every impulse for 4 impulses straight without ill-effect. And how I see it, I don't see how we could stop all 13 ships from firing drones in 1 impulse.
At least that is my understanding.
Xander,
Of the 83 posts, Steve responded 11 times in this thread on June 17th. You we're of course refering to his second post of the day at 10:36 am. Did you see the one on 6:55 pm???
He's stated no explosion changes and no add-ons.
Guys,
I've had no preference about "super-stacking" though I admit having played on the losing side of FOG 6, doing one in a large multi-player PBEM can bring frustrations out in individuals.
If this is the single most complained thing that SFBers have about the game, then perhaps it should be changed.
Though I believe Lyrans will be hurt mostly by this. A fleet will have to operate their ESGs further out, therby be less effective in drone/fighter defense.
(Since I always hated Lyrans, no skin off my nose... GO HYDRANS 
)
One thing to re-iterate is that the limit is three units firing out of each facing, not out of the entire hex.
To quote the FC rule as written in the Reference Rulebook, for comparison's sake:
Quote:(4A3) BLOCKED TARGETS
The presence of another unit in the hex of the firing ship, the target ship, or an intervening hex has no effect. Hexes are thousands of times larger than ships, and it's easy to shoot around them.
However, in larger battles, whenever more than three friendly (allied or same empire) ships are in the same hex, no more than three of them can fire out of the hex through any one hex side (or at any single target or targets in any single hex) during any given impulse due to warp field interactions. Any number of ships can fire into such a hex.
*Fighters (e.g., Hydran Stingers) are under the same restrictions as "ships" for the purposes of this rule. In effect, a Stinger counts as a ship, so two fighters and one ship would be a maximum firepower unit.
Hope that helps.
EDIT: The title of FC rule (5D6) is "Tractoring ships".
And thanks to CL39, FC has prototype rules for non-tactical warp ships, too.
The point about whether or not the fields being generated by non-tactical-warp units (be they sublight Romulans, separated CA saucers, or quantum transporting Rynish ships) is an interesting one - but I'd assume that they would have at least some type of space-bending trickery going on from their impulse engines.
Here's another idea: Anytime there are more than three friendly units in a hex, and one or more of them fire out of the hex, there is a chance they will hit a friendly unit. The more units there are, the higher the risk of hitting a friendly. I would say make a chart, roll two dice, consult the column for the number of units in the hex vs the dice. I need some more time to think this one out, and maybe make a chart for it...
Gee a 600 foot star ship in a 10000KM hex what % of the area is that. Maybe we should let this die and let Steve make his decision. If you start using a chart for the ships firing out maybe make one for the ships in the hex you are firing at too. Just have never seen it as a game breaker in 33years.
If the small ship in big area of space thing is such an issue, the Andromedans wouldn't have their in-universe explanation for the limits on Displacement Device operations...