"there is a chance they will hit a friendly unit."

NO.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Just as a somewhat objective perspective but this wasn't a problem until you jiggered with the ship explosion rules. Until then the possibility of a ship exploding encouraged people to spread out some. The law of unintended consequences...

regards
Stacy

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 03:37 pm: Edit

"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."

Well, there is a bit of precedance for this in scout channel blinding rules where weapons fire blinding scout channels (for a long time too). I could see some issue with to many ships, opperating on coordinated scanning channels starting to interfer with each other to a degree. And if you have too much weapons fire intermixed in that area then maybe the interferance is at the level of Lock-on breaking.

There is another serious issue I see with drastically limiting fire from a single hex and maybe this is the very point that would break the super stack. In FC, you have fire every four pulses and seeking weapons stick to a ship for that period and hit at the end, where upon the ship gets a chance at defensive fire.
This is NOT the case in SFB. A stack of six ships could be overwhelmed with drone waves with ships being unable to fire at the drones because three ships already have.
Fighter drone waves will decimate super stacks.

A very difficult to pull off tactic might be to tractor ships into the same hex as other ships while a drone wave intersects them. Any ship over three will be unable to fire at the drones. This would be easier if there are small units around... like in an ISC Echelon.
Of course, I guess pulling that off would be the touchdown of the century and if you can win that way, you'd deserve it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 03:48 pm: Edit

The practice of not super stacking also has some disadvantages. For instance, spreading out your fleet increase the odds of striking a mine (although it won't hit every ship). This can still lead to defeat almost as well as the mine hitting everything because you now have a lame duck and you are going to be very quickly out BPVed when that ship goes down (likely the next thing to happen in a big fleet battle). This will benefit Romulans and cloakable pirates.

If I needed to get through an asteroid field, I might want to superstack and use the "following" rules.

I suspect that an anti-super stack rule will not stop super stacking for general maneuvering, but players may just break up their fleet when they intend to fire. Some people might use such a maneuver to trick the opponant into firing thinking that you are breaking up your superstack to fire... but you don't.

Simply superstack all you want, then side slip three ships left, and three ships right. If you have more than nine ships some of those are more likely support style ships or can fire the next impulse to take advantage of the results of the nine ship volley.

But here, at least, you have to be moving. I think what is the real problem is the superstack starcastle.

Anyway, just some random thoughts to share.

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Ok, looking at the super stack, are we saying that only 3 ships can fire period or only 3 at a particular target and then the other ships could fire at other targets. I would think that 10 ships if that is the stack could always fire at different targets, especially in self defense.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Whose offensive fire does the 3-unit rule affect:

DF primarily. That means Eastern races, feds and Tholians.

It also affects massed heavy phaser fire by any race.

This doesn't affect a stack's ability to launch seeking weapons as it sees fit. Offensively, plasma races won't care unless they want to do a fleedwide plasma-bolt.


Whose Defense Does this affect:

It most affects most those who use ADDs for drone defense, because it will reduce the number of ships who can fire an ADD on a given impulse. This means Kzinti, Feds, Klinks and WYN fish.

If also affects a stack's ability to defend itself from plasma with massed defensive fire. If you need seriously massed phaser fire against drones, you probably could have TBed the drones.

Assuming the fleet wants to maintain its stack, this rule will put an accent on layered defensive phaser fire at range-2 then range-1, making phasers as a defense slightly less efficient. The big minus is not being able to mass the stack's P-3s against plasma.

For seeking weapon defense, it's important to note that SVC's 3-unit rule limits to a max of three ships firing out of the hex PER HEX SIDE, per impulse.

if drones or plasma are off multiple shields (and they usually are), one set of 3 ships can handle defense from one direction and another set can handle defense from another. It is NOT 3 ships per hex, per *turn* or a hard limit 3 ships on any given impulse.

What it effectively means is no more than three units can fire at any given target (in a different hex) from a stack on any given impulse.

----------------------------------------

I belive SVC's rule is treating a symptom.

The disease is too much long-range DF damage combined with too high a possible fleet speed as fleet size approach the S8.0 limits and ships used approach late-General War.

Deal with THIS and the supertack will likely sort itself out. If not, THEN toss in a 3-unit rule.

I think the fix involves creating disincentives to hanging out at long range. My proposed change is to give units a touch of natural ECM at long range, but it is not the only way to deal with the problem.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 04:49 pm: Edit

One thought I had was maybe there could be a Super Stack Captain's Log article in the form of the tactics debates of old.

What are the benefits of the Super Stack in SFB?
What are the challenges to the enemy?
What are the negative consequences to employing the Super Stack?

I don't recall seeing any objective analysis of the super stack. See, for me, employing the super stack make maneuver much easier for my enemy. All of my ships are always in a given arc and shield boundry and my fleet is much more predictable. He can keep down shields away very easilly. He knows exactly what maneuver will bring ALL possible targets into firing arc.

What are, exactly, the complaints about the super stack?

Maybe a treatis in Captain's Log on how to counter the super stack will solve the problem?

If the super stack is such a super powerful tactic that is warrents its own special disabling rule, then why doesn't everyone use it all the time?

I'm not trying to say there isn't a problem. I'm just trying to suggest that we engage in an objective analysis of the super stack first before trying to solve a seemingly nebulous problem (the super stack seems to mean different things to different people).

In my past, super stacking was a sure way to hand my opponant a victory (but then he was a really good tactition).

Will teaching everyone how to clobber the super stack solve the issue?

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 05:04 pm: Edit

You could put the combined fleets of the Milky Way galaxy in one 10,000 k hex, and they might not even be able to see one another with the naked eye. It's THAT much space...
regards
Stacy

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Yes, but weapon subspace effects, warp fields, and scanner interference may reach out significantly further.

I mean, you have to remember what these ships are doing. They are traveling at FTL speeds tracking and firing at other FTL targets. You have to have some seriously fine tuned equipement to do that.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 06:25 pm: Edit

I dunno it seems that we changed the catastrophic damage/Ship explosions/self destruction rules to prevent the exact instance that would otherwise discourage a superstack. What rules will we have to change later to make up for the fact we ban superstacks?
regards
Stacy

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 07:55 pm: Edit

SVC, bring back the old explosion rules. That'll fix all and make for faster games to boot.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 08:04 pm: Edit

While Jean Luc Picard disdains Glenn's dietary proclivities he (and I) tend to agree with the solution suggested. It's simpler and has less impact to the game over all than other more contrived approaches.
regards
Stacy

By Fred J. Kreller (Kreller1) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 08:17 pm: Edit

I believe that idea has been thoroughly shot to pieces by Steve.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 08:20 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

We're talking about fixing the ONE single greatest thing WRONG with SFB.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 08:57 pm: Edit

SBB,

SVC has said "no" to changes in the explosion rules.

Twice.

In this topic alone.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 09:23 pm: Edit

[I said we were not going to change explosions.--SVC]

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 09:26 pm: Edit

[I said we were not going to change explosions.--SVC]

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 10:03 pm: Edit

John
It doesn't surprise me. But I think at times SVC clings to a foolish consistency. Usually he's right, I don't see how he could be on this one. He closed one can of worms by opening another.
regards
Stacy

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Loren,
Yes, weapons fire blinds scout channels, but only if the scout or a ship docked to the scout fires the weapon. Explosions also blind scout channels. But, I don't see a proposal for mines to disrupt fire.

As far as size goes, a hex is about 84 million square kilometers. At 10,000 km thick, that makes 8.4 x 10^11 cubic km.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Gleen,

And yes, SVC has said no more than once. But from personal experience, I've heard no several times only to have my idea repeated by someone else and the response was yes.

Which suggests your proper course of action is to abandon the idea in the here and now, let the issue cool and bring the idea up later.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Size is irrelevant except... er. Um, anyway, electronic effects are capable of spanning much greater distances than anywhere in a single hex.

Mine explosions come from a device that can be carried by two humanoids and transported. EW blocks sensors over a million kilometers distant. ESGs expand to a sphere of 35,000 kilometers radius.

I don't think it is a stretch to say that active fire control from too many allied ships working on coordinated frequencies tracking all the incredible things they have to track could cause disruptions.

That said, I'm not sure how a thre ship limit on fire, per impulse, would break the superstack. As I've already suggested the work around is to sideslip three ships left and three ships right, make your massed volley, then sideslip back together (with some use of tractors it's easier to keep the center from pulling ahead... but then a simple mid-turn speed shange would do that too... just plot a slow down by one late in the turn and have some reserve to increase speed by one if needed.)

Existing legal maneuvers defeat the limiting rule already. IMO, it's a little more work but not much if you have an intermediate understanding of SFB maneuvering.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 10:54 pm: Edit

But I'm still curious about the nature of the complaints regarding the super stack.

Am I wrong? It seems to me that to an advanced player an opponant that uses the superstack is just tipping his hand.

My first reaction is that the complaints come from players not willing to explore the tactics required to defeat such a maneuver conducted by players uninterested in working hard to win. TO me, the superstack is a lazy tactic that will fail against a determined and crafty opponant.

I don't mean to be insulting and I know the issue is more complex that just that. Honestly, I'm just putting it out there with appologies in advanced to any one who is insulted. Everyone here has my respect.

What are the complaints against the superstack other than it's less fun to play against?

I think the super stack is just a bad tactic that needs to be beat down by superior play and a good Captain's Log article.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Heh, here's another idea. Let SC2 flag ships buy an NSM (and a dummy NSM), and then let that NSM be deployed on any ship in the fleet.

Seriously, you'd have to be a fool to superstack knowing there could be an NSM out there. If your superstack hits an NSM, game over.

NO-SVC

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Another new rule.

By James Hallmark (Jhallmark) on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 11:52 pm: Edit

It seams plausible to me that there might be interference from a large amount of energy in a given hex.

What does not make sense is why it would be biased towards friendly ships and ignore speed.

I am trying to think of a simple rule that accounts for movement energy and/or the number of weapons fired.

I am also having a hard time balancing the rule between DF and seeking weapon races and keeping it simple.