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

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 12:55 am: Edit

Glen,
actually once upon a time any ship could buy an NSM. That got out of hand quick and changed with Commander's Edition, IIRC.

But new rules happen. What's your point? I don't understand [honestly]. It sounds like you're against any new rules.

By Alan W. Kerr (Awkerr) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 01:52 am: Edit

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

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 02:02 am: Edit

Does it pass the K.I.S.S. test?

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 02:14 am: Edit

*smacks Kerr with a trout*

Simple is better!!!

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 08:51 am: Edit

Ok it seems that many are saying the problem with the superstack is at long range, too much firepower, so limit the number of ships that can fire. Ok so as a player I take 10 ships, put the scout in 1 hex split the other 9 up into 3 separate hexes that still hit the same shield same results as the superstack. So are we actually wining about the superstack or the fact that direct fire races have a significant advantage at longer range than the seeking weapon races. I think I agree with Loren in that have we really examined the problem, in almost all cases the 10 ship fleet can still be operated in a tight fleet to come up with the same or similiar results. there are also many other considerations, how will this effect the number of PFs, direct fire armed fighters, how many swordfish drones can fire. It is part of the game, does it break the game is the question, will changing it break the game. Can the ships in the stack be split their fire at 3 different ships and all still fire.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 10:52 am: Edit

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

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 11:42 am: Edit

On thinking this through carefully, I think Jeff Laikind hit the nail on the head.

The problem isn't the superstack per se. It's the "all ships played by one player" hive mind.

If both sides use the superstack, the game turns into a duel with a lot more record keeping. If one player plays with a superstack and the other player does not, the superstack gives a minor advantage.

If one player plays a super stack against a group of people flying individual ships, the superstack has an overwhelming advantage.

In terms of game play artifacts, one of the other issues is that offense is additive and defenses aren't (generally) in SFB.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Don't know Ken, you get the superstack problem if you insist on deploying fleets, something the game was not really suitable for. I am not sure everyone does that for just that reason. (Kzin vs Klinks anyone?)

IOW, is this really a problem for more than those few, and possibly deranged, individuals that dare take SFB were it was not really made to go? (In a way FC is the solution to this problem)

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 12:54 pm: Edit

There are several alternatives:

1) Change Explosions (SVC says heck no)

2) Limit the amount of fire out of a hex (problem is why would you limit the fire of 4 Frigates when they have less firepower than 3 cruisers?)

3) Give some ECM penalty to the superstacker. Scanner or Sensor confusion?

4) Give some ECM bonus to the side shooting at the superstack. Scanner or Sensor optimization?

5) Change the turn mode for the superstacker (because he MIGHT bump ships)

6) Require that superstackers use some sort of "formation rule" where ships must follow the lead ship as opposed to the perfection in close formation rule currently in use (ie when did starships learn to fly like the Blue Angels?). So the "formation leader" can make a change then the other ships can do so an impulse later?

7) Have some limit on the ability of close range defensive fire of the superstacked ships (ie AEGIS gets confused...)

8) Have there be a "formation flying" bonus for seekers closing in on a superstack. So those drones get treated like a pack of admin shuttles in convoy...

Other suggestions?

Mike (not good enough a player to make a good arguement)

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 01:13 pm: Edit

SVC nixed my POV by editing. I'm cool with that. My (personal) problem is I can find no realistic technobabble to discourage superstacking. Our current modern fleets have escorts, frigates, destroyers, cruisers and supply ships amongst other war ships, and they are far closer than 10K Kilometers, even from the most widely spread out formations, and they don't have issues with friendly fire or lack of lock on.
My first idea of ECM issues was shot down. My support of bigger booms was shot down.
Frankly, at this point, I feel it is a non-issue. Most players deal with the superstack, but the game owner doesn't like it. Gridlock!
This is likely my last post on this thread as I have nothing else to add (except in response to a direct question).
I'll just wait for SVC's ruling and deal with it.
This really was a non-issue for me.
Sorry to waste the bandwidth.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Glenn: And they're dealing with targets much closer than a quarter of a million miles, too. Look at the proportions and you'd be talking about no USN two ships in the same hex. The radars screw each other up and weapons clearances become an issue.

MCG:
1 no
2 firepower isn't the issue. Point of origin and area of interference is.
3 no
4 no
5 no
6 no
7 I haven't thought about this. It's something new.
8 icky.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 02:32 pm: Edit

As a meta-observation, I find it ironic that perfectly reasonable solutions to issues in SFB will be completely dismissed because they were tried out in FC first. Instead of looking at FC as a proving grounds of a sort, the concern immediately becomes "turning SFB into FC".

So, basically, any idea that was used in FC will always be vociferously attacked and rejected simply because it came from FC, not because it would or would not work.

[Please understand that I do not have a dog in this hunt. I personally think that superstacks are not an actual issue. A single hex is able to hold an entire planet. How that becomes too small to hold a dozen starships is a complete mystery to me.]

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Good point Mike.

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Ok... after reading a lot of opinions. I think there is some confusion as to what this is suppose to be.

First SVC proposed that in a superstack, there be a limit of THREE ships that could fire out of a given hexside.

There was no mention of spreading out or shortening the stack, so WHY propose increasing explosion streght? (dead issue) Or adding rules or penalties instaed of keeping to just three per hexside.

It is not clear as to if it should be the same three ships for the full turn or different ships on an impulse per impulse basis.

Lastly, I like to raise the number from THREE to FOUR ships, with cause:

A heavy carrier squadron consists of the CVA and three escorts, theses ships have full aegis capabilities. If the proposal is left at THREE ship, this will affect aegis defense against a drone swarm attack by 25%

(plain and simple)

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 03:36 pm: Edit

(going against my previous assertion that I won't post here unless asked a specific question)
Mike, ideas come from all sources. I don't think any simularities (sp) from any source can be construde as negative, as long as they are good ideas, and FC has quite a few. Based on what SVC has said, SFB will never be FC, which is good, but FC has a different perspective (as does SFBF), and if there is a means to improve one or the other or the other by learning the lessons of one of the others, then we really have nothing to complain about.
Naturally, the older we get, the less we want changed. Some are more resistant than the others. SVC has selected to make a change here and he has the burden to push it, promote it, impliment it. He has a perspective that none of us can achieve. I'll support him, and continue to purchase his products (as well as I can) regardless of whether I agree with a single rule or not. SVC, SPP and others have produced a game I feel proud to speak to others about, because it is highly intellectual in so many areas. The only game I rate above this one is Chess. Tip the King over, your game is over.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 03:41 pm: Edit

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

[BTW, 48 hours until I leave for origins is a really stupid time to do something silly just to see if I will react. Consider yourself warned that your next such stunt gets you a 30-day suspension.]

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 04:21 pm: Edit

[I said NO changes to explosions. None of ANY kind.--SVC]

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 04:30 pm: Edit

George Duffy, SVC stated in this topic that, "Stacking all of your ships in one hex is what's wrong. It's just ... WRONG. Nothing more I can say about it."

So, the goal here is, indeed, to stop people from stacking their ships in one hex. It's not how fleets are supposed to work in SFB.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 04:41 pm: Edit

'So, the goal here is, indeed, to stop people from stacking their ships in one hex. It's not how fleets are supposed to work in SFB.'

Indeed. Given the scale of the game (starship duels), having more than 2-3 ships per player is not in the 'spirit' of the game.

But people will play large fleet battles, regardless.

And while many games (FC, others) have arbitary rules against things like 'superstacking', it has always been a point of honor in SFB that yeah, you can try out the really dumb tactics, and yeah, maybe it will work.

Maybe.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 07:17 pm: Edit

SVC, I do apologize for the prank. Sometimes, my humor is the worst of me.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 07:23 pm: Edit

A probably-stupid idea, but what the heck:

9) The explosion of an allied ship (SC4+ only; PFs are too small) in a hex disrupts active fire control (D6.68) for any allied ships in the same hex. (Technobabble: The large explosion of an ally so nearby confuses the IFF, which automatically flips fire control into a "safe mode" that can only target seeking weapons.)

That's pretty harsh, but definitely encourages spreading out your ships across hexes.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Glenn
We know that's not true. The worst of you is your taste in breakfast cereal!
regards
Stacy

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Stacy,
Actually, the worst of me is my appearance when I wake up at 6am. But what you wrote is a very very close second.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Glenn
But you can't do anything about THAT. You CAN adopt a more Gallic breakfast - croissants and coffee. You know why no one orders more than one egg in France? Because in France one egg is an "oeuf" (say it quickly).
regards
Stacy