What is the problem the "cold hard" rule is intended to fix?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 10:22 am: Edit

I'm a big fan of the SFU and SFB in particular. Changing rules will not change that.

That being said, there isn't a problem with superstacks. Superstacks aren't really a serious issue that breaks the game or breaks fleet battles, in practice. Over decades of experience, when I fly against other experienced players, superstacks get used on both sides initially and they quickly break apart into a dogfight.

This is a rule that has been part of the game for decades. Changing it is likely to have unpredictable results for different technology matchups. Thus, IMHO, changing this rule is not good for the game. Please don't change this rule (or TACs or shield reinforcement).

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 11:14 am: Edit

As I see it the problem is that ships concentrate to an extent that eliminates any sort of meaningful fleet formation. Escorts can't protect their carriers, because they're all in the same hex. Frigates can't screen heavies, because they're all in the same hex.

The ISC background makes it quite clear that fleets are SUPPOSED to have multi-hex formations, and that these formations are supposed to happen because they work as formations, not just because after two passes your stack has been broken up.

I don't see the proposed FC like rule as fixing this in SFB, you'll still stack as tightly as posible and the proposed limit still allows the entire fleet to be packed very tightly without handicap and still gives no advantage to having screening units.

What I'd like is for screening units to have some way to screen. Maybe firing PAST an enemy starship at a more distant target gives a penalty.

I'm not sure this will fix the superstack at all in long range fights, as "let's pick off the frigate" is the tactic of choice there (maybe you'd screen frigates with DNs for those battles...), but it does give a modest advantage to spreading out and using a formation. And it gives carrier escorts a use against DF races, especially if the penalty is increased for Aegis and Limited Aegis units.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 12:44 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

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

---

---

Quote:

The ISC background makes it quite clear that fleets are SUPPOSED to have multi-hex formations, and that these formations are supposed to happen because they work as formations, not just because after two passes your stack has been broken up.

---

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 12:57 pm: Edit

"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 actually pretty neat.

" Why does the ISC (and USN 'in real life') spread out the fleet so much?"

The ISC used to do it because when they were invented, the explosion rules were pretty nasty and you really did NOT want somebody blowing up next to you. Especially if they had hot plasma in the tubes...

It was also their 'gimmick'....ooo, look, we have the New Uber Weapon! Which turned out not to be so uber, after all. Just like the Echelon...looks good on paper, generally sucks in a real fight.

As for why the USN does it, its called defense in depth (or layered defense). Go check out a game called Harpoon and you will quickly learn more than you ever wanted to know about modern naval tactics.

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

Then it looks like you have a problem.

Good luck with that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 01:13 pm: Edit

I have to consider that while experienced player understand that the superstack tactic is not useful, its real problem comes from new players using the tactic and discouraging other new players. Here is where the superstack is certainly a problem.

I'd also ask, how many of the experienced player posting here that say superstack is not a problem use the superstack tactic?
This is not to ask if they ever end up with all ships in a hex once in a while, but actually employ the tactic of flying a superstack thoughout the major portion of the game (or at least though the intitial attack pass).
My suspicion is that they don't use the superstack tactic as a primary tactic. So I'm left wondering why the resistence? I really don't see a superstack fire limit ever coming into play in my own games (although I'd prefer it be four ships). For me it will be a new unused rule.

What is left for us old players is the issue of core rules changes. Resistence here is totally understandable. The concern that there will be a repeat of the Commander's Addenda Age is certainly reasonable. I'm not sure a new anti-superstack rule would be actual addenda (a change to Tac rules would be). However, I trust SVC to not repeat the past.

Still, isn't there room to consider the wisdom of the ages? A LOT was learned about how to refine SFB during Commander's Edition and was implemented in Doomsday Captain's Edition. But how can it be expected that that one shot was a perfect one? I would think that 15 years later maybe some refinements might have been indentified. Is it time for a new edition? NO, I so wouldn't go there. But maybe we should relent and consider that 15 years is long enough to consider that maybe Captain's Edition was near perfect but not absolutely perfect and could be made more perfect (although not without a specific playtest regime).

Experienced players know what the superstack is and isn't, but new player don't and the superstack is a sure way to suck the fun out of learning a game as complex as SFB.

By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 01:24 pm: Edit

SFB - The Day AFTER Doomsday Edition!
regards
Stacy

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Mike, you are on target on defense in depth. The reason it happens in real life, but not often in SFB are many, but to summarize...

1. Speed. In SFB, the ships are as fast or faster than most of the seekers. In modern naval combat, its the reverse.

The slowest seekers...suicide boats and torpedoes...are considerably faster than modern warships (and way faster than a slower amphibious ship). Defending against these, particularly in numbers (some subs can fire 8 torps at once) requires keeping them beyond effective range to high value targets.

The problem is different with missiles and aircraft. This issue there isn't range, its time. The amount of time needed to detect and engage an inbound missile means you need to buy time with range. Shots against missiles are not instantanous...engagement takes time too. Spreading out ships, and the fighters even farther, give you more opportunities to engage an enemy shooter, or inbound missile, before it can get to something vital. Further, a missile, if fired at 10 miles, or 100 miles, is just as dangerous. With most missiles, destructive power don't decrease a whole lot with range. Less burning fuel maybe, but there is no outrunning them, and the boom is HUGE when they hit you.

Finally, ships can afford to spread out because they operate under a fighter screen that can get to them in a hurry. Any single ship that finds itself isolated against a larger enemy force with get rapid aid from overwelming airpower.

2. Awareness. In SFB, the enemies location is absolute. You know it, all the time. At sea, you don't. The radar horizon for a typical warship is around 30NM. Anti-ship missiles can be fired at a range well beyond that. Lighting up a radar is a mixed blessing. You can "see" anything the radar can get to on a line of sight, but radar transmissions can be detected even further out. Lighting up a radar at the wrong time can get a stream raid of missiles coming your way in a hurry.

This lack of complete situational awareness forces the dispersion of forces. The more spread out you are, the less likely someone will get to firing range without your knowledge. Back to number 1.

3. Damage. A single hit from a missile or a torpedo can sink a ship. Getting hit, even once, is bad. Something as big as a CVN isn't going to disappear in a single hit, but a torpedo in the screws or a missile in the flight deck can mission kill a CVN in an instant. No carrier - no airpower - no fleet. If it happens, you better circle the wagons, because without airpower, the wisdom of dispersion falls apart.

There are other reasons, but those are the most basic. While ships do spread out for the reasons above, any naval tactician worth his salt will look for opportunities to concentrate. Concentration confers more lead down range on the defense. Most often that is achieved be locating the bad guy and not wasting effort on stuff that is "off-axis". Concentration is one of the most basic tenants of tactics, and anyone who doesn't seek it when possible and practical, is asking to be defeated.
-----------------------------------------

In SFB, the situation is different. Unless you're playing with hidden cloaks or tac intel, you know precisely where the enemy is. No finding the range, no working to locate the enemy early enough to avoid getting hit. You know where he is, so you skip the "recon" function of ship screen...you get straight to concentration.

Direct fire fleets can reach out and touch a target at ranges that would require fleets to REALLY spread out if they wanted to avoid having key ships targeted. And if you spread out that much, you risk putting ships in extremely vulnerable spots. Weapons are more deadly as you get closer, and fighters and seekers are too slow to lend any help versus the instantaneous fire of an opposing fleet on an isolated target.

The ships can out pace fighters and can hold even with all but the saboted plasma, and that gets less deadly with range. That speed edge removes the need for defense in depth against seekers. The only reason to spread out against seekers is the need to identify targets early. After that, concentration of fire is the best defense. Against drones, there are some advantages in splitting up a little (mainly more firing opportunities). If you're going to fire against plasma, only an idiot splits up his fleet.

Every other game I've run into (I don't play a ton outside SFB) use hexes to represent a lot less space. Units can't cover 30 hexes in a turn (the time required to cycle weapons and such). The cover much less ground, and the weapons completely outpace the units. Not a whole lot of running from weapons. Additionally, these games usually have some sort of collision rules (some more severe than others) that physically prevent, or at least discourage, getting into the same hex. The effect is a lot closer to modern combat, where weapons out pace the target, and the ability to move against weapons is limited.

SFB exists on a different speed and space scale, hexes are huge, ships are fast, and weapons are either slow (and can be shot down) or are instantaneous (and the only defense is modifable luck). Those two extemes mean there just isn't a lot of insentive to split up.

Finally, big ships are durable as hell. Big shields. Lots of internal volume. Tons of power for EW. No slower than the little guys (often faster if they want to be). The are extremely tough to kill, even when you get close (I just hit a Rom K9B in a battle with 6 overloaded photons from range 8 and the thing just kept on trucking). None of the single hit vulnerability of modern warfare. In fact, they are the least vulnerable ships on the map. Stick them in front! They can take it.

The main reason to split up in SFB is to gain some kind of maneuver advantage. I've found the only ways to get somebody else to abandon concentration (super stack or a close cluster) are gambits like sacrifices, spliting up my own ships, flanking moves, or crippling shots. If I don't do it, my opponent will stay bunched up, and so will I. Sooner or later, damage will break it up, but if you don't use tactics to beak up concentration in SFB, good "Admirals" in SFB will always seek to maximize concentration.

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

If you ask me, if you don't want to see superstacks or tight clusters of ships, you need to change a lot more about the game. You need a different game. Unless seekers are going to get a lot faster, and direct fire a lot more short ranged, the basic issues are always going to be there. Make the shields a lot weaker. Or the weapons more deadly. Something. But SFB as it is, just doesn't encourage lots of very dispersed formations. About the most effective I've seen is the superstack with a "tail" ... anything like a scout you don't want hammered or can't protect, a few hexes behind. You can impose stacking limits, but the demand to huddle up will always be there. You could limit me to one ship per hex, ever, and I would still huddle my fleet up as tight as I could until the time was right.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 01:50 pm: Edit

WHAT did I say about explosions?

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 02:22 pm: Edit

I'm slightly amazed that this issue is still around. Despite my two previous attempt (and a third threatening a 30 suspension (don't know if that was a joke or not)), I'm finding most people don't care about this anyway.
Even SVC implied (in my questional post) that USN ships had problems with overlapping sensor stuff. Yet, my support of the ECM problem was shot down.
Lets think about this. ECM, dead. Explosions, dead. Honestly, unless there is a sudden rule that says ships are too big for a given hex, you really have nothing left to say.
Even, "Have some limit on the ability of close range defensive fire of the superstacked ships (ie AEGIS gets confused...)" would be an errata nightmare, and can be compared to ECM/ECCM issues which were shot down.

I don't mean to sound like a prick, but this is simply not a resolvable issue. The game, as brilliantly designed as it is, cannot absolve all issues (unless the makers decided to make arbitrary decisions which they are entitled to do so). If that is to be the case, just make the ruling and get it done and over with. I'm actually teaching someone the game and I simply don't want to re-educate him in mid-stride.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 02:59 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Go check out a game called Harpoon and you will quickly learn more than you ever wanted to know about modern naval tactics.

---

---

Quote:

Mike, you are on target on defense in depth. The reason it happens in real life, but not often in SFB are many, but to summarize...

---

---

Quote:

If you ask me, if you don't want to see superstacks or tight clusters of ships, you need to change a lot more about the game. You need a different game. Unless seekers are going to get a lot faster, and direct fire a lot more short ranged, the basic issues are always going to be there. Make the shields a lot weaker. Or the weapons more deadly. Something.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Regardless of *how* or *why* you want to change superstacks - the fact remains that changing this rule will have an unpredictable effect on play balance for different races. Messing with very fundamental rules (as in, affects all races) that have decades of history in a way that can change play balance, without carefully looking at what happens, is IMHO not good for the game. For this reason alone I respectfully submit that changes to the superstack rule should be rejected.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 06:00 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Regardless of *how* or *why* you want to change superstacks - the fact remains that changing this rule will have an unpredictable effect on play balance for different races. Messing with very fundamental rules (as in, affects all races) that have decades of history in a way that can change play balance, without carefully looking at what happens, is IMHO not good for the game. For this reason alone I respectfully submit that changes to the superstack rule should be rejected

---

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 06:09 pm: Edit

I must have read and re-read Ted's post a dozen times and can't see any difference in our line fo thinking. Superstacks and TACs (not meaning to meld the topics) have been a part of this game from the beginning (oddly enough, I'm not a fan of either). I'd propose just leaving the rules as are. The game is good. Live and let live.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Xander, your argument does nothing to address the fact that changing a fundamental rule like this will have unpredictable effects on game balance that will disproportionately affect some empires more than others. Seeking races, particularly plasma users, will benefit from diffused defensive fire and races with a plethora of short-ranged weapons (Hydran, Zin to some extent) will suffer. Whether or not superstacks should have been valid to begin with is not nearly as important as game balance issues honed over 30+ years of game playing and game development. Radical changes like this in the way SFB is fundamentally played are unlikely to be good for the game after so many years of balance and development where superstacks were allowed and routinely used.

In other words, SFB has been played with superstacks for decades now - as far back as the first edition of the game (which I owned and played). All those battle reports and playtests submitted for various SFB products over those decades subsumed the rules in existence, including superstacks.

Also, I respectfully disagree that the superstack should never have been a valid tactic. The rules have always affirmatively stated that there were no stacking limits in any hex. Rule C1.61. Given that fleet battles were always envisioned for SFB, superstacks were a natural and probable consequence of C1.61.

Finally, you have assumed that superstacks are a broken or unbalanced tactic. I disagree. Practical experience playing many different opponents shows me that superstacks are usually used only on the first pass, whereupon they devolve into dogfights.

I repeat, no matter how you *feel* about superstacks, changing this rule will have unpredictable consequences on game balance, especially given the incredibly diverse technologies out there, and thus I respectfully submit that this proposed rules change is not good for the game.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 06:52 pm: Edit

Ted: don't get me started on the number of rules over the years that I "affirmatively stated" which turned out to be really stupid. That said, if defensive fire is such a deal killer, we can deal with offensive (size 4 and up) and defensive (size 6 and down) fire differently (I'm not sure which way to go on size 5). I refer, of course, to target size. I'm not sure about seeking weapons launches but I think they could be included as well. I may want to arrange for somebody to run a test for this. As superstack is irrelvant to the tournament (and cannot be implemented before CL#42), it doesn't have to be decided anytime soon.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Steve,

I agree that limiting restrictions on defensive fire within superstacks will help mitigate unforseen balance changes. However, I still think the rules change will have unforseen balance effects due to technology combinations. In the extreme case, a Hydran fleet, which even with hellbores, relies on massed short-range weapons, would have a much more difficult time against an ISC fleet without a Hydran superstack. The ISC is not so disadvantaged because their weapons suite already disfavors superstacks.

Additionally, I'm not sure where the idea has come up that superstacks are so bad. My experience, shared by many experienced players I've seen here, is that they are not highly abusive and that usually they are only going to happen in the opening stages of a battle. I guess I just don't see them as abusive at all, whereas the rules change will likely produce unpredictable balance issues.

Thanks for considering.

By Jon Berry (Laz_Longsmith) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 08:35 pm: Edit

SVC, I must agree with Ted on his point that the Hydrans tend to use their fighters in Stack formation to build massed fire, especially at medium ranges. I've had to do that in the Farthest Stars Campaign and spreading out my fighters would hurt thier ability to operate as a group.

Thus, if you do impose the 3 unit rule, I would ask that a stack of up to 12 fighters may fire at the same target assuming no other units are firing from the same hex at the same target.

I do wonder if subsequent pulses of a PPD after the first still count as that unit 'firing' for that impulse, or only on the first pulse.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 08:49 pm: Edit

SVC, all I can ask after much analysis, please no rule changes. It works.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Ted Fey,

Please forgive me for this. I owe you a debt for your assistance some time back with that very enjoyable phone call. I just have to ask though, you keep say changing the rule is a bad thing but there isn't a rule changing here. There's no rule about superstacking. A Superstack rule would be a new rule.

Sorry. It's just each time I read that my right eye twitchs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Squadrons and flotillas are highly organized units and should be able to count as just one ship, IMO.


Personally, I don't like a super stack limit but if something must be done I'd like it to be an incremantal penalty, which is why I suggest the EW penalty per ship over a limit.

However, I think that a moving superstack is FAR less of a problem (mines get super effective, seeking weapons make some gains too) than a starcastle superstack and a change in warp TAC move precidence would fix that completely.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Rather than penalize super stacks, can we...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Ken: NO. Not the solution, Just a huge can of messy worms. NO.

Ted: So, let me get this right, never do anything because something might happen? So, I should not drive to Origins because the van could be swept away in a lava flow from a volcano that erupts in the middle of Oklahoma? Seriously, if you cannot show me something you CAN predict, I'm not taking that "maybe something might happen" thing seriously. Remember that this isn't going to happen Wednesday. As I have said over and over, this is CL42 at best, and will be tested, or do you object to testing this because the test might cause something to happen?

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 11:27 pm: Edit

A possible part of a solution, Feedback Damage affects ALL units in the same hex, not unlike Wild Weasel Collateral Damage.

NO, that doesn't fix anything.--SVC

By Peter Thoenen (Eol) on Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 11:29 pm: Edit

I'm only going to comment on this once, since the explosion fix is out (the only good fix I can think of given the size of a hex and history) I will not play with this rule regardless of whether it goes official or not nor will I play in any events which makes use of it so pretty indifferent if it goes official. I would be willing to be the vast majority of SFB players fall in this category and given standard play isn't rated the rule can't be forced.

On a practical note though (since it's not going to affect me) curious how shuttles, PF, and fighters will work ... fighters (especially plasma) become pointless when you have to spread your 12 fighters across four hexes, ditto with PF's. Got 3 ships in a hex and you launch 3 suicide shuttles (to move and impact next impulse) and now you can't shoot (violating super-stack)

I'm with Jeremy on this one, this (along with a couple other recent posts) is just SVC's attempt to bury SFB and/or whore SFB: Revolutions (another topic on this BBS) to force everybody to rebuy everything. [Rudeness deleted. J.Sexton]

BTW on a different note: I was listening to the podcast where you joined and it's cool you are thinking about PDF's. One thing I might suggest, because of DRM issues, is maybe instead of blanket releasing PDF's at first, maybe just release them on the E-Book stuff (Kindle, Nook, Iliad, Apple Tablet iBook, etc) all which have strong digital copyright protection. It seems a happy medium and given the prevalence of these platforms and their future growth.