Retrograde tactics will make your fleet irrevelant. If you're defending something, then the Kzinti mug the thing while making overtures of chasing you down. If you're attacking something, then the Kzinti chase you away some and then go back to the thing they were defending - repairing shield damage as they go.

The CS has 33 power and 2 disruptors. The D6 has 37 power and 4 disruptors. It sounds like the power is pretty much the same, except the Klink has more direct-firepower. The CS is not able to keep speed with the Klingons and still have an EW shift on them. But this means the Klinks have to use their speed to outmaneuver the drones, rather than using phasers on the drones. As soon as the D6's begin using phasers on drones, the Kzinti can force a shift (since the Klink is diverting power to phasers, instead of speed, the Kzin can then divert power from speed to EW).

So really, it comes down to how the drones factor into the fight.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 04:00 pm: Edit

I think the Kzinti is going to get 90% usage of his drones at R1 or R0. At R0, they will hit the impulse following launch regardless of speed as long as the target does not move on that impulse. The Kzin wants to have equal parts speed 12 and speed 8 drones, because 8's and 12's do not always move on the same impulses. There are 4 impulses that 8 moves that 12 never moves. By having a mixture (loaded such that he can launch either 4 or 8 or 4 speed 12 droens), the Kzinti gets 16 impulses of opportunities for the R1 launch.

Both speed 8 and speed 12 have 24 moves and that is it. If the battle gets 24 hexes away from the launch point, then that is it. If the Kzinti try to launch an ECM drone or otherwise try to hold formation, then at speed 8 or 12 they basically are static, and the D6 squadron can wait it out. IIRC the Kzin is going to get 1 set of reloads, so thats just 8 drones per launcher.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 04:24 pm: Edit

I would not even be arming the Kzinti disruptors in favor of speed and EW.

If Klingon fire will not penetrate a shield there is no point using all the battery's to start EM so no point doing that till about range 8. As the Kzinti in charge I can live without 1/18th of my shields. That may just be the cost of getting to tractor range of 3 Klingon ships.

I can cruise along at speed 22 with max ECM until I take power hits or use phaser capacitor and battery. I would say the Klingons have an even chance in the battle but would disagree that they are advantaged despite the advantage in disruptors.

And if the Klingons choose to run directly away from me and maintain the range I really only need half the disruptors they have because the number 4 shield on a D6 is a half strength shield. With 5 battery you can take advantage of those kind of opportunities, or even HET away like a fancy tournament cruiser if the Klingon does something surprising.

Mike wrote, "If the Zin does EM, they're slowing down ... considerably. What they put into EM, the Klingon puts into ECCM and they're now at the same speed with no shift. If they put up EM and max ECCM, they're down to speed 15 (at best) and while the Klingon will have a 1 shift on the Zin, they're never catching up the it's impeding any return or defensive fire from the Zin."

The Kzinti was using both maximum ECM (6) and EM (6) for 10 total ECM the Klingon cannot put 6 into ECCM and call the EW environment even its a 2 shift still. And the only way the Klingon can scrape up 6 power for ECCM is sacrificing speed. The CS can only keep this up for a turn since it will use all the battery to start the EM and that would drop its speed to 17 the next turn assuming EM is continued and battery are not refilled.

I guess the value of the EM is debatable since the Klingon has to slow to put the power into ECCM and the Klingon fire will probably do only a handful of internals outside range 8.

For the Kzinti to win he's defiantly got to manage his power wisely and maybe losing a shield and handful of internals is not worth every ship in the squadron draining its battery's to stop a few points of damage with erratic maneuvers. Since only 1 ship will get shot at the other 2 ships are wasting power by starting EM.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 04:53 pm: Edit

The Kzinti CAN buy extended range for a few drones if they want to. It's never simple.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Dave wrote:
>>There are a lot of variables here: for example, are the Kzin attacking the Klingons or vice versa, can the Kzin somehow corner the Klingons (and is a fixed map a realistic limitation). >>

Yes. A fixed map is a realistic limitation. As this is a game.

On an open map, where the Klingons have infinite room to run and no need to come in closer than R9 ever, but will fight forever? Yes, the D6 has an advantage. But that is a dumb game, and I can't imagine why anyone would play it.

I mean, you can make the same argument about the (fusion armed) Hydrans or the Gorns--if you are on an open map and the Klingons have no need to close with anyone and the Klingons' opponent is just going to keep trying to get them while flying uphill into disruptors, the Hydrans and the Gorns have no hope either in that time frame.

On a fixed map, or around a fixed point that needs to be attacked or defended, the two ships (D6 and CS) are reasonably balanced.

>>I still think, on the balance of most kind of fights the D6 has it over the CS.>>

Maybe it does. But not so much that the D6 is a slam dunk, or that it doesn't make reasonable sense in F+E to give the two ships the same factors.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 10:23 pm: Edit

F&E has a long history of doing what is appropriate for making F&E a good game, even if the action is not entirely warranted by the results from the smaller scale simulation SFB represents. It is not entirely clear to me that SFB should be in the driver's seat, so to speak, so I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that.

These pre-general war ships, un-refitted, tend to have some odd RPS match-ups that really amplify blind spots in one ship or the other. As such, it is harder to reduce them to one single attack/defense factor like in F&E, as they are more matchup dependent.

That being said, I think the SFU background recognizes the pre-refit Kzinti ships as being myopically designed for civil war infighting employing a certain style of combat that the Kzinti preferred, but which translated poorly against the other empires.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 10:35 pm: Edit

Well, you can't really represent the combat capabilities of a ship, in all situations, with a single linear combat strength.

Decisive battles in F&E are rarely in what one would make a floating map in SFB, but rather are over targets that are defended or attacked.

So... floating map battles in SFB are less important for determining factors in Federation and Empire than one might think.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Matt, you call the power curves nearly even and then cite the total power. Which, I'll grant you a fairly close (off by the difference in the number of heavy weapons). What you're not taking into account is ... the CS cannot hit speed 29 ... ever.

The fact that it's not a warp 30 ship means that even on a even power curve, the other party has the ability to control the range, if just by going faster than the Zin possibly can.

While the Zin can go max speed, pay full housekeeping it then has a single spare point of power. If you put up EM, ECM or any other defense you're slowing down and you're never going to catch the Klingon who whether your defending the base or in open space will hit you on your way out to him and hit your back on the way back in. You'll be able to repair some shields, but he's going to be stripping the ones on the other side faster.

You can use ECM drones (if year available) to help even the power issue, but if you're moving slow enough to use them, you're not getting the benefit of having them, really.

The D6, can go 25 while loading everything, minus whatever ECCM it wants to put up. Realistically, if it's putting up any defense at all the Zin cannot go that fast. You swoop out to R21-ish, bank in, take a shot, and turn back out again.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Klingon propaganda to hinder the Zin revolution!

When I played it last night it didn't go that way the Klingons swooped but there was no speed 31 happening.

I have always thought floating maps pretty dumb what your talking about requires an infinite map, and the range 15 fire probably wont penetrate a shield unless your very lucky.

One game doesn't prove a lot but for what its worth the Kzinti won in fine fashon. Got to range 1 and then a whole slew of type V heavy drones hit and it only takes about 3 of them on a down shield and the Klingon is ready for capture.

Every time you swoop to take a shot Ill close range and every time you swoop back out to open the range up ill make your next swoop maneuver that much harder by coming directly at your 4.

Anyway the conditions we played with was Y159, 20 percent CO's on a 50 x 50 fixed map. It didn't take a corner to mug the Klingons all they had to do was spend a single turn at 15 and the CS's caught them.

I think in our battle the Klingon must have been powering a bit of tractor because even when I caught him I didn't have the power to lock on tractors. So instead I launched drones at point blank range where the Klingon couldn't avoid or even shoot them before they hit.

I like your swooping strategy even more and who knows maybe that would change the battles outcome. I just think its a lot easier to imagine this swoop maneuver than to carry it off when the Kzinti never slows below 23 and never has less than 6 ECM. Those are things you have to counter in your swoop strategy by allocating some to ECCM and speed.

I think the game was fun it wasn't all about hitting with disruptors for the Kzinti but being patient and closing the distance at any cost. On a floating map maybe things would be different, but what's the point of a floating map if the area of space your fighting over is so valuable why run 10k hexes swooping me to death.

It was so fun I think Id like to try other battles using trio's of equal F&E combat value ships. I wonder how the Lyran CL would do against the Kzinti CS and do they have the same value in F&E?

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 02:10 pm: Edit

I saw part of Josh's game and the Klingons were definitely *not* playing keep away, so to speak.

I have always beeen imagining something like Mike's swoop 21 strategy, but maybe thinking more like swoop 15 oblique.

Josh's Kzinti plot was housekeeping,6 ecm, 23 speed and nothing else. He launched a neat formation of drones turn 1. The Klingons took a shot turn 1 with standards and badly hurt one Zin shield. Again early turn 2 another standard shot and another badly hurt shield.

The Klingons approach was only oblique 4-7 with the 3 ships, which made it difficult to turn away.

The Klingons could instead, for example, with 37 power, move speed 23, have 4 housekeeping, 1ww, and power 3 standard disruptors each turn and move 23 just like the Kzinti. Each turn the Klingongs do this they get 12-15 points (with a one shift) while the Kzinti do nothing. And with CO's the Klingons can dump quite a few T-Bombs to make the chasing Zin get a bit antsy.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Since this is for F&E, is there a game balance reason within F&E for a same or different rating to the D6? Would a less powerful ship be cheaper to make?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 03:12 pm: Edit

Floating map battles are funny. If I was the Kzinti I'd probably spend a few turns sniping the Klingons beyond range 22 where there disruptors cannot hit. If I think the Klingon has dumped T-bombs while moving away, I break off and run 90 hexes or something in the other direction and make him have to close to 22 again (and never fight near the suspected T-bomb area if I can avoid it).

In fleet strength I can at least use the L or R arcs of disruptors to avoid closing to 22 too soon. I'm not saying I'll do this for sure, but certainly there are options for the Kzinti.

In any case, any game I make tends to be non floating to force actual battle, but certainly larger than one map.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 03:45 pm: Edit

If you start at range and close to R22, fire and then turn and maintain distance, the Zin should never be able to close.

If the Zin "normally" plots 23, the Klink plots 25-27, say 3 ECCM and take a "swoop" with their lovely turn mode. If the Zin tries to surprise you and goes all out without ECM, you shoot them solid, and either punch the throttle off of battery to maintain range or lets the Zin close to 15 ... at which point next turn it spends a turn or two at 31 (which the Zin cannot do) and is back up where it wants to be. It's a slow way to wear down shields, but over the turns, one by one the zin will start taking internals and falling back as they need every last warp box to keep up.

If you have the wall, the Klink can eventually be run against it, which if it's attempting to keep range 22, means it should be able to keep out of R3 and the tractor when it bolts from the wall. They'll take less damage then they deal in the drive by and live to assume the next round of keep away.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>What you're not taking into account is ... the CS cannot hit speed 29 ... ever.>>

On a closed map, or a map with a fixed point over which the battle revolves (base/convoy/planet/whatever), this doesn't matter.

Open space battles where one side has no reason to close with the other, and both sides are just going to fight forever, are just silly and not worth thinking about. As that sort of thing makes the game fall apart.

If the game is on a closed map, or around something that one side needs to protect and the other side wants to kill, you have a game worth considering the results of. If the game is on an infinite open map, one side is going to just disengage.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 04:00 pm: Edit

John wrote:
>>Since this is for F&E, is there a game balance reason within F&E for a same or different rating to the D6? Would a less powerful ship be cheaper to make?>>

Generally, yes.

In F+E, in general, a ship costs as much to build as its defense rating. On most ships, the defense rating is the same as the attack rating (i.e. the ship is just a single number). A standard CA is an 8 point ship (it counts for 8 points of attack and 8 points of defense). It costs 8 EPs to build.

"War" class ships (NCA/CW/DW) generally cost less than that to build (the standard 7 point CW costs 5 EPs to build).

What is in question here is the following:

The Klingon D6, since the inception of the game, has been rated as a 7-8 ship (i.e. 7 attack, 8 defense; a D7 is just an 8 ship). The Kzinti CS isn't really in the scope of the regular game of F+E; the default Kzinti cruiser in the game is the BC (which is an 8). There is an old scenario that has you use 7 point CM counters for Kzinti CS; the old version of the scenario that this discussion came out of (i.e. the 4 Powers War scenario) just used 8 point Kzinti BCs for CS (assuming that all the various refits were about a wash).

The going theory is that with this scenario being rebuilt, and a sheet of counters possibly being printed, the CS should be rated as a 7-8, just like the D6.

Either way, it costs 8 points to build. It could theoretically be designed as a 6-8 ship (that would also cost 8 points to build), but that would be a significant kick in the teeth for the Kzinti, balance wise, and arguably, the CS is about just as effective as the D6 in that time frame.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 04:27 pm: Edit

I wonder if to understand the Kzinti CS, and slow drones in general, you don't have to look to the history of the game.

Recall that the earliest version of the game, the pocket edition, where you first encounter both the CS and the D6 used *plotted* movement. It seems to me that the CS could be a very different ship in the plotted environment. For example, say the D6 is just going straight for 10 hexes. The Zin could launch drones in the D6 hex column (or even near hex columns), and reasonably expect that the D6 isn't going to slip enough or turn out of the way. The drones have free movement, the ships don't.

Now as free movement became the norm you see the plasma prosecution, a lot more S's, and M and F drones, which in large sense makes plasma and drones workable in the environment with free movement.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Peter,

To be clear, I'm not advocating that the Zin is significantly worse than the D6 or even should not have the same F&E factors. It's probably about correct.

What I am stipulating is that chasing down and mugging the Klink isn't going to happen unless the Klink wants to be mugged on anything resembling a largish size board (fixed or not).

From my perspective ...

If the Zin are on the attack, let the Klink run if he wants to just peel at least one guy off to attack your fixed target if not all 3. Abandoning post should be penalized.

If the Klink are on the attack, the Zin are probably best off starcastling and forcing the Klink to close to the point that they can penetrate that defense. In my opinion, the Klink are still probably going to win at that point, but at least you've given yourself a fighting chance and one where your drone fire power can come into play.

If you make it a duel in open space, by either not having a fixed location to defend or ignoring that location the Klingons can control the range and ensure themselves a non-defeat ... while the Zin can fair well assure a stalemate as they can hole up and make it very, very, very deadly to get close enough to attack them meaningfully.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 06:36 pm: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>What I am stipulating is that chasing down and mugging the Klink isn't going to happen unless the Klink wants to be mugged on anything resembling a largish size board (fixed or not).>>

Sure. Which holds true for a *lot* of match ups and empires and strategies. There are any number of matches that end with:

"Well, if it is on an open map, I can just keep the range open and snipe with [weapon X] forever..."

Which is why discussing what happens in games on open maps not particularly interesting. As most games on infinite open maps end at "Well, I have more P1s than you do, so I stay at R50 and fire P1s until I blow something up. In 1000 turns...."

The game doesn't actually work on open maps. As one side is always going to have an advantage over the other due to the infinite sized maps. At which point, the other side just disengages.

There needs to be a reason that there is a fight happening. And the best way to approximate "something outside of the scope of the game is forcing these ships to fight decisively" is a fixed map of fixed point that is being attacked/defended.

In this specific instance, yes. If the Klingons can keep the range open forever and have no reason to ever let the Kzinti get inside of R9, and nothing they need to worry about protecting that isn't going as fast as them, the Klingons have all the advantage. So the Kzinti aren't going to fight them in this sort of situation. If there is a closed, standard sized map, the Kzinti have a reasonable game there.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Surprised this has run on. My original comment about the D6 vs CS that sparked this discussion did presume a floating map (though I'd still bet on 3 D6 over 3 CS on a tourney map, given skilled play on both sides.)

I have a conceptual issue with fixed maps in that to me they utterly break any pretence that the game is also a simulation - "Space,the final frontier..." doesn't sit well beside "We chased them into a corner and mugged them." In a campaign fought on a scale so vast that the galaxy is flat no professional commamder should risk ship and crew to keep a tiny fraction of a light year of empty space for a few subjective minutes.

However I do recognise that some matchups have optimum strategies for one side that are dull to play and frustrating to oppose on objectiveless floating maps (or those with objectives where the slow and short ranged force is the one defending). It's not much fun simulating Carrhae.

So i've got a foot on both sides of the fixed/floating dichotomy. There are matchups that work as games on floating maps, but sticking only to those limits the richness of SFB. It's an especially important issue to solve in campaigns where players are incentivised to do 'what will win' over 'what is fun' by the game having consequences.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 11:52 am: Edit

Peter Bakija wrote:

>>Yes. A fixed map is a realistic limitation. As this is a game.

>>On an open map, where the Klingons have infinite room to run and no need to come in closer than R9 ever, but will fight forever? Yes, the D6 has an advantage. But that is a dumb game, and I can't imagine why anyone would play it.

Andrew Harding wrote:

>>>I have a conceptual issue with fixed maps in that to me they utterly break any pretence that the game is also a simulation - "Space,the final frontier..." doesn't sit well beside "We chased them into a corner and mugged them." In a campaign fought on a scale so vast that the galaxy is flat no professional commamder should risk ship and crew to keep a tiny fraction of a light year of empty space for a few subjective minutes.

I would agree with Andrew Harding that a fixed map seems kind of counter-intuitive regarding the game being a simulation. Furthermore, I would suggest that Peter is employing a variation of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy: Claim a) CS is equivalent to D6; Objection b) on a floating map the CS has trouble; Argument from fallacy: c) the fixed map is the only true SFB, a floating map is not part of the game.

First, I'd like to point out that I've always found the fixed map to be mostly a way to make a 10 turn game into a 3-4 turn game. The only way you can run down somebody into a corner is if they don't want to or can't going to go out of the corner. Well, I presume this is not a tournament barrier (clearly a special case) but just the garden variety "if you've left the map you've disengaged" which certainly is a penalty; but it should if the D6's are going to die then they should disengage.

Secondly, the rules for a floating map do not necessarilly result in an entirely open ended game. Remember, either player can disengage any ship 50 hexes away from all opponent ships (75 for a scout). And (S2.272), stalemate case 2, says that if one side is chasing another for 10 turns, and no internal damage is scored or shuttlecraft are killed in that time frame than the chasing player can deem the chase-ee to have disengaged (a victory).

So in a fixed map case, say in Josh's 50x50 map, the Kzinti might chase the Klingons for 2-4 turns before they get cornered (and then leave and lose OR put up a fight) vs. on a floating map the Klingons have got maybe 6-8 more turns before they've been deemed to disengage. Now even on fixed maps, 10+ turn plasma ballet's happen all the time, so I'm not entirely buying the objection that a 10+turn saber dance is somehow more objectionable or unrealistic. Again, we presume that the Klingons want to win. Just getting 10% by cracking one shield and doing some ints is not going to do it.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 02:59 pm: Edit

If a faster opponent is trying to keep R21 from you on a fixed map, you can back them into a wall and you'll get a BETTER range, but that's far from the mugging range needed to get tractors and slow drones to be effective.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Dave wrote:
>>I would agree with Andrew Harding that a fixed map seems kind of counter-intuitive regarding the game being a simulation. >>

Fixed maps are a convenient stand in for "this fight is happening for a reason and both sides are invested in winning it, and can't just run around at long range forever". If you replace "fixed map" with "a base or planet or convoy or something", then you don't need to use fixed maps.

If, for example, the Kzinti are attacking a planet, the Klingons can run around at long range all they want, while the Kzinti close on the planet and bombard the population from orbit. Or there is a convoy on the map. Again, the Klingons can run around at long range all they want while the Kzinti rip the convoy apart. These will work just fine in place of a fixed map.

The only problem with such a fight is that it takes some effort to make them balanced games (as convoys and planets and whatever have extra guns and shuttles and whatever). So a fixed map is a convenient stand in.

>>Furthermore, I would suggest that Peter is employing a variation of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy: Claim a) CS is equivalent to D6; Objection b) on a floating map the CS has trouble; Argument from fallacy: c) the fixed map is the only true SFB, a floating map is not part of the game.>>

Well, no, I'm not claiming that "the fixed map is the only true SFB, a floating map is not part of the game".

I'm pointing out that floating map games are, for the most part, generally kind of stupid. As there is no reason at all to fight on a floating map. As one side will, for whatever reason, have an advantage. At which point, the other side simply disengages. As there is no point of continuing the game at the point.

Are *you* honestly going to play a game where the whole game is "I have more P1s than you, so I'm going to stay at R50 and just fire P1s. And eventually kill you in 1000 turns."? As that is, essentially, what playing on an open map results in if that is the most advantageous thing to do for one side.

In any case, when I started this discussion, my premise was "On a fixed map or around a fixed point that needs to be attacked or defended, the CS is roughly balanced against the D6". Attacking/defending bases. Attacking/defending convoys. Attacking/defending planets. Whatever.

A fixed map is simply a convenient mechanism for "there is a reason that this fight is happening here".

>>First, I'd like to point out that I've always found the fixed map to be mostly a way to make a 10 turn game into a 3-4 turn game. The only way you can run down somebody into a corner is if they don't want to or can't going to go out of the corner. Well, I presume this is not a tournament barrier (clearly a special case) but just the garden variety "if you've left the map you've disengaged" which certainly is a penalty; but it should if the D6's are going to die then they should disengage.>>

Yes. They should. I'm not claiming that fights on fixed maps have tournament barriers. If you are on a fixed map, and someone is going to kill you if you are cornered, disengage by going off the map. That works fine too.

>>Secondly, the rules for a floating map do not necessarilly result in an entirely open ended game. Remember, either player can disengage any ship 50 hexes away from all opponent ships (75 for a scout). And (S2.272), stalemate case 2, says that if one side is chasing another for 10 turns, and no internal damage is scored or shuttlecraft are killed in that time frame than the chasing player can deem the chase-ee to have disengaged (a victory). >>

Yes. In open map games, someone is going to disengage. Or be forced to disengage. As there is no reason at all to have a decisive fight. Someone launches drones? Turn and run for 3 turns till they fall off the map. Which is what happens on open maps. Even with fast drones.

A fixed map (or a fixed point) is a convenient way to have the game have a reason that ships actually fight. In F+E, if you are in a pointless open space fight, the vast majority of the time, all that happens is two gigantic fleets encounter each other, a couple ships get scuffed up, and everyone goes home. As that is what happens in open space when no one is fighting over something. When two sides are fighting over something (planet/base/convoy/important supply path/whatever), decisive fights happen.

A fixed map is simply a convenient way to model a fight that actually has to happen (i.e. there is an abstract "something important is near by, so we can't just keep the range open forever"). There could be a planet on the map. Or a convoy or a base or something. Which accomplishes the same thing. But if not, a fixed map is a convenient stand in.

Random battles on open maps are, generally, kind of silly and pointless. If folks like games like that, go nuts and play them. Doesn't bother me at all. But generally speaking, there is no reason that fights on open maps ever become decisive, and as soon as someone gets an advantage, the other side is just going to disengage. Which makes for really boring games.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 06:31 pm: Edit

Peter,

If the purpose of this discussion is to determine whether a Kzinti CS should have the same factors as a Klingon D6 in a Four-Powers-War F&E scenario, then I think your analysis is off base. You say that in a floating-map battle one side or the other will simply disengage. Okay, let's take that a step further.

Here's the scenario. A raiding Kzinti CS is heading for a Klingon freighter and a D6 tries to defend the freighter. The D6 has a couple of options. It can try to fight at the freighter's location or it can interpose itself between the freighter and the CS, at some distance from the freighter. (The CS is approaching from the "North" and the D6 heads North to meet it while the freighter turns South to keep away from CS.)

I submit that the Klingon is often better off choosing the second option. If it sticks with the freighter the CS can concentrate on killing the freighter (which is slow, has weak shields, and negligible firepower), which it will accomplish long before the Klingon can inflict serious harm on the Kzinti (unless the D6 deliberately engages at close quarters, which puts it at greatly increased risk from the Kzinti drones and numerous ph-3s). The Kzin then disengages. Battle result - an undamaged D6, a lightly damaged CS, and a destroyed freighter. Regardless of how the points would shake out in an "S8 Patrol Battle", in campaign terms that would be a win for the Kzinti.

But suppose the Klingon tries to engage the Kzinti at some distance from the freighter. Now we are in a situation similar to an open-space battle, in which the Klingon is advantaged. The Kzinti might try to fight its way past the Klingon and catch the freighter or it might disengage. The former is risky and could result in the Kzinti being worn down and ultimately crippled or destroyed. The latter means that the D6 has successfully protected the freighter, which goes on to deliver its cargo. In campaign terms, this is a Klingon win, though hardly a decisive one.

Now reverse the situation - a D6 is attacking a Kzinti freighter protected by a CS. The CS will have a much harder time protecting its freighter than the D6 did. It will have to delay the D6 for long enough for the freighter to escape, meaning it will fight an open space battle (in which the Klingon is advantaged) for multiple turns before it can disengage. This may result in a badly damaged CS, even if it probably won't be killed. Or it can disengage early, but that allows the D6 to catch and kill the freighter.

This is just one very simplified scenario representing only a small fraction of the kinds of situations that might occur. But in my opinion it is representative enough of the D6 advantages to justify making the D6 at least slightly superior to the CS in F&E terms.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 08:02 pm: Edit

Hmmmm, OK the CS is under the D6, but is it better than other ships with a AF of 6?? (Lyran CL/DW, Fed CL, Klingon F5L)

If it has the edge over these ships, then the 7 rating works...

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 08:04 pm: Edit

One of my points was that unless you are playing a tournament game, you can always choose to lose by disengaging. Furthermore, even in a floating map battle, provisions exist to force an opponent not interested in engaging to have been deemed to disengaged.

But presumably, both players want to win.

There is no question that a fixed map battle makes it much easier to force an opponent to disengage, or make him choose to do so or risk being more strongly defeated.

I never was arguing from the point of view of "infinite" number of turns, or even thousands. If the stalemate procedure starts forcing the issue after 10 turns, that seems like a much better restriction than forcing the issue after only 3 or 4 turns (when one player is cornered and forced to run off the map). Now I don't mind at all that some scenarios have fixed maps. I guess we can view that as a very low threshold for being considered disengaged. But as a general assumption, that wouldn't be my preference.

Now it seems to me that Peter's argument for defaulting to a fixed map seems to tacitly assume that players, the people sitting across the table from one another, may get bored after 10 turns of saber dance and be more prone to just give in and disengage and choose to loose and end the battle. I'm not sure why that should be so. As I pointed out, 10+ turn plasma ballets are played out on *fixed* maps all the time, and while I couldn't say no one complains, they seem to be accepted.

Suppose a group of 3D6 managed to score 9 shield damage on the 3CS over 10 turns. That is 90 points of damage. They could easily do 18. That is 180 points of damage. Somewhere in that damage range, either the CS's will be sufficiently denuded or the D6s will make a mistake, and something bigger will start to happen.

Furthermore, if the R description history for the CS basically state that the CS was a non competitive design. And that the Kziniti ignored that the success of the CC was because they fixed the design problems (saber dance) and chose to believe the CS captains were bad and the CC captains were a better breed. A CC/BC can saber dance decently or better than a D6/D7 and yes, the CC/BC is probably a better ship (than unrefined Klingon cruisers) because by eliminating the saber dance, the Kzinti forced the Klingons to come in close and try to hit in R3-8 where the still have some slight advantage (K refits) but clearly this risks R0-2 and medium drones are more effective anyway. So the Kzintis went from terrible to probably better than most (once they fixed their horrible saber dancing ability).