I would like to congratulate Charles now on his inevitable brutally crushing victory in his campaign.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 24, 2021 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Tractors have worked this way for 40 years. I don't see why it suddenly became a problem. If you want the rules rewritten, wait for my replacement and discuss it with him.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 24, 2021 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Charles wrote:
>>The thing you just cannot see is when that is not the plan. When you screwed up. When the ship cannot by the use of anything possible under normal rules escape. But because of the misuse of tractors. Now they can and do.>>

But it isn't "misuse" of tractors. It is just using tractors and doing what they do. And you *can* see that this is coming. 'Cause you know how tractor beams work.

My opponent is moving speed 20. But there are 3 or 4 ships around him. With tractor beams. All moving different speeds and different move costs. I 100% am aware that even though my opponent is moving speed 20, though complicated use of tractors, he can move further than assumed based on his plotted speed. I can see this coming. You can see this coming. We all can see this coming.

And still, it isn't really that much different (except for in all the ways that it is harder to do and kind of disadvantageous) than just moving speed 26 (or whatever) in the first place.

Yes. If you are playing a game with someone who is completely unfamiliar with this particular plan, and then you demolish them as a result, and they are all "Agh! How is that even legal?", that is sad, but it also is not the result of someone breaking rules, or cheating, or even particularly abusing loopholes. It is just someone not understanding how the rules work, and being surprised that when the rules they didn't completely understand were used to someone's advantage, they were demolished, and surprised by it. Which isn't something one likes being a part of, generally speaking, but still a thing that happens some times (I got a significant advantage in a tournament game recently 'cause my solid and seasoned opponent didn't know a particularly obscure aspect of tractor beam rotations; if I hadn't totally choked on my own cleverness and hosed myself due to dyslexia, I would have just ended the game right there. And felt bad that I had done so based on my opponent being surprised by a rule he didn't fully understand).

But I don't think this is the result of rules being broken. Or particularly unfair to anyone.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 24, 2021 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Ted wrote:
>>I don't buy the argument that plasma is disadvantaged in a game of Tractor Tricks (TM).>>

My point was simply that if tractor shenanagins result in you moving faster? That disadvantages plasma. As moving faster disadvantages plasma.

But tractor shenanagins don't disadvantage plasma any more than, well, just moving fast in the first place.

But, say, Dana's example of "Plasma ends turn at R1 from a FF. On impulse 32, neighboring CA tractors FF, holds tractor over the turn break, rotates the FF 1 hex away from the plasma at the start of the next turn, allowing FF to accelerate to speed 31 and run away from the plasma for zero damage, instead of being crushed by the enveloping R that was about to hit it..." is 100% an example of a specific situation where tractor shenanagins is disadvantageous to plasma.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Wednesday, February 24, 2021 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Charles: I suggest you write that in a term paper. If it's as new and devastating as you say, it'll be printed there where it belongs. If not, it won't.

Either way, I see it as Rotation Mk2, and...meh. It's a thing.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Wednesday, February 24, 2021 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Thank you Steve Petrick for the correction on ECM and its effects on friendly tractors, I completely missed the rule,
"FRIENDLY UNITS ignore (D6.3141), (D6.3142), and (D6.3144), but not (D6.3143) or (D6.3145)."

..Apologies to the BBS for the wrong information, going to the booth now for correctional treatment...

By Charles Carroll (Nosferatu) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 12:48 am: Edit

I appreciate you taking the time to comment Mr Cole. I have no intention of trying to get the rule changed at this time since everyone but me it seems feels this is a wonderful thing.

Even I love this. My only issue is the lack of paying for it with movement energy.

But other than that. This is great. And I appreciate every comment and person who discussed this with me. It is one of the wonderful things about the SFB people. We can disagree and discuss without it becoming nasty.

So...We can consider this closed. Or keep talking about the tactics that I feel will make some really nice changes based on some of the ways of using it.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 09:19 am: Edit

Charles wrote:
>>They already had issue, not even including the open map issue. Now they have an added number of issues. You are also not seeing the combination effect. Where a direct fire does all the normal planning. And closes very quickly to range for overloads using offensive tractor tricks to move at speed 30 coming in and move in impulses he cannot move in at the speed he is going. Not once but twice. To suddenly appear at range 8...already set up to run away. >>

I was just looking at this again, and figured I'd respond.

The situation you present here (appearing slow, showing up to R8 by using tractor shenanigans as a surprise, whatever) isn't anything that couldn't happen if your opponent was *just moving faster anyway*. And doing so with tractors requires (likely) more power than just moving faster anyway. And moving into overload range at a slower speed than you are actually paying for, likely giving you worse movement precedence than your opponent (and having worse movement precedence is very significant when moving into overload range). And is using tractors that could be, like, stopping drones or catching fighters before they get too close.

Yes. You can use complicated tractor shenanigans to suddenly be effectively moving speed 30 for some chunk of the turn when you are paying for speed 20. But you aren't saving energy anywhere, and your opponent knows you can do this, so it isn't really significantly better than just being faster. And in many ways, significantly worse.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 11:23 am: Edit

'We can consider this closed'

Considering you've said this numerous times and then eagerly continued your spiel, I do not think this means what you think it means.

:-)

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 11:48 am: Edit

Can we take a moment to be super excited about the first new SFB modules in what...seven years? :D

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 12:19 pm: Edit

Go on--I'm in the dark currently.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 12:26 pm: Edit

Peter,

Module R4T Tholian Will should be hitting PDF just about any time now with close to 80 new ships. Most of them are the police destroyer and police war destroyer classes and variants (basically take the smaller police corvette and do a C or CW style build from them), filling in some holes in the fleet found while working on the Tholian MSSB, a full suite of fast ships, and the Archeo-Tholian BB and variants.

Module R4J should be not too long after that, featuring conjectural ships for the Romulans based on them having developed tactical warp at the same time as everyone else.

Print versions to come in a few months once the counters currently being sent to press are back.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Oh, cool. Thanks for the heads up!

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Here's the R4T that lists almost all of the ships in it: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/12031/41402.html?1613569499

The MSSB has them all (and at a glance it looks like the B-series ships are the only ones not listed).

There's a lot less info for R4J - the Romulans Without Smarba has no posts left after like 2004 or something. IIRC, there's a couple of preview SSD's in CL #54 but that's it.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Technically speaking, R4J is *not* Romulans Without Smarba. It is rather more conceptually "Early Warp Romulans". Unless the Steves changed it, it will at least outline multiple paths that can occur. (In fact, there are at least two currently published alternative histories where Romulans gain warp early.) In most of these alternative histories some form of Smarba still occurs.

By Charles Carroll (Nosferatu) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 05:08 pm: Edit

I will hopefully make this last response to Peter.

You are of course right. Everything you point out is as good. The changed movement order can often make a difference.Assuming you are moving fast enough yourself.

Losing tractors against drones and shuttles...can be bad. Using speed changes can do the same thing maybe cheaper. All of your reasoning is true.

Yet this adds things most people will not be looking for. And it also does not require any movement energy. For races like Feds, that need movement power to power the Photons. So being able to move for no movement power is pretty important. Anyway, nothing is ever a slam dunk. But this does add enough to create issues.

But over all since I am well aware of what can be done. It will not overwhelm me or you or those of us in the know as to what to look for.

But I still feel the runaway issue makes Plasm weaker and degraded as well as not needing warp power creates illegal movement opportunities which you cannot do without the tractor tricks.

Which pretty much is all I have said. The rest is just improved tactics that may or may not have a cost depending on when and how you use it. Also your just go faster assumes you could. Which this bypasses.

Anyway this has been fun. Thank you Peter for your insites. Almost all I agree with.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Charles wrote:
>>Yet this adds things most people will not be looking for.>>

Like, to be clear, I think in a broad sense, you are correct. I think that finagling wacky tractor shenanagins to end up moving way faster than your actual speed, and turn tighter than you are supposed to is, well, silly. And agree that, in an absolute sense, I suspect that the game would be better if these things weren't possible.

That being said, I don't know that it needs fixing at this point, and as pointed out numerous times by many, there are certainly tradeoffs for doing these things--costs and disadvantages for using tractors like this regularly.

So while in an absolute sense, you are probably *right* that this particular corner of the obscure rules is silly, and probably shouldn't work like it does, and can certainly seem like a broken rule to people who aren't expecting it, again, I think it isn't probably worth trying to fix *now* (what, 40+ years into the existence of the game), and assuming both players know the rules and how they work, it is likely about a wash most of the time, and the costs (energy, tractors, movement precedence, complex overhead) likely balance out the gains (moving faster than your plotted speed and turning tighter occasionally).

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Thanks, Mike! I couldn't find a specific R4J topic and "Romulans Without Smarba" sounded like the closest one in New Product Development. Either way, it's more ships.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Thursday, February 25, 2021 - 10:30 pm: Edit

In all this tractor talk nobody has really mentioned that quirky moves vis-a-vis the impulse chart are really unavoidable, as long as one is using a discreet movement mechanic that is SIMULATING continuous movement. In the PC game Starfleet Command, these odd uses of the movement chart were impossible to make because the ships in the game really were using continuous, simultaneous movement.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 12:27 am: Edit

Dennis, I did do an in-depth explanation of how the Impulse Chart works and why such artifacts are unavoidable, but as that didn't just magically fix the one specific interaction Charles lost to, it was apparently irrelevant.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 07:23 am: Edit

Dennis wrote:
>>In all this tractor talk nobody has really mentioned that quirky moves vis-a-vis the impulse chart are really unavoidable, as long as one is using a discreet movement mechanic that is SIMULATING continuous movement.>>

'Cause I don't really know how it is germane to the discussion?

Like, as one of the people here most up to my eyeballs in the conversation, I have zero investment in what is being *simulated*. I just have investment in "how does the game work as a game, and are the parts of the game that we are looking at working or not working in a way that is mostly balanced?"

Like, Charles' point is, on some level, one that I certainly agree with--it is, indeed, wonky and kind of silly that if someone really bends over backwards to really squeeze advantage over complicated tractor beam sequencing among friendly ships, they can get a lot of mileage out of it that *will* effectively make ships capable of moving faster than their existing practical speed limits, and does give ships moving quickly the ability to turn way tighter than they should, even at speeds too high for HETs. Which is something that benefits people who are A) attuned to this particular aspect of the game that is fairly obscure and B) willing to to all the preposterous planning math between turns (which then slows down the game). And the game probably *would* be better if it didn't work like this.

That being said, well, also as noted, it is probably about a wash, cost and effect wise, and everyone can do the same thing if they want, so to really worth worrying about or trying to fix.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 09:13 am: Edit

Peter,

I'm coming at this from a slightly different perspective. I do have an "investment" in what is being simulated, which is why I strongly prefer floating map to fixed map. I think it's a function of "suspension of disbelief". I play SFB (or any wargame) for fun, but at least for me, things that seem... absurd... detract from the fun. So "walls in space" make the game less fun for me.

Because of that and because of the problem that plasma can have on a floating map, we played a lot of scenarios that, as you in fact previously mentioned, were oriented around stationary or slow-moving objects anyway, like bases or convoys. In our experience this obviated a lot of the problems with "floating map, no time limit" battles.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 10:16 am: Edit

Alan wrote:
>>I'm coming at this from a slightly different perspective. I do have an "investment" in what is being simulated, which is why I strongly prefer floating map to fixed map. I think it's a function of "suspension of disbelief". I play SFB (or any wargame) for fun, but at least for me, things that seem... absurd... detract from the fun. So "walls in space" make the game less fun for me. >>

Sure. Which I completely understand. But Dennis was asking why that hadn't come up, and so I was pointing out (as one of the prolific posters in the discussion) why.

>>Because of that and because of the problem that plasma can have on a floating map, we played a lot of scenarios that, as you in fact previously mentioned, were oriented around stationary or slow-moving objects anyway, like bases or convoys. In our experience this obviated a lot of the problems with "floating map, no time limit" battles.>>

Oh, sure; like, I fully understand the want to use floating maps, what with space and all, but as most folks inevitably discover, when they play, say, rando no time limit fleet actions that occur on open maps, there is zero reason to ever get closer than, like, 30 hexes. Or, really, 50 hexes (if I have more P1's to use than you? Why would I ever get closer than 50 hexes?). Which makes games, well, kind of silly.

I think the last open map game I played was when we were trying to run a Frigate Captain's campaign on SFBOL, where we played numerous solo scenarios against space monsters and raiding planets and things, and had to play a few duels against other players. And I played a duel as an F5K vs a WYN Barracuda on an open map. And we never got closer than 15 hexes (as much as I tried to close the range), launched drones just evaporated, and 'cause my opponent had more P1s than I did (IIRC, I had 2xP1, 3xP2, 2xDISR; he had 4xP1 and 2xDISR), I took internals before he did (on, like, turn 15 or something), and then my opponent left the map, declaring victory, having scored internals, and I was all "But you left, so you disengaged, so while you get a 10% BPV score, I get a 25% BPV score for forcing disengagement", which my opponent disagreed with (as he claimed he didn't disengage, he just stopped fighting the battle), which turned into a discussion over the rules of the campaign, and then everyone stopped playing, as it turned out that no one was actually interested in having frigate duels on an open map.

I'm totally ok with fixed maps (I mostly play tournament games, with specific space walls, which make the tournament work just fine but are, understandably, kind of goofy, but scenarios where there is a closed map where if you fly off the map, you just either count as disengaged or destroyed is fine with me). And a good way to simulate a fixed map when using an open map is a base/planet/convoy/whatever (in F+E, for example, battles in open space are almost always "we fight one round, a tiny ship explodes, someone retreats", as that is what happens in open space fights in this universe, consistently apparently :-), as when you have a base/planet/convoy/whatever to fight over, the map is as big as you need it to be, but you can't just run away forever, as then your opponent gets the things you are fighting over. Which is kind of as much as you need to make the game work.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 11:51 am: Edit

You COULD fix a lot of the (current) impulse chart wonkiness with a different impulse chart where a slower ship never moves on an impulse where a faster ship does not.

It would be a lot simpler to call, rather than listing off a bunch of speeds that move on impulse X, you simply say, "speed 14 and higher moves".

Example chart:
Impulse: Slowest speed that moves.
1: 32
2: 16
3: 24
4: 8
5: 28
6: 12
7: 20
8: 4
9: 30
10: 14
11: 22
12: 6
13: 26
14: 10
15: 18
16: 2
17: 31
18: 15
19: 23
20: 7
21: 27
22: 11
23: 19
24: 3
25: 29
26: 13
27: 21
28: 5
29: 25
30: 9
31: 17
32: 1

But people are used to the current chart, and I'm quite sure this would create it's own different wonky interactions with something else in the rules.

By Charles Carroll (Nosferatu) on Friday, February 26, 2021 - 03:30 pm: Edit

Peter I certainly agree this does not realistically need fixing and never would have come up at all if some people I play with were not so bright...and willing to do the calculations and make these things most people would never dream of become a Nightmare lol.

But then this is a game where I listen to Tournament players talking about the exact percentages and averages and various things I have not really cared about. They obviously researched all these things and base their game on when they get the most likely result and how that makes firing at such a such range on a specific shield the best answer and so forth so on. So some people in a number of types of games are indeed willing to do a lot of math and if enough see this, realize it's potential. We may start seeing it a lot more. I know this is true because in the group I play with most people are learning they have to at least understand this.