You absolutely can run ISC as pretty much any plasma race, and really any discussion about echelons is pretty much moot if you're not using any PPDs, and to a lesser extent if you are pre-179. The rear-Fs are the other major item that makes the ISC the ISC, but not before 179.

If you are pre-179 and want to run the ISC as a plasma force, you can go with various combinations of CL (137), DD (88), and FFs (73).

If you're 179 and want to do the mini-echelon, you have some good lists already for that. CS gets you 2xPPD for 155 letting you do:
CS+CL+DD+FF+FF, 2 PPD, 2 Pl-s and 6x Pl-F (not counting the rear-Fs)

If you like the CC in the mix (and it is a very nice ship), I'd go:
CC+DD+DD+FF+FF

Run the DDs/FFs about 3 hexes in front, it's a lot of F torps to discourage closing, enough to even consider bolting a couple at range 5 right after a turn to make a hole for PPDs

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 08:58 am: Edit

Lots of ships get the rear Fs before Y179. Many get it as early as Y171 or 2. You have to look in their R sections.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 10:38 am: Edit

Any tactics discussion that assumes floating maps is broken.

Battles happen near places where one side has to fight.

Else you get fleets disengaging by acceleration, zipping past your fleet and then decellerating at the place they want to be.

I discussed this at length YEARS ago in my story about the ISC vs the Klingons. IIRC the ISC flagship was the Dudley Do Right while the Klingon was the IKV Bunny Slayer...

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 01:12 pm: Edit

That's a great opinion but lots of people prefer floating maps and play the game to play the game, not as some sort of simulation of what would happen between bordering empires in a "real" future with warp travel. All tactical discussions are valid and useful to someone.

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 01:21 pm: Edit

I always thought of the floating map as a safety net for those sticky situations where your turn mode presses you off the edge a bit.
Although, an actual floating map could be practical at summer pool parties.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Fixed maps are unrealistic in most cases as there are no walls in space.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 04:40 pm: Edit

My previous post about not understanding the rationale for the ISC was at least partially intended to express my puzzlement as to why he ISC (historically) adopted that tactic and employed it so frequently, which is a different question than what tactics I would employ as an ISC player.^* In Module C2, the use of echelon tactics is described in R13.1b. That particular section does say that deployment of the echelon varied with the situation (and sometimes broke down into an "armed mob"). But it also says the ISC "almost always" tried to follow the same basic pattern.

I'm not saying the echelon formation is never a good formation. But based on R13.1b, it sounds like the ISC usually tried to use it even in situations where it was inappropriate, rather than taking a more flexible approach and adopting completely different tactics if the enemy forces and the mission made the echelon less effective.


^* Of course, there are other occurances of... suboptimal...tactics being suggested in SFB. There's a scenario in which the text discusses the advisability of PFs (undamaged PFs, mind) dropping their "dangerous" warp boost packs for the upcoming fight. Uhh... no?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 04:43 pm: Edit

My 0.02 Quatloos worth? Floating maps represent the target (or whatever item is of interest to the attacker) being some ten or more light seconds away from the scene of the action.

Still, I have to agree with Mikes assessment of what a "Real Engagement" in the middle of nowhere would look like. Realistic, but not fun for gaming.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Jeff, the problem with pronouncing something "not fun for gaming" is that it's a subjective judgement with which other people will disagree. It's like asking which is the better card game, poker or bridge? Some people will strongly prefer one, some the other, some will enjoy both, and some will enjoy neither.

You can certainly articulate reasons why fixed map is more fun for you. But other people, with different preferences, may not agree. For myself, I prefer floating map (most of the time) for the simple reason that "walls in space" (as Rich Eitzen puts it) strike me as... goofy... and that sense of goofiness somewhat reduces my enjoyment.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 05:01 pm: Edit

My first battle is queued up. My DN (no Fs), 3x CAT, CS, and SC against a Fed DN+, CVL, and 4xCS. It's going to be enlightening for sure.

My force would definitely enjoy having some walls in space this time around. I suspect I will feel that way a lot since I'm running lots of plasma.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 05:50 pm: Edit

I predict the Fed will us proximity photons (Ginger's tactics as a Fed player).

I don't know what the ISC do. (I have lost this kind of battle many times.) So, I will watch how the battle unfolds with interest!

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Many years ago we decided that the best map size was either a double map top to bottom with the objective along the meeting edge of the two maps or if you could find one properly numbered a square one about 40to 45 per side. Both gave the players the option to retreat for a while, but not the option to not engage. SFB is primarily a naval based game. Naval engagements(fleets) are generally fought over a land or fixed objective. Meeting engagements are rare. The objective has to be of a value high enough to risk the action. IN many cases I am more interested in how the battle was fought, not the outcome. Most battles are not even, try finding a method that each side is unequal, but you dont know in the beginning which. You will find you will pick a much more balanced group of ships with less knowledge.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 06:20 pm: Edit

The Feds can't go 31 and also charge all their photon torps. Charge after them at speed 31. If they try to prox phot you, they have to turn away and turn back, and that will let you get hexes closer to them. Once you can get to more effective range, you seem to have a firepower advantage and can make a good fight of it.

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 06:49 pm: Edit

I don't know about that Richard. The Kaufman Retrograde can be very effective on a floating map. Sure, you can pursue and will eventually catch up to the Fed ships. But depending on the relative closing speeds it may take several turns (4-5?) to do so. In that time the Feds will have been able to fire off two or three proximity photons from each tube. At range 30, that's an average of 4 to 6 points of damage per tube over that time. That should degrade the pursuing force considerably.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 07:19 pm: Edit

If the Feds get into a retrograde, let them retrograde out of photon range. Generally my group did not allow fleets to start with a reverse speed, so unless you start at really long ranges, the Feds can't keep the range open as they'd have to start at a very low reverse speed. The ISC could close 30 hexes before the Feds get to top speed.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 07:31 pm: Edit

A long time ago someone (I don't recall who) suggested a rule change that movement in reverse cost double (at least for the warp power). So a retrograding CA would pay 2 power for each movement point, a retrorading NCL would pay 1.33, a retrograding DN would pay a whopping 3 points per movement point, and so on. This would go a long way toward de-fanging the retrograde as an abusive (if you do in fact consider it abusive) tactic.

The rule was never adopted, of course. But personally I always liked the concept.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 08:16 pm: Edit

Fixed map floating map. I prefer a fixed point on the map. Then so many hexes from said point and ships have disengaged. I find that 50 is a good number.

I agree that a battle should have a reason. However, most battles fought are single duels or small Squadron pick up battles of so many BPV per side.

As for retrograde In a open space battle floating map. Look at Tac Intel and C7.2 Disengagement by separation. If the one side retrogrades. Slow down let them get 50 hexes away and battle over. They disengaged by separation. Allowing the other force to fly past and hit whatever their objective was.

That makes retrograde a useful plan only in certain situations.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 09:09 pm: Edit

New info: the terrain is a gas giant. We'll be getting up close and personal or circling around the thing forever. Proximity photons are out of the question.

In any case, a retrograde only works if you allow it to. As Vandar said you can just let them leave. If they try to say they're not disengaging by separation you just let them keep going away, make sure you don't take any internals while slowly chasing, and declare victory via the stalemate rules.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, December 22, 2022 - 10:35 pm: Edit

If your opponent moves 50 hexes away, you cannot declare them disengaged by separation. That's for them to do, and it's optional. If they don't want to disengage, they don't have to.

Generally, a campaign needs some rule or reason to prevent Feds (or anyone) from Kaufman retrograding. The tactic just leads into separated fleets that don't fight. Very boring and a waste of time.

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Friday, December 23, 2022 - 02:17 am: Edit

I agree, you need scenario rules to prevent such abuses. Which is why you have a fixed map as part of most scenarios in the first place: to force a confrontation and limit the effectiveness of passivity.

While a standard 30 x 42 fixed map may be fine in a duel, it can be too constraining in a fleet battle. Perhaps you put four maps together, 2 by 2, so you get a playing area that is 60 x 84. So the four corners would be about 50 (?) hexes from the centre of the four maps. That should be enough space for fleets to maneuver, but not run away endlessly.

If you go off any edge, you have disengaged. Maybe allow disengagement only in certain directions for each side, say within x hexes of the edge they arrived from. Disengagement from anywhere else leads to destruction (there are roving ships out there on the flanks of the main battle, waiting to pick off stragglers).

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, December 23, 2022 - 08:32 am: Edit

JEAN, can you do a search of the archives that are no longer available to us on the BBS? I want my story about the "Bunny Slayer" (Might have been Rabbit Slayer)...

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Friday, December 23, 2022 - 09:11 am: Edit

Any who feel a rule is needed to prevent the retrograde need look no further. There is an actual rule in the actual books.

---

Quote:

(S2.27) STALEMATE: Some situations end in a stalemate. Neither force can (or will) leave, but neither can force the other to leave.

---

---

Quote:

(S2.271) Case 1: Special scenario victory conditions may provide a way to resolve a stalemated scenario.

---

---

Quote:

(S2.272) Case 2: If one player moves consistently toward the other while the other player consistently moves away (or one ship is consistently cloaked) and no internal damage is scored or manned shuttles are destroyed in ten turns, the force moving away (or the cloaked ship) is deemed to have disengaged.

---

---

Quote:

(S2.273) Case 3: If a base, convoy, FRD, or other “fixed target” is involved, and no internal damage has been scored or manned shuttles destroyed in ten turns, the attack force must retreat.

---

---

Quote:

(S2.274) Case 4: If all units are involved in a general melee, but neither player has scored any internal ship damage or crew casualties, or has destroyed any manned shuttles, within a period of ten consecutive turns, a stalemate exists. (This includes damage from mines but not terrain.) The scenario is over. Neither player loses (or gains) points for disengagement. Any positive level of victory is reduced by one level.

---

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Friday, December 23, 2022 - 09:17 am: Edit

Now back to the topic at hand.

It seems to me that a gas giant in the middle of the battlefield is problematic. While it stops a long range proximity battle it also makes it much harder to perform surgical strikes at range 10-15 without being forced into range 8. Range 8 isn't ideal for photons but at the numbers involved it's more than enough to pop a ship. Add in the fact that the Fed scout has more channels and better power than me and it becomes a painful fight.

I need to play it out in SFBOL and try some stuff. If we end up spinning around the planet then I effectively lose since a draw will stop my advance. It wouldn't be as bad of a loss as it would be if I'm forced to disengage, but it's still not optimal because I'm hoping to press forward and attack a base.

I'm contemplating simply disengaging at the start and trying for more optimal terrain. The problem is if the base is in the middle of an upgrade I'll be facing a BATS in the future instead of a BS.

I'll know more after I fiddle some in SFBOL.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Friday, December 23, 2022 - 09:58 am: Edit

Someone pointed this out, but to elaborate the point as far as retrograding goes, it really depends on starting range, previous turn speed, and WS.

In my experience, the "most common" starting conditions for a scenario are WS-III, speed max. In this case, the fastest that ship can go in reverse is to plot speed 0 for 8 impulses, and speed 10 in reverse for impulses 9-32. On turn 2, best they can do is speed 10 for 8 impulses, and speed 20 impulses 9-32.

Also in my experience, the "most common" starting hexes are 1701 and 2530, or within 2-5 hexes of those, and if starting range is 33, and the furthest they can move away from you on turn 1 is 8 hexes, you can close pretty fast, and you'll have an enormous speed advantage going into turn 2, where you'll be engaging.

So unless you're starting really far apart, or have a "previous turn" speed of 0 or any, a Fed loading proximity photons and trying to retrograde against ISC (or any plasma for that matter) is going to not be happy when they're stuck at speed 20 on turn 2 trying to escape close range plasma launches...

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Friday, December 23, 2022 - 10:35 am: Edit

Our campaign specifies Speed 10, WS-II.