Archive through August 28, 2024
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
Reconsideration of a "Standard Minefield" for the X-tech Era:
Archive through August 28, 2024
A "standard minefield" is defined in (M6.2) TYPICAL MINEFIELD and (M6.3) MINE COSTS, with modifications for fields deployed around bases as defined in (M6.33) COST OF MINES DEPLOYED AROUND BASES. I believe this "standard minefield" works well enough during the Middle Years and the early part of the General War. Minesweepers are comparatively rare and specialized. Attacking fleets will (usually) have only one. Some attackers (for example, a smaller force attacking a BATS) may not have any.
But things change rather dramatically once X-ships start appearing in significant numbers. The attacking force may include entire squadrons of ships with minesweeper capabilities. This makes the "standard minefield" progressively less viable.
But even minesweepers / X-ships cannot detect chain and command controlled mines with their automatic detonators disabled. So during the X-tech era I would expect to see increasing use of these types, and decreasing use of automatic mines. This would certainly increase the cost of a minefield but may be necessary when the attacking force includes half-a-dozen or more "minesweepers". Old fashioned automatic mines no longer provide enough of a barrier to X-squadrons.
Cost considerations may indeed still prevent defenders from deploying minefields in which every mine is command detonated. But the proportion of command detonated mines would likely be higher than during the Middle Years or at the start of the GW. So I wanted to open a discussion to consider this issue:
Should there be a redefinition of a "standard minefield" for the X-tech era? If so , what should the new standard look like?
Bombardier Trevor: Take the ball and Run with it...
Sounds like a fun project!
Just throwing an idea out, perhaps the simplest method would be to alter the composition of a mine field.
For example, IIRCC, there is a chart detailing the types and numbers of each mine components. (Small mines, large mines , captor mines etc.)
Such a package of mines, could be altered for each new level of technology above that “Standard Mine Field”. Say, at First Generation X Ship, the number of explosive mines be reduced by some percentage (10%, 5%, or 3%) and the percentage of other types of mine field components (captor mines etc.) be increased.
The structure could be extended for each new level of X Ship tech (2nd gen X ship, etc.) by changing the percentage upward by what ever number is determined to be best for game play.
Just a suggestion.
YMMV.
As a note, the cost of an X-force is not insignificant; it's reasonable to assume that the defender in such a scenario will have more BPV to add additional standard minefield packages (up to the maximum of six). Also, while more of the ships in the attacking force will be capable of minesweeping, they still have to slow down to a painfully slow crawl to do so, ceding the initiative to the defense forces (ships, fighters, gunboats, etc.).
Jessica,
While I agree with much of what you say, the current procedure leaves the standard mine field static (i.e. unchanged in BPV terms.)
What changes, is technology onboard the various ships. That means, while the ship types and size classes haven’t changed, the quality of ship systems, or, at the very least, the number of raw SSD boxes of some systems increase (warp power boxes for one example) change.
I submit, the quality change is both significant and material.
And that is the underlying point that I believe Alan Trevor is trying to make.
certainly barrier type minefields far from plaets or bases will be about useless.
3 X Frigates will clear several hexes "deep" a turn minimum.
Figure 3 turns to roll all 6 detection numbers...
Which rather nicely reinforces the main issue:
Increasing the lethality of post General War era mine fields further weakens the utility of General War Era ships. I know canon and the Game designers comments have referred to GW ships serving on for years after the General War ended. The problem is, such GW era ships do not gain the abilities to sweep mines as X Ships do.
It might even be worse than some people expect.
Thinking about the differences between EY mines and GW era mines. Detection radius comes foremost to mind.
Also thinking about the cost and rarity of X-tech until the whole operational fleet has been upgraded with it. Would a national government want to have so much of its rare (and expensive) X-tech sitting static around a place that might not be attacked, or would they wish to concentrate it on a high-end strategic response force?
Once the whole fleet gets upgraded to X-tech, then maybe minefields can be upgraded with new tech, but until then...
Oh! Just remembered; X-ships can carry/deploy more t-bombs than their non-X predecessors. IIRC, SC3 X-ships can purchase up to six T-bombs and dummies and SC4 can purchase up to four.
Ooookaaayy...
Lemme toss a couple WAG out...
X-mines are stealthier? Up to eight can be within the detection range before an enemy will detect a minefield (instead of six)?
X-mines are tougher? Take an additional two points of general damage to sweep?
X-mines make a bigger boom? Twelve point T-bombs and forty point NSMs?
What if the six detection numbers for individual mines in a minefield were to be increased? A three-by-three grid from two dice for NINE detection numbers, perhaps?
(These are just a couple "Off the top of my head" thoughts, so I'll probably cringe if I re-read this in a couple days... 
)
Oh, bog. I certainly hope not.
Just to remind everyone, that the theme is :
Quote:”… Should there be a redefinition of a "standard minefield" for the X-tech era? If so , what should the new standard look like?”
I could be off base here, but a “redefinition of a “standard minefield”” is a very long way from redesigning all of the mine rules, systems and equipment which might require hundreds of precious and scarce game overworked designer (g.o.d.) manhours spent on a fruitless and ultimately pointless mission to redesign a game rule set (a.k.a. Rule M in the star fleet battles rule book) that still functions perfectly well for years up to and including (estimate here) yr 175 ish.
Ideally, the change (if it happens at all) potentially changes to composition of post General War Minefield by decreasing a few small and large mines in a mine package, and increasing a few additional captor mines.
But changing the basic definition and rules of mines in the rule set has, at the very least, the potential to break the game in ways no one that really cares about the game, would ever want to see.
Yeah, the suggestion was just changing the mix some. And I'm not really sure it's needed, as Jesica Orsini pointed out, minefields still force you to slow down to sweep and X-squadrons have a very high BPV cost.
Has anyone actually played a base assault with a set of 2 or 3 standard mine packages, a BATS, and a reasonable defending squadron against an equal BPV X-squadron assualt and found that the minefields aren't a worthwhile investment against X-tech?
Okay, some comments on the posts so far.
As Jeff Wile and Douglas Lampert have already pointed out, this topic wasn't intended to be about new rules or new technologies. Rather, the question is whether the (M6.2) TYPICAL MINEFIELD makes sense in the X-tech era or whether a different "mix" of already-existing mine types would would be more "typical" in that era. If Jeff Anderson wants to propose some new "X-tech mines" he can do so, but I also believe ADB already have several on file and don't need additional proposals along those lines.
Where I disagree with Jeff W. is regarding the makeup of the "new mix". He appears to think the main change should be in things like relative ratios of large to small mines, or captors to explosive mines; at least based on statements in his August 25, 2024 - 06:31 AM and August 25, 2024 - 09:35 PM posts. But I think the more important change would be to increase the number of command-detonated (for a base defense minefield) mines. As Mike Grafton pointed out in his August 25, 2024 - 11:14 AM post, an X-squadron will "map" the minefield much more quickly than a standard-tech squadron will. This, by itself, means the "standard minefield" won't delay an X-squadron nearly as much as it would a standard-tech squadron of comparable BPV and overall combat power.
Regarding Douglas Lampert's excellent question
Quote:Has anyone actually played a base assault with a set of 2 or 3 standard mine packages, a BATS, and a reasonable defending squadron against an equal BPV X-squadron assault and found that the minefields aren't a worthwhile investment against X-tech?
all I can say is I have not. But I have played a BATS defense against an X-squadron (or mixed force including several X-ships) enough to make me strongly suspect that is the case.
One final point, which does concern me about the proposal; would a "post-Y185 'standard minefield'" (to pick and arbitrary date), with a high percentage of command-detonated mines, be so deadly that "standard tech" forces become useless in a base assault? Or would it have the opposite effect; "leveling the playing field" by minimizing the advantage X-ships have in their greatly enhanced ability to detect automatic mines? I'm not sure.
I would agree with Alan here, except I would also add in more dead man switch mines, not just command detonation ones. The point here is improve the effectiveness of an existing, relatively cheap, technology. I do not see a lot of funds spent here over all. At least during the General War.
A Scout, PFT, and a drone ship working together would also grant a rapid mapping of a minefield. This I have done recently, and it hasn't aided the breach significantly. I'm not convinced an X Squadron would pierce a minefield much faster than a well thought out standard minesweeping effort. Especially if the field is well defended.
Let's look at the standard minefield - we have 69 mines costing 100 BPV [plus one BPV per chain, deadman, or command added (base cost of 136), 11 chain/deadman included]. the bulk of which are the 40 small explosive mines, 15 large explosive, 7 small captors, 3 large captors and 4 sensor.
Increasing the number of mine by 20% say would add 8 small, 3 large, 1 small captor, maybe 1 large captor and/or sensor. would the cost be increased to 110 or 115? Would the captors use the 'new' weapon rules (X1 or X2 when needed)?
Minefields around bases are given a 50% discount (M6.33) and should include 3-5 command for regular traffic routes.
So when upping the ability of a minefield, we have - increasing the numbers, increase the damage given (explosive), increase the damage taken (all), increase the range (captor, sensor), and/or add more chain, deadman, and/or command. Anything else to think about?
Alan Trevor:
I will not argue the point, except that in my defense, my logic was to keep the total number of objects (small mines, large mines, Captor mines ect…) in the mine packages consistent in total number of objects to be swept from one generation of minefields to the next level iteration up.
I should have explained it better.
My logic, is that the number of objects, being made to be consistent in each case, means that for game purposes, each example of minefields would be, by definition, comparable, as in ‘apples to apples’ instead of being a asymmetrical ‘apples to oranges’ comparison.
As Stewart noted above, 69 individual mines per package of mines of a standard mix would be the control data point for analysis.
If there were a similar mix of 69 mines in a (oh, lets call it a) “first generation X-ship era mine field” package of mines, it would be a simple task in play testing to determine what value increase there is for BPV purposes.
Just increasing the number of additional mines of various types would work, but the analysis would be more complicated, as well as increasing the work load on the minefield player/controller.
My intent was to try for a quality change to the existing minefields at as little cost to players workloads as possible.
To sum up, increased complexity has other costs to consider, such as creating more record keeping required for the increase in mines in the mine field.
Just adding more mines increasing the mine density on the map slows the game down.
I regret not being able to state it in fewer words.
Joseph Jackson;
All I can say is that my experience has been quite different, perhaps due to different tactics or different empires involved. I've found the speed at which the attacker can "map" the minefield to be an important factor in the ability to subsequently breech it.
Regarding an X-squadron compared to a standard-tech squadron with multiple special sensor-equipped ships (scout + PFT + drone ship), I believe X-ships and "true" minesweepers still have an advantage. To take one example; if I am reading M7.21 correctly, scouts are still only able to make one attempt to detect individual mines every 8 impulses. Only X-ships and minesweepers can make a detection attempt every 4 impulses. And only X-ships and minesweepers can ignore the ECM penalty in (M8.12) PENALTY FOR NON-MINESWEEPERS, when actually trying to sweep a mine. So while ships with special sensors have some advantages over "regular ships" (detecting individual mines at greater ranges under (M7.321), for example), they still fall short of actual minesweepers and X-ships in their overall ability to breech minefields.
Some additional random thoughts:
One advantage X-ships have over other ships in breeching minefields is their ability to accelerate more rapidly and to change speeds more frequently during a turn. Ships trying to detect individual mines must be moving at effective speed six or less. And a ship attempting to actually sweep a detected mine is probably approaching it at speed one. X-ship maneuver advantages mean they are less vulnerable during this phase because they can get back up to "fighting speed" more quickly.
A reason not to make every mine command controlled: Under (M5.24) SAME HEX two command controlled mines cannot be placed in the same hex. If you want a really dense minefield with multiple mines per hex (at least in some locations), some of those mines must be automatics.
On reflection, a new rule about what constitutes a "standard minefield" may not be needed, after all. I have always understood (M6.31) COST OF MINES PURCHASED INDIVIDUALLY to allow the purchase of command detonators for a "standard package" as an additional expense of 1 point per detonator. If this is the case, than players already have the ability to create a minefield of the type I envision by buying one or more standard packages and then buying additional command detonators using the M6.31 provisions. So maybe Jeff Wile was on the right track after all, looking at different options for X-tech era "standard packages", with different ratios of large to small or explosive to captor types; then using M6.31 provisions to make the desired number of these mines command rather than automatic.
Alan Trevor, you make some valid points. I'd love to discuss them at length sometime. For now, to expand on your last post, instead of rules changes, aren't we just talking about adding points to the defending player against x ships. And wouldn't that just be covered by the modified victory conditions?
Do we need to fix something that isn't necessarily broke?
Don't get me wrong, I actually love the idea of super high tech mines. But for the cost of a frigate, I can do some serious minefield upgrades.
/I{Under (M5.24) SAME HEX two command controlled mines cannot be placed in the same hex. If you want a really dense minefield with multiple mines per hex (at least in some locations), some of those mines must be automatics. }
Don't forget about the chain option …
I think Joseph makes the best point so far. No changes are needed. Players expecting to defend against x-ships can use BPVs to upgrade their mines themselves.
When x-ships become available in F&E, the empires get XTPs (X-Tech Points) added to their treasury each turn in addition to their EPs received. They can use some of the extra funds for minefield improvements. Just add some BPVs to the minefield without making any changes to the rules.
An added benefit to this method is that the attacker won't be able to anticipate the changes made. He'll have to guess.
John Christiansen:
You make a good case for maintaining the status quo, but… not everyone playing the game has ten or more years of experience as the majority of people posting comments here.
For me, personally, I would advocate a Captains Log article that present several examples of “suggested” minefield configurations, each a representative of a different era of technological development.
For example, start with the existing “standard minefield “ table.
Then detail the changes to reflect adjustments for first Generation X-Ship tech, perhaps showing a 103% BPV cost (the 3% represents added captor mines etc).
So too, a table that gives an example of of what a Second Generation X-Ship tech minefield might be: perhaps a value of 106%?
I do not know if 3% or 6% are appropriate increases, just throwing a number out for an example.
But at least it would document and explain the issue that Alan Trevor initially presented.
Even if it appears that Alan may have changed his position somewhat, I believe that aCaptains Log article would address the need for educating newer players to the practical aspects of “retconning” minefields.
Perhaps with the advent of X mines just got better?
Not when X ships were rare, but as they became common. So mines got stealthy coatings which eliminated the X ship advantage.
Jeff,
I think the idea of a Captain's Log article considering different possible configurations of "typical" minefields is a good one. But I don't think it should include X2 for the simple reason that we don't know what the X2 ships and rules will ultimately look like. Anything the article could say about minefields in the X2 era would be either too conjectural or too generic to be worthwhile, in my opinion.
But what might be worthwhile is a consideration of how different empires might change things. Would an ideal Tholian minefield (wedding cake defense) really look like anyone else's? How about Romulan compared to Gorn? A Romulan BATS and a Gorn BATS have very similar weapons. But a Romulan BATS can cloak. This gives it options not available to a Gorn BATS. Might that affect minefield deployment?
Or what about different enemies. Would a Federation Minefield on the Klingon border really look like a minefield on the Romulan border, given the different capabilities of the two empires?
I think there is a lot of potentially interesting stuff for such an article, even ignoring X2.
Example of why a "typical" Federation minefield on the Klingon border might look different from one on the Romulan border:
A cloaked Romulan ship has a better chance of slipping past an automatic mine without being detected. The cloak also greatly reduces its vulnerability to captor mines (see (G13.55) MINES). So an anti-Romulan minefield might have fewer captors and more explosive mines, and a higher percentage of those explosive mines might have command detonators.
Jeff, I'm not sure why the level of player experience matters.
I heartily agree that a Captain's Log article is a good idea, but I would expand it a bit to include the introduction of PFs and possibly for fighter/drone swarm defense. X2 should be omitted until after X2 is introduced. After all, the article would be about mine deployment more than X-tech defense.
Alan, your idea of describing different minefields by different empires and the bordering empires is also good, and would likely do more to fill out a CL article than any other subject.