Agreed this whole thread has turned into some kind of never ending Gorn vs drns discussion, and how terribly inadequate their defenses or options are vs a non historical opponent in ONE 500BPV squadron action. SMH.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, March 26, 2025 - 07:20 pm: Edit

Myself I was looking forward to trying out Dink and dunk with sabot torps. With decoy drogues instead of one-use WW. Could my Sabot R torps. Catch them even with tractor tricks.

Then real life hit. 10 hour days seven days a week. I need that over time money. Maybe next time I can get in. Would love to play Paravians then.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Wednesday, March 26, 2025 - 08:02 pm: Edit

I agree the analysis of one game has went on a while. A couple of final points.

I had lots of drone control, never got close to being in trouble. I still had at least one more full reload of drones left on the C7 and more than that on the D6D. I was also fairly aggressive in launching drones, but then following them in, maybe to much, I was trying to give Peter lots of targets to shoot and launch at.

One item to keep in mind. My force is drone heavy but disruptor, direct fire weak. I have 12 drone racks and with SPs the ability to launch 18 drones a turn for the first 4 or 5 turns of an engagement. But I only have 4 disr on the C7 and then 2 short range each on the E4's which can't effectively overload or have power for ECM games. Only the C7 has ph-1's, otherwise it's ph-2s on the other ships. My next opponent is a Fed with I believe 11 photons, 20 or 22ish ph-1's.

Being short disruptors is why Peter noted that it seemed in the first 10 turns most of his shield damage was inflicted by swordfish drones. I think the C7 got one decent volley on the HDD on T4 to weaken a shield.

But now I know the D6D has a number of extra swordfish drones stuffed away in the cargo, I'll be launching even more of them faster. The Feds will need to be pretty good on their ADD rolls. I expect that with 18 drones a turn for 4 turns, I may very well run the ADD's out of ammo before I have to break off and reload racks myself.

By Geoffrey Clark (Spartan) on Wednesday, March 26, 2025 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Dana, thanks for your thoughts on force design, especially the point about trade-offs between drone power and direct firepower.

Justin, we can agree to disagree. I'm here to take in opinions and be objective. If I was a player, my opinion would and should be deemed subjective. Please, more Dr. Jekyll and less Mr. Hyde from you.

Even though the discussion has gone on for a while, I don't see that as a problem. If a reader of this forum does not like the content, they have a few choices:

1) Post something else on topics that they want to discuss pertaining to this tournament, or SFB fleet tactics in general.

2) Stop reading these posts, since they are not interesting or relevant to you.

Please notice that complaining about other people's posts on this topic is not an option on the list. As the judge and requester of this channel, if I'm asking for people's opinions, then it is entirely reasonable for people to respond on topic. If those of us who are more verbose here want to discuss the battles at length, why not? This is the purpose of this forum.

That said, I'm happy with the opinions of the players that have been expressed so far, thank you. For the next iteration (tentatively scheduled for Autumn 2025), I'll adjust the tournament rules slightly based on the feedback received.

Just to reiterate the statement of objectives, I'm trying to generate a SFB fleet battle tournament with all of the latest tech (but no X-tech) that matches the balance level in the Module T tournament. I started with the CL15 format, as a starting point, but the idea was always to adjust and experiment, based on battle results, and player discussion. If somebody wants to take this format in a different direction, its totally open to them. No one else was thinking in this direction as far as I could tell, which is why I volunteered to do the work and run this tournament to get it off the ground. I also wanted to demonstrate that there is latent demand for fleet size SFB, and gather statistics about how long EAF, turns and overall battles take, so players can better gauge the necessary time commitment.

SFB Module T has been remarkably well balanced for years, but even still things are debated, sometimes ad nauseam it seems. There are matchups that are less well-balanced, but there is always an opportunity of some kind to use a creative tactic that might cause surprise and thereby yield results. Thus, not every matchup in this fleet battle tournament will be perfectly balanced, this is an unattainable goal. But, I'm hoping that we can arrive at more balance than some simple rule like "don't fly race X".

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 07:03 am: Edit

test

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 09:50 am: Edit

I agree that there has been a lot of analysis and discussion of a single battle. That's because that's what people are posting about. I posted detailed descriptions of my game, turn by turn, as, well, I enjoy doing that, and it seemed relevant to the discussion at hand. People asked questions. I provided more information. Dana provided further information. People asked him questions. He provided further information. This was largely, for my money, an interesting and fun conversation (but for a few exceptions). It is providing data, information, and opinions for the judge to use at his discretion.

If someone wants to see discussion about another battle? Post detailed information on other battles. But no one is doing that. We saw some vague updates on one fight that ended off screen. We saw a modestly detailed description of another fight (that was also very limited on any detail, and the game ended fairly abruptly by concession). We saw a light on details, one post synopsis of the third fight. All of these were, at best, limited on detail and contained not much information that could lead to any significant analysis. And that's fine. If people don't want to put effort into posting detailed reports of their games, that's ok. But it means that the games that *do* see detailed reports? They will get significant analysis.

The way to prevent discussion of one game from taking up all the air in the room? Discuss another game by posting detailed play by plays. As that is what generates discussion.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Geof I am NOT complaining, I am offering a logical and reasonable counter point, even Petrick had to chime in as this is just overkill, bigtime.

I would love to hear about some of the other battles, anything else. This is a case of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory and even peter has acknowledge that.

If you want to thug me and throw down your badge to silence me, no problem. I did just win the sapphire 18 and had an insane margin of victory in my rnd 1 match, but what do I know? LOL.

If you see me just as a dissident then again you are coming from a flawed perspective. I am simply providing the realistic and reasonable counter point that this is really more about player error and less about gorn capabilities.

I will leave it here, and the drn heavy force vs the gorn force certainly can cause problems, I think we have that well established.

I am not posting here to simply complain and I have provided clear, logical reasons for the gorn defeat, marginal as it was. Simply put, again, the player made a few "mistakes" that allowed the IMHO somewhat weak klingon force to re-take the field and win the day.

I just dont want to see this basic format that has worked just fine for 75% of the battles in round 1 to be thrown under the bus, again due to one skewed and somewhat poorly played squadron action.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 12:18 pm: Edit

>>I would love to hear about some of the other battles, anything else.>>

You had all the opportunity in the world to post detailed reports of your own battle. You chose not to do that. Here we are.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Finally, I am not trying step on anyones toes or to judge/ evaluate anyone level of play. I am trying and seem to be the only voice of reasonable counter-point. I am only doing this b/c I feel strongly that this discussion is flawed, deeply, as it pertains to the environment (map) and the tournament. When I say above "somewhat poorly played" as an example, I am using the players own words, paraphrasing perhaps, but not flaming.

IMHO this is a deeply flawed discussion that should have moved on but has somehow persisted for days as if this is a real issue that should be addressed. It is not and there is no issue, the real issue was player choice and player skill in that moment, nothing else.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 12:21 pm: Edit

wrong, I posted an adequate battle report Peter and there was even some discussion around the battle. That is simply un-true.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 01:27 pm: Edit

And yet, your limited report generated limited discussion, as there wasn't much to discuss--it was a very one sided battle where mistakes were made (apparently, largely due to misunderstanding some rules).

Have a new battle. Post detailed reports. I'm sure you'll get traction. Stop being the guy in the room who is standing around and antagonizing everyone else in the room. Be productive, instead.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 02:24 pm: Edit

the problem here is not the volume of discussion it is the result of said discussion. Nobody is antagonizing you, lol. this groups has always had the thinnest skin and gets so easily offended, missing the meat of the matter entirely b/c of hurt feelings.

The reality of this battle was simple, gorns had an early advantage they did not press for w/e reasons and then allowed to klingons to pile up tons of drns over several turns to sneak out a close win. End of story.

Again, even Petrick pretty much said enough in so many words. Your battle reports are super detailed and a great read, thank you for taking to time to do that Peter. The issue again is not the volume, it is the outcome, that somehow this one battle = gorns bad and changes need to be made to the format. 75% of the turn 1 battles did not report any issues, somehow again the smallest crowd with the loudest voice garners the most attention. *shrug*

I will leave it there but again, the idea that the format is the issue is just not true regardless of the volume of discussion about this one battle.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 02:33 pm: Edit

What outcome? There is no outcome.

There is some discussion. And some ideas. And that's it. You seem to be imagining that because of some discussion, the entire game is being rewritten. Nothing has happened. Nothing has changed. A few people are discussing ideas and possibilities, 'cause it is fun to do that. No one has done or changed *anything*.

The judge may or may not take the results of some of these games into account for the next time he does this. We'll see.

Play your games. Settle down. Post detailed reports and generate your own discussion and garner your own attention.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Settle down? Ok dad, lol, SMH.

I am sorry your gorns got beat up by the klingons, better luck next time. Thank you for the detailed battle reports of your slow and steady decline from a near certain victory to and gradual route of your forces. Great read, sir.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 03:51 pm: Edit

What is wrong with you?

By David Cheng (Davec) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 08:43 pm: Edit

SFB is a game whose fan base is attritioning down to micro levels.

It seems to me that any and all discussion about the game, by people who are still passionate enough about the game that they are willing to contribute their precious eyeball engagement time, should be celebrated, not criticized.

Are there so many posts here every day that you can’t keep up?

-DC

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Dana I think it is Kzinti that gets 50% other get 25%

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, March 27, 2025 - 11:53 pm: Edit

After going over the current BBS discussion in this week's Talkshoe podcast, I was thinking about certain "specialty" ships, in terms of which ones - and how many, if any, of them - should or should not appear in the same squadron here.

But before I go into any further detail, I wanted to clarify: is the version of the 500 BPV setup being used here the same one as seen in this sub-thread, dating to the 4th of February 2025?

If so, I wanted to double-check about this rule:

---

Quote:

PERMITTED: BCH (S8.333), Scouts (S8.35), Tugs (S8.46) (Battle Tugs only, pods are fixed), Drone Ships (S8.47), Stasis Field Ships (S8.42), Maulers (S8.43), Fast Ships (S8.57), ships subject to shock (D23) are permitted. Only one such ship from this list may be selected.

---

By Geoffrey Clark (Spartan) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 05:49 am: Edit

Hello Gary,

The wording of that rule was poor, and I clarified this in discussions previously. Dana did ask about this, whether a BCH class AND a Drone ship together is legal, and I confirmed it is.

This is the current version of that rule:

---

Quote:

PERMITTED: BCH (S8.333), Scouts (S8.35), Tugs (S8.46) (Battle Tugs only, pods are fixed), Drone Ships (S8.47), Statis Field Ships (S8.42), Maulers (S8.43), Fast Ships (S8.57), ships subject to shock (D23), or prototype ships (per the R section description) are permitted. Only one of each type of these ships from this list may be selected (for example, one BCH and one mauler and one Fast Ship and one scout would be permitted), however only one ship total with special sensors.

---

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 08:02 am: Edit

Eddie, the D6D is listed as a DB ship in the master annex so it gets higher drone limits. The C7's and the E4's in my force do not get higher percentages.

By Geoffrey Clark (Spartan) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 10:07 am: Edit

Hi Gary,

Let me add some additional rationale for the drone ship and survey ship permissibility in this tournament.

My rule R-sections are still on paper and tucked away, but from what I recall about the D6D, it is indeed a specialized drone ship, intended for drone bombardment, as in the F&E capability to add extra compot, etc. But, there is a statement to the effect of "some D6Ds were pressed into service as stand-in scouts", or similar. So, I'm not too concerned about the use of a D6D as a scout/drone ship.

As a side note, I've estimated some Kzinti forces, something like MCD, SDF, DFx2 ... which I felt was the "max" drone force, 25 drone racks (two of which are C-racks) and only two DISR! But, if in the future SC2 units are permitted (which I'm considering) a Drone Dreadnaught (DND) can apparently launch 18 drones per turn ?!? insane. But, nonetheless, both the SDF and DF are also drone bombardment ships, and are likewise permitted.

Similarly, the Fed Galactic Survey Cruiser (GSC) was pressed into service as a CVL in wartime (again from R-section memory), so it is known to have a warship role. As I recall, the Fed CVL may optionally operate with escorts (?). I'm considering permitting some use of casual carriers with up to six fighters, and also two casual PFs, for drone defense, or just extra firepower. This was the "in-universe" solution to fast drone waves in the Y180+ era, and so it seems to be the best way to balance drone firepower. The "build your own" HDW style ship seems like a good way to allow players to round out their fleet and cover whatever capability is required.

However, this might necessitate some kind of limit on Kzinti and Klingons drone racks/fighters/PFs. This is akin to the Module T limits on Kzinti and Klingon drones. If there were no limits at all, a Kzinti carrier group in Y180 could pretty much overwhelm any drone defense, as well as overwhelm our playability tolerance. That said, a drone heavy force is a completely legitimate force that should be permitted and given every chance to compete. It does stretch the patience a bit to play and defend so many drones, but this is the nature of SFB.

Anyway, I want to allow freedom for players to explore whatever oddball ships they want to take, as long as it is not a conjectural unit. I don't want to get into auxiliaries / monitors, but I think we've almost found the right filter there. If you really want to take that battle tug into combat, have at it!

Hope that makes sense as the thought process behind our incremental search for balance. This is NOT based on just the recent Gorn-Klingon match, it is careful thought and experience in fleet battles from our many veteran players, with some feedback on play with the "new" rules.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 10:55 am: Edit

Spartan,

I think you better recheck that Kzinti DND. I think you're misinterpreting the SSD, and the rules for Type-D drone racks. IF I recall the SSD correctly (I'll have to check when I get home), it can only launch six drones a turn but, in practical terms, it never has to take a rack offline to reload it... unless you play a scenario that lasts almost 80 turns.

Or you could go with nothing but heavy drones (since the Type-IV is "general availability") and still launch six every turn, without a break, for about 40 turns...

Maybe I'm misremembering the SSD. As I said, I'll check this evening when I get home. But I'm pretty sure the threat of the DND is that it can launch six per turn, with no interruptions, almost (in tactical terms) forever.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 11:08 am: Edit

Thank you for the clarifications regarding the rule in question; about allowing the Fed GSC to join the fun; as well as your explanation as to where things are - or where they might go from here.

I do have a few follow-on thoughts, such as they are:

----

Firstly, to correct an error from my last post:

I had referred to the Klingon D7D as a drone ship. While it is a drone variant, it's not technically a "drone bombardment" ship, in the same manner as a D6D.

However, there is the likes of the Klingon D5D, which is perhaps a closer equivalent to the Federation NCD in terms of operation.

-----

Also, I should note that if only one "DB" ship is allowed per squadron, the Kzintis would not be able to combine an MDC, one or more DFs, and other such units into a single squadron here.

Of course, even "line" Kzinti ships are liable to have plenty of drone racks. But even they have at least some limitations on this in the present setup.

-----

By and large, my reasoning - such as it is - would be that, with only so many points to spare on the ships of a given squadron, I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to allow units which can do too many "mission variant" things at once.

For example: if the Klingons or Kzintis were obliged to take separate "scout" and "drone bombardment" ships, they'd still have a large number of drones and control channels, plus the ability to leverage the scout in order to bolster this. And yet, with the limit of only two Size Class 3 ships per squadron, they'd have to make more difficult choices as to which role to prioritize (by using the larger base hull for it) before the battle, and then be obliged to consider how to keep both alive so that they can act as force multipliers for each other.

Which, in turn, might make things marginally fairer for enemy squadrons without such large quantities of drones to make use of...

-----

Beyond this, I'm not sure that, for the sake of a viable tournament, the answer to pre-existing attrition unit clutter is to add yet more such clutter.

My understanding is that, if the games played here to date, the ones which have taken the most time per turn (when both players are "present" to play out such turns, I mean) are those with large numbers of drones. And that keeping tabs on the drones themselves is a key factor contributing to the amount of time being taken.

If future tournaments were to allow more of a presence for attrition units, to include light carriers and/or "casual" PFs, this might risk pushing things yet further in that direction.

As it stands, even if the Gorns were to deploy a squadron under the current rules with a HBD carrying a pair of plasma-D racks, this would not be overly different from the kind of "clutter" presence the current Gorn squadron had to operate already.

-----

Indeed, I might wonder if it would be an idea to oblige HDWs to "put back" the admin shuttles replaced by the two "casual" fighters - and, in the process, remove the fighter ready racks.

If the current "no fighters" rule were to remain in place for Alpha empires other than the Hydrans - or possibly the Borak, should they be added someday - I wouldn't necessarily agree with letting the presence of an HDW act as a way of circumventing this.

For comparison's sake, over in Federation Commander HDWs don't have "casual" fighters; they have them swapped out for admin shuttles instead.

-----

Overall, in the case of further refining this squadron tournament setup, I might argue that "less is more", in terms of such things as "clutter" and "double-dipping", at least.

Whether it's barring the presence of ships that have both the scout diamond and the "DB" listing on their respective entries in the Module G3 SITs; "buying back" the "casual" fighters on most Alpha empires' HDWs; keeping the current ban on Size Class 2 ships, light carriers, and on non-Lyran "casual" Alpha PFs: or even dialing the year of the tournament itself back a year or few: these might, or might not, be a more iterative means of fine-tuning things here.

Although, I don't claim to be an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination. If the players involved see a different way forward, well and good.

-----

That said, one area where I do think that "more is more" is in terms of new empires.

Even if one were to stay in the Alpha Octant for a while yet, the Orions; the Andromedans; the "lost empire" Paravians and Carnivons from Module C6; and the playtest Borak and Peladine from Module E3 and Module E4 respectively; have all been allowed in recent Battle Group 550 rounds of submission in Captain's Log.

Should one, or more, of these factions be permitted to join a future edition of the Alpha 500 BPV tournament setup?

Of those, the Orions and Andros might pose particular challenges. But the Paravians and Carnivons should pose fewer problems. As might the Borak and Peladine, though they are technically not yet at the same "formal publication" status as the two Module C6 empires.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 11:26 am: Edit

If the Peladine are added from playtest module E4, I would respectfully request (as the designer thereof) that two of the special sensors be stripped from their scout cruiser, and that BPV be increased by ten points (both economic and combat). It was designed over 30 years ago, when I was young and eager, and it is way over-done for way too cheap.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 11:36 am: Edit

One other thought, "borrowed" from the Gorn-related discussion in this thread:

-----

If the Gorns, or other Alpha empires in this tournament setup, were to be granted a means of dealing with large numbers of drones without adding more "clutter" to the map, one option could be to open the box marked "partial-X refits".

As in, to permit one ship per squadron to replace its phasers with phaser-1Xs under the rules in (XR3.0); these include the rapid-pulse system and the larger X-phaser capacitors. While that same ship could be permitted to buy "limited" non-X Aegis under (XR2.31).

To be clear, no other partial-X refits would be allowed: so no X-batteries, no X-heavy weapons, and so on and so forth.

-----

To use the Gorn example from earlier:

Under these rules, a Gorn HBD could install a number of phaser-1Xs, as well as the means of controlling them via "limited" non-X Aegis.

However, since HDWs are "war production ships" under (XR4.1), any plasma racks installed in the RA OPT mounts could not be upgraded to plasma-DX racks, even if the proposed tournament rules in this post were to otherwise permit this (which, to reiterate, they would not).

While the BPV cost for the limited Aegis install is 1 point per phaser on the ship, the plasma racks would be covered "for free" - though any benefit to this would be limited to bolting a plasma-D under (FP10.13) in any event.

The rest of the squadron would have to get by as normal, however.

Or perhaps not. Even if the Gorns went ahead with installing those plasma racks on the HBD, they could still decide to give the partial-X refit to a different ship in the squadron instead...

-----

So, how does this concept sound?