IMO, introducing partial X refits may not be a good idea. It might end up nerfing the seeker races (including plasma).

I will say this about Justin's counter-arguments - they did make me rethink the issue with the Gorn. One solution that is S-8 compliant is simply to have a force that includes a legal escort. Given that Gorns have excellent carriers that still wield heavy plasma, they could easily design a force that includes one or two escorts. The fighter group would also certainly massively increase D&D resistance.

Anyway, Justin convinced me the problem is not the Gorn per se, but force design for *that* particular matchup. No need to mess with tourney format yet, IMO, except *maybe* to rethink whether a smaller map is warranted.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 04:33 pm: Edit

>>the problem is not the Gorn per se, but force design for *that* particular matchup.>>

The problem with viewing the issue like that is that my force was an "average" force--CC, CW, DW, DWS. My opponent's force was an "extreme" force (all drones at the expense of DF). With freely designed forces, you are likely going to end up with average forces (i.e. some ships that seem reasonable together, but don't lean too heavily into one particular end of the spectrum) and extreme forces (i.e. a very focused force that leans heavily into a very extreme version of a strategy). Average forces will likely do fine against other average forces. Average forces will likely be either overmatched or undermatched against extreme forces. Which leads to strange results sometimes. Extreme forces *also* will likely be either overmatched or undermatched against other extreme forces. I think the possibility of extreme forces vastly increases the likelihood of RPS issues.

The advantage of the 500 BPV tournament as presented originally in the CL was that the forces were all pre-selected (you got ships and could tailor the drones and COs, but the forces were pre-designed), and generally speaking, they were all average forces that all likely had a reasonable chance against each other.

When we did the DW squadron tournament (X years back...), again the forces were pre-selected, and the forces all tended to be pretty average (i.e. no extreme numbers of drone racks, no extreme numbers of photons, etc). Forces were all pretty average, and the games seemed pretty balanced as a result.

It is fun to select your own force, so I certainly see the advantage of that, in terms of getting people to want to play. But I suspect that if one wants a reasonably working system with blind/random opponent selection that works, your choices are probably:

1) Pre-selected forces that all tend towards average.

or

2) More limitations on things, such that extreme forces are harder to maximize.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 05:59 pm: Edit

@Peter, I agree with what you said.

I also believe that force design is part of the tournament itself. I, personally, don't have a problem with it in this context, even if it does lead to imbalances in certain force matchups. This isn't official tourney, after all, where maximum balance is sought.

For that reason, I wouldn't go with "1". Part of the fun of this setting is the ability to design your own fleet within S8, BPV, and year limitations. In fact, I *almost* signed up for this tournament because it looked fun for that reason. (Sadly, I'm just too busy in RL for SFB right now.)

I'm curious what you mean by your option "2)". Do you have notions of such limitations, and why?

Personally, I think extreme forces are already culled to a certain degree by way of S8.0. Furthermore, extreme forces tend to get axed at some point in a tourney environment when they run up against a force that just happens to be good at dealing with their extreme strength trait.

So, at least for now, I don't see a value to either "1" or "2".

Further thoughts?

By Ronald J. Brimeyer (Captainron) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Ted, I do not believe carriers are allowed in this format. Peter's talk of extreme forces does give me an idea. I could design an extreme Gorn force and when Dana has time we could play.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 06:48 pm: Edit

I mean, I agree that designing forces is part of the appeal here. Which is why I suspect more limitations on things are possibly in order. But what those are certainly remain to be seen.

Some limits on drones (although the problem there is that even the most average Kzinti force is gonna have 16 drone racks)? Some limits on hulls (maybe "no more than 2 of the same hull")? Limits on scatter pack use? Just spitballing.

Like, I suspect that if it was y175, drones (being speed 20) would be way easier to manage for everyone, but also I see the appeal of y180.

I mean, I dunno. I suspect that a lot of "extreme" force selections will result in battles that are one sided, one way or another, leading to a lot of random RPS wins.

By Ronald J. Brimeyer (Captainron) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 06:54 pm: Edit

Mr Petrick, I am sorry but comparing how the Gorn does in a balanced tournament with all kinds of special rules, to this format is not even apples to oranges, it is more like apples to watermelons. There are valid points on both sides of this debate, but anyone using that as "proof" of their point of view has zero debating skills.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Force composition had zero to do with it, nerfing drn users.. no to that as well. This is a skill issue, nothing else. The Gorn force was capable of dealing with the klingon force as is, skill issue.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Skill issue is a good phrase.

The Gorns were winning that battle. Then some how were broken apart where the scout was alone and Easly destroyed.

Ships in a group have better drone defense. Tractor tricks to move when needed. I also did not read anywhere that probes were used to identify seeking weapons.

The klingons were played as The C7 and the other ships as expendable support.

Plasma on a large open map is tough to gain hits. Yet the Gorn did get some hits. Was that the sabot? Was it bad play by the Klingon. Aggressive play by the Klingon? Should the Gorn been more aggressive?

I prefer to play such battles. The force selection to me sucked. Only 2 size class 3 the rest size class 4. A group of equal size class turn mode or much easier to control and operate. I did the best I could with 2 KE 2 BH (BHB and BH) I have never really used Sabot torps. I was curious to see if I could get hits on such a map. Klingon D7C all refits D7b all refits, Then either anther D7 hull are support version D6D D7A, easy for IA and moving in a group. Those size class 4 ships. Something to get blown up.

I wish I could have fought my battle. My opponent getting sick. Then I accepted getting on the money boat. 10 hours a day 7 days. That overtime money does not come that often. I can hope to get on the next one. I really wish everyone luck

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Friday, March 28, 2025 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Peter,
I do not think limiting what a ship can do with her resources is a good idea.

If a drone ship can only have 1 SP and x # of sp 32 drones, then that drone ship will want to see limits on the use of sabots !?!?
Slippery slope I fear.

Restricting hulls works though.

Cheers
Frank

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, March 29, 2025 - 09:16 am: Edit

What if the partial-X phaser refit from my last post were to be limited to a single ship of Size Class 4 - to include an HDW for this purpose?

While it is true that certain Size Class 3 hulls - not least the Gorn BCH - might be a little too good at dealing with enemy drone waves if permitted to install this refit, I don't think it would be quite as much of a problem if it was installed on a smaller ship.

Bear in mind that a given XP-ship can only be given as many phaser-1Xs as the "base hull" version of that same ship has phaser-1s or phaser-2s. And they have to be in the same locations (and firing arcs) as they would be on the base hull - with a partial exception for an adjacent pair of phaser-3s being replaced with a single phaser-1X, under (XR3.12).

So, for example, no "mission variant" of the Gorn battle destroyer can have more than four phaser-1Xs installed - even if the specific variant being upgraded happens to have more phaser-1s (or adjacent pairs of phaser-3s) than this on board.

Plus, while rapid-pulse phasers are useful - albeit limited to targets of Size Class 6 or 7 on XP-ships - the limitation of only being able to install "limited" Aegis with them might be less of a balancing issue, as opposed to the "full" Aegis an Alpha carrier escort could leverage if permitted to appear here instead.

-----

On another note:

In terms of size limitations for Alpha Octant squadrons: what if only the flagship was allowed to have a Move Cost of 1? (Or a Move Cost of 3/4 or above, in the event that the Borak were to be allowed to take part at some later point in time.)

For the purposes of thus rule, certain "outlier" hulls, like the Federation CS, would "round up" to MC 1. So if a Fed player wishes to fly one, it would have to be used as the squadron's flagship.

This would still allow for (non-Borak) Alpha ships of Move Cost 3/4; for example, the Romulans would get to make use of the GryphonHawk from Module R12. But, it would prevent them from, say, taking both a NovaHawk and a FireHawk in the same squadron.

I list the Borak as an exception, as their "heavy" ships are typically one size smaller than the Alpha standard.

Might this seem reasonable?

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Saturday, March 29, 2025 - 10:28 am: Edit

Gary,
From my 3G project experience, partial X refits is not available with SFBOL that I know of.
Paul can verify this.

Cheers
Frank

By Seth Shimansky (Kingzila) on Saturday, March 29, 2025 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Well I am dead wrong in my thinking. I thought there was a lot of preasure on tournament games. Fleet battles take it to another level.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, March 29, 2025 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Frank wrote:
>>I do not think limiting what a ship can do with her resources is a good idea.>>

Sure. I was just thinking in terms of similar things in regular tournament play. It is likely a non starter, as it is also real complicated. But still, the tournament game limits fast drones, SPs, reloads, etc. Not saying this is a thing that needs to happen or anything, but there is a reason those limits exist.

Again, I think the original version of this game as proposed (by the company in a CL article) was set in y175, probably for a reason.

>>Restricting hulls works though.>>

Maybe? Like, I was thinking specifically of the "5xFed DD+" situation there, which is both an outlier, and something that has balancing factors in EW. But, say, something like "No more than 2 of the same hull type" probably has a very limited effect overall, while also kind of pushing things in a more average direction.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Saturday, March 29, 2025 - 03:46 pm: Edit

a 5 DD force was quite common though perhaps not 5 DD+ in Y180 however this is a tournament and the force IS legal per the tournament. Scary on paper but has some serious flaws that can be exploited, as you said, EW for starters.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, March 29, 2025 - 09:50 pm: Edit

All, I appreciate the comments by two great players (Klingon vs Gorn). The final statistics were close! This is the first time that this format has been attempted. I suspect that the Kzinti could match the Klingon in numbers of drones. They likely could have more disruptors.

I would be curious to hear how many FED prox photons hit from those 5xDD's from range 30. The damage range is 0 to 80. A SC4 ship could be killed/crippled outright.

I had to sit on my hands when it was revealed that the Romulan did not launch his sabot R torps. Yes, they would likely be weaseled, never-the-less to see them on the board would be fascinating. The pseudo sabot R torps likely would have forced two targeted ships to emergency decel.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 30, 2025 - 07:50 am: Edit

Yeah, the initial Kzinti force I came up with, which was pretty generic, had, unsurprisingly, 16 drone racks:

-NCA (130 +16 drn speed)=146
-CM (110, +7 refit, +16 drn speed)=133
-DW (84, +6 refit, +16 drn speed)=106
-DWS (90, +6 refit, +18 drn speed)=114

For a total of 499.

It has fewer total drones than the Klingon force due to not having a ship with triple reloads and no cargo drones (198 including the double reloads; as the force is 499, it isn't impossible I'd replace one of the type IVs with another pair of I's in a rack, just to hit 500 points and then have 201 total drones, plus probably some extra drones from an A-MRS), but can launch 24 drones in a single turn without using SPs (and can control 36 without scout channel or ATG). Also has 9 disruptors (no UIM, however), 3 scout channels, and 6x 12 round ADD racks. Not a ton of P1s (11 total on the non scout ships). But yeah.

That is a *lot* of drone potential, 50% of which can be armored.

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, March 30, 2025 - 08:31 am: Edit

I am not a tourney player but am aware of restrictions, I just do not know what they are.

In a patrol battle format such as this, applying any ship restrictions is an error IMHO.

Cheers
Frank

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 30, 2025 - 08:58 am: Edit

I mean, there already *are* ship restrictions in play here (no SC2, no carriers, limits on specialty ships, limits on PPD ships, limits on web-caster ships) so that ship, ahem, has already sailed :-)

The only thing I'm concerned with here is the format being playable, reasonably balanced, and enjoyable for folks. If a few other modest limits on things accomplish that, that seems like a reasonable goal. Maybe a few other modest limits on things won't make any difference, in which case, don't do that. But just spitballing ideas.

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, March 30, 2025 - 09:11 am: Edit

Peter,
Let me clarify as I now see I worded my post above poorly.
Applying restrictions on what a ship can or have do is an error IMHO.

Not the ship hull building restrictions which works fine as is.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 30, 2025 - 11:20 am: Edit

Fair nuff!

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Sunday, March 30, 2025 - 11:53 am: Edit

I want to apologize for getting a bit heated and a bit too intense, not keeping my posts in the spirit of fun and gaming. If I have offended anyone I am sorry...

I am firmly opposed to fine tuning or changing the format or the players ability to choose his own force, also limits on any kind of ship or capabilities. I do not agree that any race needs special treatment or nerfing for this to be fairly balanced and fun for everyone.

If anything I would prefer 600 bpv and just standard S8.0, as this rule already provides for that balance in squadron and fleet actions.

That being said I have been perhaps too harsh in my language and not keeping things respectful and fun, again, my apologies to everyone here. This is a great format for getting some real sfb games in and I appreciate Geof taking the time to run it.

I would like to see the next tourney at 600bpv, using standard 20% COs and S8.0, year 175 OR Y178, maybe 180. The current map size is fine, maybe the starting range is a bit far but even that is not a problem. Planet or planet w/ small moon in center hex? Sure, why not.

Seems we are all having a good time with this so on to round 2. I will try to give more detailed battle reports in my game vs the Selts.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Sunday, March 30, 2025 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Justin,
Thank you for the apology.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Sunday, March 30, 2025 - 02:57 pm: Edit

For those who are in this tournament. Awhile ago when I played a fleet battle for Frank (many years ago. It was awesome flying an Andromedan fleet but I digress). I added a cool but dangerous feature. It is cool because it can clean up the board It is dangerous because if you forget you could die.

The feature is the ability to hide (and of course unhide) different kinds of units. This is only on board and not in the list of pieces in the Game Control.

You need to have the game board as the active window and tab and press:

Shift+Ctrl+1: Hide Point of Turn / Point of Slip Counters.
Shift+Ctrl+2: Hide all Seeking Weapons
Shift+Ctrl+3: Hide all Shuttles/Fighters
Shift+Cltr+4: Hide all Ships
Shift+Ctrl+5: Hide all Web
Shift+Ctrl+6: Hide all Mines

Shift+Ctrl+0: Hide all Misc pieces (this will include terrain counters)

It cleans up the board nicely to help look at the board.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 30, 2025 - 03:37 pm: Edit

That is both cool, and also dangerous.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 11:43 am: Edit

Thanks, Justin - I appreciate your words. As has been observed, it's a small community and growing smaller as we age. Even if we feel strongly about something, better to remain as nice as possible - especially since cold words on a screen cannot convey the real context of whether offense is intended. As a result, offense could be taken even where none was intended - just the intensity of the opinion.