Unless Escorts were forbidden outright, S8 allows a few other ways to get them in (e.g., escorting a tug). In case that matters to anyone.

Personally, I'd like to see a setting where carriers *are* permitted. Fighters are already part of the tournament by way of the Hydran hybrid ships (unless the Hydrans are blocked from buying fusion ships and some HB ships.

If play complexity is the issue, just limit the total number of fighters in a carrier force to 12 (a standard squad).

In my experience, carrier forces tend to be overblown in their capabilities. Fighters are too easy to kill. In "full" SFB campaigns, fighters are a good way of adding force to a fleet because you're not limited by BPV, but rather by command rating - and the fighters come in on top of the command rating. In a BPV battle, fighters often tend to be on the weaker side.

That being said, with fast drones, fighters might cause a lot of problems - and maybe thats why they were all but forbidden for all but Hydrans. Dunno. Maybe limit a non-Hydran fighter squad to 6? (escort carrier).

Anyway, I do like having the option to get an escort carrier and an escort. Mostly because I like the toys available in a late war setup.

YMMV

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 12:04 pm: Edit

I've always wondered why X-ships are generally forbidden in things like this. You would have to move the scenario year back a bit, but not much. And if you limited X-ship participation to, say, either one cruiser or two size class 4 ships in a 500 (or perhaps a bit more) BPV force, all players would also be forced to buy standard-tech ships.

Not trying to troll here - I'm just curious. What have players got against including a few X-ships?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 12:13 pm: Edit

@Alan: This is just my opinion, but X-ships introduce real problems when mixed with regular ships. For example, X-ships get to watch non-X ships move first at the same speed/turn mode. That can end up being critical. X-ships are also significantly tougher in a way that BPV doesn't account for IMO, such as the ability to both move fast and shoot. X ships also come with partial Aegis, which makes life tougher on the seeker empires, despite the upgrades of X-seekers.

I've played in many regular SFB battles where X-ships are permitted in a mixed force. While they're not a panacea, they tend to be more advantaged than what you might think.

In a campaign, that's not so bad. You have to allocate the locations of ships, and campaigns always have lopsided battles anyway. However, in a "tournament" format (such as this) you need to do more to limit unbalancing variables - like all the capabilities that come with X units.

If you want a forum that allows X units (even a few), that's great. However, expect more of the RPS problems we're discussing.

Another interesting forum is an X-tournament. To my knowledge, no one has proposed such a forum before. Then design all-X squadrons to fight amongst each other. That, to me, sounds a lot more intriguing than this format where a few X ships are allowed.

YMMV

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Ted,

Yeah, but we are not talking about a pure-X force against a pure-standard-tech force. Both sides would presumably buy X-ships.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 12:23 pm: Edit

Meant to add to the previous...

... and both sides would also have standard-tech forces.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 01:13 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Both sides would presumably buy X-ships.

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 01:24 pm: Edit

>>That being said, with fast drones, fighters might cause a lot of problems - and maybe thats why they were all but forbidden for all but Hydrans. Dunno. Maybe limit a non-Hydran fighter squad to 6? (escort carrier). >>

I think the main issue with fighters is just adding more things on the board to track.

Like, the game Dana and I just played took more than 26 hours to play 13 turns. I don't think 13 turns is an outrageous number of turns for a game like this; I can see games with more conservative players going even longer (I can also see games with less conservative players going much shorter...). Neither Dana nor I were particularly dithery on decision making, and generally played pretty quickly. I always got my EA done in less than the 15 minutes allotted, and rarely did it take more than a few seconds to move each ship.

As Dana pointed out, it took him longer to do everything, simply because of the amount of record keeping and tracking all those drones required--noting rack reloads, noting drones moving out of storage into racks or SPs or the drogue. Making sure drone load outs matched what they were supposed to match (due to some occasional peculiarity of the interface). Navigating the interface to move all the drones, and then making sure they all moved legally (a significant amount of time, I'd go to move to IA, and it would turn out that *something* didn't move somewhere, which was probably a ECM drone, or sometimes an ECM plasma, or a shuttle that was 30 hexes away from everyone). Playing a game with 10-20 drones on the map all the time takes time.

I suspect that adding fighter squadrons to the mix would increase this issue significantly. Tracking all the fighter EW and load outs and reloading them, and making sure they all moved, and all moved correctly, probably is gonna take a long time.

Hydrans can have fighters in this format, sure, but I suspect that in reality, if Hydrans show up, they'll be Hellbore heavy ('cause giant open map), which limits fighter numbers, and due to the nature of the Hydran fighters, they probably will be in their bays much of the time (i.e. the Hellbore armed cruisers will likely hold their fighters most of the time, until there is an inevitable close range scrum).

Drone armed fighters, with fast drones, are going to be on the map all the time, launching drones from a significant distance, then landing to reload, and then doing it again. I think this would add a *lot* of time to a game.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 01:39 pm: Edit

@Peter: Can't disagree. Personally, I don't mind the extra time to process games in order to play with such toys. But that's just me.

Just another design consideration on the Venn diagram of tournament rules issues (time to play versus more tracking-intensive toys).

[EDIT]: I once tried to play a full Kzinti SSCS fleet against a full Hydran fleet lead by a MNR BB. (This was against Frank Lemay, who also doesn't mind handling large forces). Basically, a pickup game with a huge BPV limit. There were so many units on the map (drones, fighters, PFs, etc.) that the client slowed down to a crawl and started getting buggy!

We ended up abandoning that game because the client couldn't handle the morass of counters. We didn't abandon just because it might take an hour to run an impulse!

But, I suspect few people have that kind of patience, even in a squadron setting.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Ted,

I'm not a tournament player (among other things, I don't like fixed maps), but I follow the tournament write-ups enough to know that even with the very restricted rule set and ship availability, there are still RPS issues. And the discussions about possible "fixes" (Should the Feds get a G-rack? What do we do about the Andros?) tend to devolve into arguments about whether the fix, which may improve the given ship versus unfavorable matchups, make it overpowering against opponents against whom the matchup is already favorable.

That being the case, I think it's kind of pointless to overemphasize balance for a "squadron tournament" in which players can, within limits, select their force structure. For whatever my (non-tournament-player) opinion is worth, I say "allow the advanced toys".

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 02:32 pm: Edit

I wasn't aware of the online client not presently being set up to support partial-X refits.

Unless that were to change (at least for X-phasers and non-X limited Aegis) over the next few months, this might make the concept of using them here rather difficult.

Which, if solely from a "client functionality" perspective, might make the prospect of allowing an Aegis carrier escort (or an escort configuration HDW) more practical - for now, at least.

Although, this leads to another question: how broadly does the client support HDW modularity at present?

-----

As for "true" first-generation X-ships:

For what (little) it's worth, I would much prefer there be a separate variant of the tournament for this - set in Y194, perhaps? - in which each of the forces permitted to take part was entirely comprised of X1-ships. (With a partial exception for the Andromedans, as noted below.)

I say Y194, so as to still allow the Red Guard - the LDR's X1-ship squadron - to take part in these proceedings.

In the case of the Andromedans: allowing them to take a non-X squadron in such a setup fits the historical timeline; battles between Andros and Alpha X1-squadrons were quite common during the Andromedan War, after all.

Alternatively, one could permit the Andros to take an "X1-squadron" of their own, drawing from the range of "simulator" X1-ships they were provided in Module C3A.

I don't know if I'd go quite so far as to recommend the latter option. But, it would at least make things that much more interesting for them...

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Ted,
I remember that game.
We had units coming out of our ying yang and those units had units coming out of their ying yang.
I do not think we did a complete turn ?
Fond memories !!

Gary,
The client supports HDWs and true/original X-Ships but not Ad-Hoc X ships.
These would be speciality ships and would require a new build which can be done easily enough, we just need to know what X tech you want on a particular ship.

Matt [pending his RL ] or I [am retired !] can do the job.

Cheers
Frank

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 03:41 pm: Edit

>>But, I suspect few people have that kind of patience, even in a squadron setting.>>

Heh, here, I don't think the issue is patience, but "moving a multi-player event along in a timely fashion".

If two people wanna get together and play a game where it takes an hour to do a single impulse once in a while, more power to them, and that's great, but if there are 6 other people waiting around for that game to finish (so they can get their next round going), things will tend to fall apart.

Like, the stated goal here is "Let's try and make a viable tournament system where folks can play 500 points games" (give or take). Having about a month per round, seems reasonable, but if games are taking 25+ hours to play, getting those done in a month is likely to be difficult. As such, erring on the side of "how do we make it so these games are manageable in a reasonable amount of time" seems the best option.

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Make games a 10 turn affair.
At the end of T10, take stock.

200% for capturing a ship, must still eb in control of the ship at the end of T10.

100% for destroying a ship.

50% for crippling a ship and allow the crippled ship to un-cripple itself if it can.

25% for forcing a ship to disengage.

10% for internals and allow the ship to repair all internals if it can to avoid the 10% charge.

1% for every shield that is down to 0 boxes allowing a ship to fix the shields if it can.
Destroy 3 shields then get 3% etc.

The highest score wins and if tied, play 1 more turn and so on.

Make the map smaller such as 60x60.

Ideas to ponder.

Cheers
Frank

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 04:38 pm: Edit

@Peter, LOL, yeah. I wouldn't dream of suggesting a massive fleet battle tourney format!

@Frank,

---

Quote:

Ted,
I remember that game.
We had units coming out of our ying yang and those units had units coming out of their ying yang.
I do not think we did a complete turn ?
Fond memories !!

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 04:46 pm: Edit

>>Make games a 10 turn affair.
At the end of T10, take stock.>>

In theory, this might be viable, but I also suspect that, much like map size, a blanket turn limit is gonna impact plasma more than most other forces.

One of the main rules to playing plasma effectively (often) is "If you can get another turn, take it", as reloading the guns take 3 turns. As such, there are multiple turns in a given game where the plasma ships are just moving away to reload. Those turns tend to be fast, but they are still turns. As such, games with plasma forces tend to take longer, in turns, than with other types of ships, but not necessarily longer in terms of actual play time.

(like, in tournament play, when I played Kzinti all the time, games tended to average about 4 turns long; when playing Gorn, games tend to average about 6+ turns).

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 04:53 pm: Edit

I mentioned this several posts up, do not have plasma vs DF.

Each player builds 2 fleets, roll a die to allow the high roller to select the fleet to play with.

Ted,
Let me know when you are ready to return to A&B
!

Cheers
Frank

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 06:07 pm: Edit

>>I mentioned this several posts up, do not have plasma vs DF.>>

Romulans and ISC are specifically designed to fight DF empires; Plasma V Plasma is *definitely* likely to need more than 10 turns.

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 06:44 pm: Edit

I am out of ideas.
Switching to observation mode.

Cheers
Frank

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 07:05 pm: Edit

I'm just pointing out likely unintended or unconsidered issues.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Frank I agree with a turn limit

By Geoffrey Clark (Spartan) on Monday, March 31, 2025 - 07:32 pm: Edit

OK, we've had a lot of ideas expressed:

1) Map Size
2) Terrain
3) Turn Limit
4) Change the Year
5) More fighters and/or PFs
6) Less choice in ship variants
7) X-ships
8) X-refits
9) Limits of capabilities (e.g. scatterpacks)

I'll consider all of these, given the objectives, in an effort to move closer to "RPS" balance. To be honest, I would not say that balance is broken, it is pretty good out of the box. We'll see how things go in the next few rounds.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, April 01, 2025 - 06:05 am: Edit

Smaller maps definitely makes fast drones more dangerous.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, April 01, 2025 - 07:53 am: Edit

How about a squadron with a limit of 300 BPV. Minimum 3 ships. CW and smaller.

So a CWL with a DW & FF?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 01, 2025 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Thanks for the clarifications, regarding the HDW and X1-ship situations on the client at present.

-----

So far as the BPV limit goes:

I would suggest sticking with 500 BPV for "modern" (GURPS Prime Directive Tech Level 12) tournaments. As in, those set in the Middle Years, or in the (pre-X1-ship) General War era.

I might, however, propose sliding the scale in one way or another, should there be future tournament variants set at different GPD TLs.

For example: in an "all-X1-ship squadron" tournament, it might be an idea to adjust the BPV limit to 750 - with the added amount offered for Commander's Option items upped from 50 to 75. Given how expensive first-generation X-ships are compared to "modern" ships, doing this would better accommodate "true" X1-ship squadrons.

However, if one wanted to go back in time, and offer an Early Years tournament setup: a W-era force might be limited to 250 BPV (with 25 points added for Commander's Options); whereas a Y-era tournament could instead be dialed in to 350 BPV (with 35 points for Commander's Options instead). Given how much cheaper W- and Y-era ships are, this would prevent turning a "squadron" tournament into a "fleet" one.

-----

One other thought:

Rather than run a future tournament as a single-elimination setup, would it be an option to hold it as a round-robin event instead?

As in, to let each participant play against each of the other squadrons once, with a "league table" based on Victory Points scored by both sides at the end of each battle.

There could still be a "playoff" at the end, in which the top-ranked squadrons vie for the overall championship, if so required.

Doing this would enable for much more player data to be generated, in terms of which empires can deal with such-and-such a matchup. it would also keep more players involved in the tournament as it progresses.

Might this be an option worth considering?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, April 01, 2025 - 02:06 pm: Edit

To be honest (if something of a wet blanket), you're going to wind up playing rules whack-a-mole as long as the players are able to point-buy a squadron of their choosing.

If you really want this thing to work and not be overwhelmed by tweaked-up corner cases, you'd be best off using a list of pre-built forces, either the one from CL#15, the one from CL#7 (updated as necessary for the current edition), one from another Battleforce article of the desired point-level, or one put together by committee here.