I am still trying to figure out how this format is not working? We are in to round 2, 75% of the games reported no issues, everyone seems to be having a good time...*shrug*

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Wednesday, April 02, 2025 - 01:41 pm: Edit

For me, 25+ hours of game over 11+ game sessions does not = working. And if I win, I have to do it again and again. I mean really, what happens when a Romulan shows up with 2 KE's and a scout against a Gorn with 3 ships including a scout on a map 1,000 hexes across? How long is that game going to take? The answer, A MILLION YEARS. And that isn't even a complex game with 500 drones on the map.

Unfortunately, I will never play in something like that - it's completely way too much. To each his own and I am glad you guys are having fun, but I doubt I am alone on this.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 02, 2025 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Like, to be clear, my game was 25+ hours over 11 game sessions. As noted, neither of us were particularly dithery, we both played (and allocated) pretty quickly. Also as noted, I don't think 13 turns is out of the realm of reason for a game like this. But also, it may or may not be typical.

The Fed/Rom game was over in 4 turns, but it was also a route, and seemingly the result of a rules misunderstanding on the part of the Romulans (who were kindly and bravely filling in for someone who dropped out). I dunno how long that game took, in terms of hours.

The Lyran/Fed game went an unknown (by me) number of turns for an unknown number of hours. The game ended with a concession with, apparently, 0 internals scored (the Feds took a shot and missed, and reasonably decided they were done for).

The Selt/Fed game also went for an unknown (also by me) number of turns for an unknown number of hours. I think that game ended on a concession, but it also seemed like there was a lot of damage done during the game.

So I dunno that we have a real good sense of how long these games actually take.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Wednesday, April 02, 2025 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Peter,
We went through 9 turns in 10 hours. There were no seeking weapons, no scouts and the shuttles & TBombs did not come out until the last turn. The last turn took 3 hours. The other 8 took only 6 hours.

So I am sure that has something to do with the speed we were able to play. We didn't get closer than range 9 until the last turn.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, April 02, 2025 - 09:06 pm: Edit

>> 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. >>

My comment is that the Drone Races with fighters would really unbalance the game. Imagine multiple fighter drone launches in addition to the already powerful ship launched drones. If Mega fighters are allowed, then "run for the hills"!

By Geoffrey Clark (Spartan) on Wednesday, April 02, 2025 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Well, I think this is a fork in the road here. Glad we've done these games as it is to see time required, as well as balance.

Some are interested in more intense, more units, etc. Some are interested in faster games, more playability, etc.

There is room for both of these formats, but they will diverge. I'm thinking along both lines, actually, but they are separate paths. That's fine, the current tournament is fun, and people are enjoying it, I'm happy to run it and see people enjoy playing it, even if it goes long ... sometimes battles go long, sometimes they are short. For example, Mr. Taylor has had his share of 20+ turn Module T battles. So, I'm not too concerned that one fleet battle on a relatively open map took 13 turns and 26 hours or whatever. People self select for these battles, and make the choices they make.

Based on this good feedback, for the next generation of rules, I'm going to press on with this format, including tweaks proposed and discussed. i'm also going to draft a set of rules for a smaller, faster fleet battle tournament to take place on a standard fixed 42x30 map with fixed forces and fixed CO. Once written, I hope to get some feedback.

Thanks everyone!

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 03, 2025 - 07:25 am: Edit

Thanks, Paul--yeah, it seemed likely that with no seeking weapons or scouts, your fight had the best possible chance of going fast. Good to know that was the case :-)

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Thursday, April 03, 2025 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Is speed of play the most desirable quality in your game play? Why does one play this game? Serious question, do you enjoy playing the game for the sake of the game or just the outcome?

500 bpv is very manageable, and going in everyone knew this was not a duel but squadron actions, if that level of engagement does not suit you stick to smaller scenarios or duels.

S8.0 is more than good enough as is. I am just not seeing the issue with running 500 bpv, 4 turns or 14 turns, regardless of the forces it is VERY manageable. This is not a fast game, never has been, that being said, these games are and have been very manageable and fun IMHO.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, April 03, 2025 - 01:56 pm: Edit

FC is faster, might be a good format for those desiring faster games.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Thursday, April 03, 2025 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Ted,
I agree. Definitely simplifies things.

Justin,
The assumption that you are making is that BPV truly is a good indicator of how good a ship is. It is like saying your weight defines how healthy you are. BPV is a rough value that defines the defensive+offensiveness of a ship. It will not tell how well two fleets will matchup.

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Friday, April 04, 2025 - 10:55 am: Edit

Is there such a thing as a listing of balanced 500 point fleets?

I think Paul is saying that "all things being equal" that people can make fleets that are great but not always great depending on who they are playing.

Gorns are not meant to fight Kzintis. They would never normally see a Kzinti and if they did they would be hugging not killing each other. Maybe there is no realistic way to overcome this issue.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Friday, April 04, 2025 - 12:43 pm: Edit

feels like click bait paul.. of course bpv is a rough measure of combat power, its literally the only metric we use per the rules... not sure what you are trying to say.

FC seems like a great option for those who are having issue with 500 bpv squadron, like Ted said, Jack.

By Ronald J. Brimeyer (Captainron) on Friday, April 04, 2025 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Justin, You asked a very good question. Why do You play this game. I play to have fun with my friends. Some I have only met on-line, others I have met face to face at cons. Sometimes I do silly things like setting a trap, that had it worked it would have been the talk of the boards. On this thread I see that Geof has put in a lot of work to help people have fun. He asked me to play and I declined. I do not enjoy getting bogged down with EW. That is just a personnel preference. If we do start a standard fleet option, I may join in. I see many others here putting in suggestions on what they would like to see. All in good fun I believe. From you I have seen an attitude that if people do not play the game exactly as you think it should be played they are doing something wrong. So, Why do You play the game?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 04, 2025 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Any updates on the R2 matchups? Any of those started yet?

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Friday, April 04, 2025 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Have sent COs to Geof, waiting for that hoping to start maybe this week-end or early next week for Fed/Klingon

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 09:50 am: Edit

Justin and I will be starting to play tomorrow and 2pm EDT.

When it comes to BPV, I gotta question:

Given people of equal talent for playing SFB, could 5 F4s (225 BPV) defeat 1 C9A (230 BPV) and visa versa?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 10:50 am: Edit

I don't think the E4's 'could win (although the C9A isn't, like, a super optimal ship here, as the expensive SFG is gonna be hard to use, even against E4s...); too easy to kill them piece meal, they have trouble with EW relatively speaking, not enough power to move and shoot significantly at the same time. I mean, 6 fast drone scatter packs from the E4's is certainly a thing, but still, I think the C9 wins this one.

BPV seems to work best in average situations (i.e. CC, CW, DW, DWS against CC, CW, DW, DWS), and as you move to extremes, you can end up with weird results.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 12:23 pm: Edit

I don't think the C9A would even try to use its SFG in such a battle. I believe it could crush the E4s just operating as a nornal dreadnought.

More generally, I don't believe it's realistic to expect equal BPV to "guarantee" an even battle. Technological RPS is one reason, but there are plenty of others. The relative strength of two forces can vary greatly depending on the rules being used.

Floating map versus fixed map was discussed here recently in context of the Gorns v. Klingons battle. But what about terrain generally?

Tholians with web casters love fighting in asteroid fields. But for several reasons, a lot of Tholians don't do well (relative to their BPV) in nebulae. Web won't function in a nebula so any BPV assessed for generators or snares is wasted. Casters can still fire as a web fist but a web caster is expensive and with only web fist capability and no "cast web" capability it is generally overpriced for the BPV. And a lot of (Archeo-) Tholians are under-armed and under-powered, but over-shielded, for their price. In a nebula, all ships use minimum shields and the Tholians forfeit one of their main adavantages compared to similar BPV opponents with more typical weapons-to-shields ratios.

Jindarian asteroid ships, on the other hand, are awesome in nebulae.

Some ships will benefit more from outstanding crew or legendary officers than other ships will. Some ships are, comparatively, more hurt by "leaky shields" than others are.

All in all, I think the most that can reasonably be expected is that is the BPV is close, the fight will usually be pretty close. But there will inevitably be exceptions in which comparable BPV results in hopeless mismatches.

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Deleted by me

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 01:18 pm: Edit

>>I don't think the C9A would even try to use its SFG in such a battle. I believe it could crush the E4s just operating as a nornal dreadnought.>>

My point was simply "Don't get a C9A. Get something that isn't spending points on an SFG." (I suspect that Paul just foind a ship with a matching BPV).

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 01:29 pm: Edit

5 x e4 vs 1x c9 with both players equal is a very good fight, c9 prob wins and is heavily damaged. The e4s fly as one big ship and actually outgun the c9... e4s might even overwhelm the c9 with massed drns, or they could get caught in stasis. Interesting fight for sure.

Also to clarify, you said f4s?? Did you mean 5x f5, or 5x e4?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Tholians having trouble in a nebula?

I'm sure I've heard of that concept somewhere or other!

-----

In BPV terms, perhaps less drastic "wolf pack" matchups might function reasonably well - particularly if a given weapon does not have "scale" issues.

Part of the problem for smaller ships armed with disruptor bolts (or disruptor cannons) is the shorter range of these weapons on Size Class 4 hulls. So taking two or more of them against a bigger ship might be more of an issue, even if the total BPV on both sides is broadly the same.

However, for ships armed with weapons like photon torpedoes or quantum wave torpedoes, which function the same on any Size Class hull (the FRA use of light and/or heavy photons notwithstanding), this could be less of an issue.

For example: a Paravian heavy battlecruiser is much closer to a fully refitted ISC Star Cruiser in terms of BPV than, say, a Paravian heavy cruiser would be. But, alternatively, so are two Paravian war destroyers; in the latter case, you get one more QWT launcher (6 instead of 5), and you have the option of keeping at least one of the two ships out of the PPD's firing arc at the same time.

That said, while I don't like the concept of the superstack at the best of times, I especially doubt its use when running such "wolf pack' tactics; if the larger ship only has so many weapons in a given firing arc, why make it easier for them by bunching your group of smaller ships in the same hex?

-----

On another note, this week's Talkshoe episode talked in part about Paul's upcoming game. It certainly sounds like an interesting matchup.

Indeed, it occurred to me that, were there to be some sort of limit on Move Cost 1 ships in a given squadron in a future edition of this tournament, Paul himself would need to take something else instead of that second Seltorian CA...

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 07:01 pm: Edit

talkshow? link pls?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, April 05, 2025 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Talkshoe is where Paul hosts his weekly Star Fleet Universe On Call podcast.

If it helps, there are a number of international phone numbers available, for anyone looking to dial in.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Sunday, April 06, 2025 - 06:51 am: Edit

BTW, I did say F4s. That is the Early Years Frigate. And I think most of you got the point. The point is that BPV is not the best way of measuring an even battle. That there are many other factors involved. Including terrain (Note: having a floating map vs. a fixed map is terrain)