Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board

Making Aegis make sense

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Rules: (D) Combat Rules: Making Aegis make sense

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Tuesday, August 04, 2026 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Anyone who has played SFB for any amount of time has run into Aegis (D13), and assuming you have, you've played with/against a Federation 'heavy fighter' fleet, at which point Aegis...

...becomes a nightmare.

And, in any case, it makes no sense. Why can a weapon that can 'fire for effect, observe effect, then decide to fire again (or not)' work against ONLY size-class-6-or-smaller? I mean, how does that follow, right? A Klingon G-1 is not that much bigger than a Federation F-111 - but your Ph-G gets a single salvo (win or lose!) against that G-1...but can pulse each step, individually, against the F-111...because: reasons?

Worse - in PLAYING this - the player has to decide each step. Do I keep shooting? Is 'crippled' enough? Oof! More time wasted.

I suggest a fix that keeps the spirit (and effect - mostly) of the existing restrictions, but is more internally logical, and speeds up play.

Delete the size restrictions. As a system, Aegis is designed to...destroy things. You point it at something, it destroys it...or keeps firing at it, until it does. ONCE destroyed, it switches to the next target of the same type. And keeps firing on THAT until destroyed. Same 'watch for effect, then decide' logic - only it isn't up to the player, the weapon switches automatically once a target is destroyed.

This:

* Speeds things up considerably, in reducing demands on player analysis
* Actually makes sense as a system that is supposed to be 'reacting faster than the crew normally would' - they aren't making decisions...it is executing its role as fast as it can, switching targets mid-attack, as needed.
* Preserves the limitation of the rule (mostly) - Aegis keeps a weapon shooting at one target until that target is destroyed, then switches to another target of the same type. It's automated, why would it do anything else? Corner case - you pulse a Ph-G three times into a Frigate and blows it up...the last shot will go to another Frigate, as it automatically switches. This...won't ever matter, in any situation where it shouldn't. No artificial size-class limitation required, the rule structure simply makes sense of the existing requirements.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Tuesday, August 04, 2026 - 07:47 pm: Edit

As I understand it Aegis has a specific fire control system. It is restricted to small close in targets.

Truthfully, I hate your plan. I am fighting Kzinti are a drone/fighter heavy Fed force. Incoming drone's lab and identify. I fire my phaser-G at a drone. Roll a six. •••• but with Agis I can fire again and kill it. Your rule says it fires and keeps firing. At what range 3 or 4 drones? I want to conserve those other 2 pulses for next Imp. What if i fire a phaser 3 at the drone. Same thing i fail to kill it. Agis allows me to fire a PH-2 at it.

I know you think the system is slow and cumbersome. So are 48 drones on the map.

Allowing to fire at anything defeats the purpose as a defensive system.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Tuesday, August 04, 2026 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Quote:
..but with Agis I can fire again and kill it. Your rule says it fires and keeps firing

I'm not sure I understand the difference. It keeps firing only until it gets the kill, then moves on.

So you, the human player, roll the dice...and it doesn't kill it! Ah, shucks, have to fire the second shot at the same drone. Third shot can go to a different drone.

The "human out of the loop" takes the shot...and doesn't kill it! So it keeps firing until it gets the kill...which is the next shot! Same as you! Third shot can go to a different drone.

For drones, this really isn't going to make any difference at all. No human will choose to stop firing at a drone before it's dead, nor will this rule. Or are you suggesting that's a needed gap to fill? You fire once at a drone, determine it's armored, then decide to switch targets mid-attack to a different one and leave that one alive? I'll grant, this would be a problem if this is something you often do (for some reason).

For fighters, it makes EVERY bit of difference. A human might shoot once at every fighter in a swarm, to soften them up for a later salvo. Or decide to shoot twice at one of them because they didn't roll as high as they wanted. Or shoot to cripple one, and then just damage the others. Etc.

This is all a lot of wasted time/decision-making, for no real gain, and it makes no sense logically - requiring that rules be written to artificially exclude larger targets. (Otherwise you'd have an endless, "well I'll keep Ph-3 hitting this guy until I take out his Disruptor via Mizia effects, THEN switch targets"...which the current rules already prohibit, artificially, but this is a better way to get the same result, as it doesn't require arbitrary boundaries.)

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, August 04, 2026 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Honestly this mimics Phalanx, or Goalkeeper type systems.

A reasonable set up would allow range limits, or target limits on a per impulse set up, i.e. no farther than range 2, or Type IV drones only, or drones in general.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 04, 2026 - 09:17 pm: Edit

I think this is too radical a change to make after it's been that way 30 years.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Tuesday, August 04, 2026 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Quote:
I think this is too radical a change to make after it's been that way 30 years.

I'd be curious to hear the situations where it would actually act any differently than "human making a choice in that moment".

I can't think of very many. Mostly, it just does the same thing the human does, in all cases*.

But it does eliminate the arbitrary "can only work on size class 6 or smaller"...without changing, in any way, how it actually DOES work on larger units.

It's mostly a proposal to eliminate an arbitrary boundary that lacks in-universe explanation, without really (much at all?) changing how it works in practice.

* FWIW, I'd see an obvious distinction between 'limited' vs 'full' Aegis in letting players decide whether you 'shoot to disable' (full Aegis option) or 'shoot to kill' (also an option for full Aegis, but also the ONLY way limited Aegis works). But, then, that's a choice you'll have already made going in to the decision to attack, so...?did anything actually change? You are simply deciding what option you are setting your auto-defenses in, as in current CIWS systems, and...letting them do their thing, switching targets as needed - automatically - based on your use of the system.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 05, 2026 - 01:59 am: Edit

It is a radical change, allowing that rapid fire to be used on starship targets. I cannot endorse, support, or approve this. It would completely change the game by turning a defensive weapon into an offensive buzzsaw (which is why you want it). This won't happen. Dead Horse.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation

			This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:
Password:

Add a Message