Archive through March 05, 2002
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
Modified Command Limits:
Archive through March 05, 2002
This is not a "serious" submittal, but it is one that I would hold up for consideration nonetheless (i.e. I do not expect the rules to change, but this idea may interest some people enough that they would play with it).
The command limit/BPV system as it stands heavily encourages the player to employ fleets consisting primarily of cruiser hulls and bigger... I would recommend a change that would allow all classes equal consideration in the fleet.
I think I may well have proposed this idea on the board before... indeed it has been floating around in our games for many years, and even posted on the web as a part of my SFB campaign system which can still be found at John Kim's site, and I am sure others have has similar ideas.
In a nutshell: Halve the Command rating of all ships, retain fractions.
Ships now have the following command cost (flagship is free, of course):
BB: 2.0
DN: 1.5
BCH: 1.0 (incl. Lyran BC)
CA: 0.75
CW: 0.67
DD: 0.5
FF: 0.33
EE: 0.25 (snipe, E3, police ships)
PF: 0.17
INT: 0.12
Unescorted carrier units suffer a command limit penalty, mitigated by the command cost of each escort assigned to them, as follows:
CVA, SCS, Lyran CV: 1.33
CV, BCV, Lyran CVL: 1.00
CVE, AxCV: 0.33
This strongly encourages carriers to have at least their minimum required escorts.
You can still abide by the limitations of S8 (except no free scout slot), but this re-worked rule makes several of it's provisions unneccessary: it is not efficient to have more than one DN or BB, neither is it particularly efficient to have more than one BCH, although you could make a better argument for it. FF and DD units can actually be used without impacting density (sometimes improving it, at the cost of unit survivability, of course). Leader variants still have to be limited, of course...
Lastly we employ an economic point system that supplants BPV. We use the costs from F&E, with some modifications, primarily size class 3 leaders (CC, CWL) cost +3 extra, size class 4 leaders cost +2 extra. This efficiently limits their proliferation. There are cost rules covering scouts, penal ships, ISC ppd ships, over-gunned ships (LDR and shock ships), special drone loadouts, etc.
It's a system I find very pleasing, and quite balanced. Actually I prefer dividing all command costs by 3, as I think it works better for playability (potentially 15 frigates or 20 snipes is ALOT to handle 
), but you get smaller overall fleets.
Actually, the battlegroup rule from F&E-AO accomplishes the task easily and effectively (allowing six smaller ships to count as five cruisers). Once AO is printed we'll incorporate the finally-revised version of that rule into S8.
I look forward to it! I'm raring to start an F&E game and I defintiely want to include AO if at all possible.
I never tested this rule within a F&E context... I don't think it would work, actually, unless you boosted the command limits, since SB assaults would become impossible. Plus it would add a layer of unneccessary complexity to a game which already works quite well.
And (S91.0) has the Magellanic command rating system, which encourages ships with lots of destroyers and frigates.
In another project (different game) I put in something called a "lemon rule".
Write the class of each ship on an index card. Put the move cost on the other side of the sheet. Tell your opponent total BPV and total movement costs.
He gets to select 10% of your total movement cost (minimum one ship), by drawing cards face down and saying what they are. He can make the ship larger or smaller by one 'step', or just worse.
Thus, he draws a movement cost 1 ship from your pile, and says "This is a D6 that never got the B refit or K refit due to politics."
You pull a move cost 1 ship out of his list and say "This is the USS Alabama, an old style Fed CL with a poor crew."
Thus, everyone gets a ship that they patently do not want...
The lemon rule is an interesting rule for one-off scenarios... injects a little flavour in the game!
Can you summarize (S91.0)?
In the LMC, once you take a SC 3 ship, you have to take three SC 4 before you can have a second SC 3, and so on.
Hmmm... I don't like that rule. It runs contrary to my desire to allow the player free will to choose his force however he likes. Instead of placing artifical (and hard to justify!) restrictions, I would prefer to "guide" the player into choosing a sensible fleet composition in the manner described in my first post.
In the end ALL restrictions beyond the purely economic are "artificial"... just some are less artifical than others.
Paul, the difference is that in SFB, we don't have to worry about strategic consequences of our fleet picks. In F&E, you can have a battle line of 11 DNs if you want. Howver, you the player pay the consequences of having 10 less DNs leading fleets and conducting actions else where.
In SFB, there's no penalty if you take an unrealistic fleet deployment. (S8.0), and (S91.0) for the LMC, ensure players take fleets that match the races historical deployment patterns (and that don't break the game too much). And remeber, if you and your opponent agree, you can always ignore those sections.
SFB is basically a "future historical" wargame, and (S8.0) is really no different than the BYO rules in Advanced Squad Leader or the like.
Alex, exactly my point! I want to allow the player to pick whatever he wants, but I want him to WANT to pick stuff that makes sense.
so... it is not efficient to take:
1) more than one BB, DN, BCH (usually)
2) unescorted carriers
3) escorts without carriers
4) nothing but leader variants
Instead, to fill out your battle line, you have a nice balanced choice between CA, CW, DD/DW, and FF class units if your preference is to play a few large units (i.e. 6 CAs) then you can do that, if you prefer to have many smaller units (i.e. 10 DD/DW or 15 FF) then you can do that to, or you can mix and match. Furthermore, the beauty of my system is that it also handles PFs and INTs... under S8 they were basically free of command limits (no more than 3 flotillas), under my rules, not using PFs is not AS BIG a disadvantage. e.g. A tender plus 6 PF's is equivalent in command cost to a CW and 2 DW.
"allowing six smaller ships to count as five cruisers"
- won't help much.
In campaign I use a construction limitation that still allows free deployment but for simple pick up games anything that would encourage smaller ships over large ones is very welcome.
Try getting a Klingon player to take an F5w instead of an F5C or worse a D5 sometime.
Actually, the only way you get to do "realistic" deployment limits without some arbitraryness is to give each player the role of theater admiral.
Let them build a fleet to cover an entire theater.
Have a GM (and other players) move ships around operationally and let people deploy what they want where they want.
You'll get some interesting mismatches, like the BCH sent out to kill a CW.
Of course, when your one and only BCH is out hunting a CW, your fleet is going to be short is command platform, which could suck...
Patrol scenarios have these artificial limits to them because they're meant to give the results of the theatric allocation of force without the headache and paperwork.
In the LMC, cruisers are rare for a number of reasons that all make sense within the context of the local history. (Smaller economies, and the gap in effectiveness between DDs and FFs is narrower in LMC ships than it is in Alpha sector ships.)
Your government buys the ships. Your admiral portions them out to various threats and missions. You as the commodore of the battle squadron get to fight with what you've GOT rather than fight with what you WANT.
(S91.0) gives the LMC fleet densities that are appropriate. It helps explain how the Andros beat them in fleet actions -- it's harder to get a fleet past the Mothership Vaporization Threshold under the Magellanic C&C limits.
While i've done different styles of Command limits. Is this really nessecary? A KISS solution is to change the limits +50%. Take away the free scout ect. and make it straight ships. For a pickup fleet game. Thats more than enough. And if your using a group of ships for a command area the miss use of them in particular battles is enough of a penalty in and of itself. Frankly anything beyond squadron level encounters should really be part of a campaign system.
Well what exactly is the problem with exceeding the command limit?
I would hope that is was something like, double the number of extra vessels beyong the command rating must automatically become POOR CREWed veesels.
Or some such penalty.
Just saying this big and no bigger ( and then allowing one more ) is a little odd.
Indeed the Command Ratings do tend to make for Cruiser heavy fleets.
Try a Starbase assault.
Once you factor in the Vessels to actually meet the 600 BPV of starbase ( not counting modules ) ( that's 4 CAs ) and then the Cruisers to put the Kybosh on the defending vessels ( consisting of 4-6 Police ships, 1-2 Frigates or destroyers, and 1 CL ) so another 3 CAs, your Scout, your GSV ( you'll need both against the SB ) and you're looking at 8 MC1 ships and another ship.
Quite simply a Command rating 8 vessel will have trouble leading the attack and if you trade in two CAs for a carrier group you'll be looking at 10 ships.
And with all the modules you'll need about 4 more CAs to deal with the fighter and PF problems.
If by chance you're attacking a Tholian Starbase in an Asteroid feild, you'll blow your Command Rating even if you have a DN lead.
The command rating system has a bent toward Cruiser hulls.
PFs and INT should probably have the same weighting or players will have an incentive to keep INT around far longer than historical.
The other problem I see with this system, if I understood everything correctly, is the limitation only come into play at 'max fleet size'. There is nothing stopping my mid-sized CC led fleet from having a totally unrealistic formation.
What I want in an option command limit system is a way to encourage smaller ships in squadron to mid-sized fleet engagements (the only ones I have a prayer of even starting FTF). Perhaps some sort of weighted command limits based on a BPV level.
Tos: Why would your mid-sized CC-led fleet have a totally unrealistic formation?
For INT and PF, essentially you have to ask yourself if 8 INT will beat 6 PF. If not, then there is no reason to keep INTs around since PFs are inherently denser even with the higher command cost.
BTW same thing wroks for DD vs DW and CL vs CW. The older classes will die off becuase they are both more expensive and less dense than their general war counterparts (exception being the the Fed DD, you might still want to build those! )
MJC: We actually came up with an excellent system for exceeding command limits using the uncontrolled ship rules under G.2, also you could purchase command points to enhance your flagship's command rating. Worked very well!
MJC: You think SB assaults are bad? Try an attack on a Capital planet. 6 ground bases and 5 Def sats per BTN in F&E. (Skipping the minefields due to heavy traffic.) It makes the standard assault fleet rules impossible against even a minor defending fleet. Just giving the planet 10-15 Frieghters in orbit(as a seperate fleet) when being attacked makes it an impossible situation. We used a Klingon fleet led by a B10 with a B10V as well with a large number of D7's and such. With a seperate fleet of Romulans comprised of BB's and CA's and such and the Fed still handed us our heads. He was destroying more of our ships than we had coming in as reserve units (as in F&E). While his fleet was constantly improving in size and quality of ships. After that we gave up on command limits almost entirely. And never got into such a major fight ever again.
Let me see if I have this right. I take a Fed CC as my flag (BPV 133). I take the CC Command Rating (9) and divide by 2 for 4.5 command points. I can then take up to 6 cruisers (6x0.75=4.5) to help out the CC. That's a legal 7 cruiser fleet right? Flying 7 ships is already too large of a battle for the kind of play I get a chance to do.
If this were a BPV limited match then my BPV before refits and commanders options would be 133+6x125 = 883 points.
Now it might have something to do with the F&E related system you are using, which I don't fully understand. Perhaps my assumtion that there is some sort of picked BPV before the battle starts is just wrong. By the F&E rules you proposed I think it would be 9+(3)+8x6 = 60. Unfortunately I just don't know the F&E factors well enough to determine if maxing out Frigates would help or hurt your chances.
I also didn't follow what penalties are assigned for taking escorts. Say I take a CC and fill in every available slot with a carrier escort. How many escorts could I take in a fleet with no carrier?
"For INT and PF, essentially you have to ask yourself if 8 INT will beat 6 PF. If not, then there is no reason to keep INTs around since PFs are inherently denser even with the higher command cost."
Historically INT were dumped in favor of PFs. The reason you would take INT rather than PFs is presumed to be because of some year limitation on the scenario.
The basis of your system assumes a solid understanding of F&E factors, which I lack, so I am afraid some things you are saying are not making as much sence to me as they obviously do to you. Perhaps you could provide some sample fleets that a CC could lead and how that differs from S8.
There are 3 things that can get you more ships in a battle line in F&E.
1. An Admiral. Plus 1 to the C&C rating of the ship he is on, so a DN gets an 11 point command rating.
2. A Command Point. Basically it is an allocation of resources to a fleet commander. You get an extra ship per command point. They cost as much as a War Cruiser to buy.
3. Battle Groups. Basically if you have 6 ships, 3xCW and 3xDW(or 3xCL, 3,DD) they count as 5 for the command slots.
So, If you have a Fed DNG with an Admiral, spend a command point and bring along the types of ships for a Battle group you could get:
DNG w/ Admiral(Command Ship: Rating 12 basically)
3xNCL+
3xDW (5 ships for command purposes)
CVA (1 command slot)
NCA (1 command slot)
2xDE(2 command slots) 9 so far.
3xCA(3 command slots)
1xGSC/CVL/COV (pick one for the Free Scout)
So, you have a 15 ship fleet that is legal in F&E. And it would have 120 COMPOT, with a density of 8, or 15 CAs.
Actually, there's more to the Feds at least in F+E.
The Fed's can have a Carrier Battle Group (CVBG) which counts as one less ship when combining any two carrier groups, and have 4 fighter squadrons (to compensate that they have no PFs), after Y180.
So in Chris's example it would be:
DNH+Admiral (heh its Y180)
3NCL+ (one's a CLC+)
3DW (so 5 slots for command purposes for the Battlegroup)
SCS (1 command slot) Those *!$# Lyrans have one, so should we.
NAC (1 command slot)
HDW-E (1 command slot)
DWA (1 command slot)
NVH (1 command slot)
NAC (1 command slot)
DWA (so 7 ships in the combined CVBG, counting as 6)
NCA (1 command slot)
TG+Scout Pod/NSC (free scout) Scout Pods haven't been introduced in SFB yet, but image a BP with Special Sensors I suppose.
With 139 COMPOT in F+E (without drone bombardment helping), it has a denisty of 17CA. But of course that is taking one SCS and 1 NVH, everything else is pretty common.
Tos: The command rating system does not replace BPV... I guess that is where the confusion is setting in.
The command rating system replaces S.8 for fleet composition determination.
The modifed F&E EP cost replaces BPV. You could easily go right using BPV instead, but I feel that BPV overemphasizes large ships... so I use modified F&E EP values.
Roughly:
BB = 32, DN = 16, BCH = 10, CA = 8, CW = 5, DD = 6, DW = 4, FF = 3
SC3 Leaders (incl. CC) are +3 SC4 leaders are +2
Scouts are +2 tp +5 depending on channels and size
Escort variants are +1
Carrier variants are +2
DB ships are +3
Fighters are 0.17 each
F-14, F-15 are 0.25 each
Heavy Fighters & INT are 0.5 each
PFs are 0.75 each
And so on... I have a complete ship listing for all possible variants, although it is geared towards campaign play for fighter costs.
So for example, given a limit of 40 EP, your Fed CC (11) could lead CA (8), NCL (5), DWL (6), DW (4), DWS (6) at a total command cost of 2.91
Or alternately, Flag CC (11), 3xCA (24), FFS (5) at a total command cost of 2.58.
Since the fleets seem to be generally below 3 command points, you could probably save some EP and go with a smaller command ship.
A carrier escort costs +1 EP, and if it is not in a carrier esocrt role, is considered to be one class larger for command purposes. So, if you wanted to take a NAC and you had no carrier, then it would cost you 9 EP and take 0.75 command cost (instead of 0.67).
As for INT vs PF: If PF are available in the scenario you are playing, you are always better off taking PFs over INTs, because PFs are denser despite the higher EP and command cost.
Scott, better example. I was going for ships I knew SFB folks would know.
I've never gotten that late into a game.......man but that COMPOT is huge.
What's the BPV of 139 COMPOT? Could the COMPOT be increased with a legal Battleship?
BPV is not a relevant concept in F&E, but I suppose you could just total the BPV of the ships he listed (plus fighters, of course...). A BB would increase the COMPOT of course, it is a more powerful Command rating 10 unit, and thus increases the overall denity of the fleet.
I like the move cost command limit idea. I do something similiar in my campagins, but basically require use of sz4 units, as shown below;
---------------------------
Command restrictions are based on political situations and are to be used for determining the maximum number of ships that each side may utilize in a particular scenario (It is possible to move ships strategically in groups larger than command restrictions).
-If neutral (or friendly) relations with all other races, then no size class 2 vessels may leave a base (unless in a state of transfer to another base).
-If in a state of hostility with one other race, there is a maximum of three vessels per side in a scenario, with no size class 2 vessels.
-If in a state of war there is a maximum of seven vessels per side in a scenario;
one size class 2,
three size class 3 (maximum one BCH or CC),
three size class 4 vessels (maximum one leader variant).
*If attacking a base one size class 3 or 4 may be added, if attacking a Starbase two size class 3s or 4s may be added. If there is a minefield present the attacker may add a minesweeper. If attacking a base suicide freighters may also be used; without counting against command restrictions (Though they must be towed to the area by a Tug).
*No more than one drone variant for every 3 ships and no more than one of each other variant (scout, carrier/PFT, mauler, SFG, minesweeper, troop transport, tug) may be present in any scenario. Note that escorts are not required for carrier groups, as the carrier may appear on it’s own, and thus an escort could also appear without a carrier present.
-Limit of one true carrier OR PFT (battleships are exempt with their total complement considered as one squadron/flotilla, as are Hydran hybrids) with a total of 2 squadrons/flotillas (S 8.32). Variants of battleships that carry more than one squadron/flotilla, are not exempt (B-10V, B-10S). (For example, a B-10K could be in the same fleet as a D7V, but not a B-10V and a D7V.) Note that the Lyran DN and BCH are both true PF tenders.
---------------------
So these limits require FF/DD squadrons as well as CA squadrons led by a flagship. It also discourages maximizing pf/fighter configurations. The max 7 ship fleet makes open space battles more manageable while still allowing up to 10 ships in a SB/minefield attack. the 'extra' scout rule is eliminated and brought under the 'one variant' rule.
Have people read the campaign designer's handbook? It has several suggestions for modifications to command limits and such that are at least partly tested (and are similar to some presented here). My experience is that to get "realistic" fleets either requires a "realistic" campaign construction system (one involving shipyards with limited size classes and such), or ship size class/type restrictions on top of S8 (such as the Magellanic one). A slightly complicated generic system several of us came up with to do the latter a couple of years ago was more or less rejected as too complicated.