David Lang said:

---

Quote:

1. to avoid this penalty you need 1 larger ship per 2 ships of a given size
2. up to 2 ships can be exempt from this rule
3. the size order is FF/DW, DD/CW, CA/CV, DN/CVA, BB

so you could have 2xFF as a battle fleet, but 3xFF would get in each others way

the max fleet you could build (without a BB) is 2xDN, 4xCA, 8xCW, 16xFF which is still significantly larger then a F&E fleet but requires you to build the large ships as well as the small ships (and gives the enemy a reason to direct on the large/expensive ships to cut down the size of the fleet)

---

---

Quote:

I intend that each counter represents a squadron. 1 FF = 1 Frigate Squadron, 1 CV = 1 CV and 2 Escorts, etc. The exception being the BATS and SB.

---

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 05:39 pm: Edit

I had been looking for a way to allow for a pair of ships of the same size to fight togeather, but it the numbers are more reasonable if each counter represents a group of ships to limit it to 1 flagship and however many ships it can control.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 05:40 pm: Edit

one thing. if you are only halving the econ values then you will end up with a lot more ships built as each 'counter' represents more then 2 ships so total shipcounts are actually up significantly

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 10:03 pm: Edit

re: Ship cost.

How does the following work?:

Unit	Cost	Move	Attack	Defense	Notes
Frigate	3	3	1	1
Destroyer	4	3	2	2
Cruiser	6	3	3	3
Dreadnaught	8	3	4	4
Scout	5	3	1	3	Scout
Hybrid Destroyer	3	3	1	2	carries 1 fighter; Hydran only
Hybrid Cruiser	5	3	2	3	carries 2 fighters; Hydran only
Carrier	5	3	1	4	carries 1 fighter
Heavy Carrier	7	3	2	5	carries 2 fighters
Tender	5	3	1	3	carries 1 PF; Scout
Tug	5	2	1	2	can carry 2 Ftr or 1 PF; non-combat only
Battlestation	7	0	4	6	carries 1 Ftr and 1 PF (2 Ftr for Fed); Scout
Starbase	12	0	6	10	carries 2 Ftr and 1 PF (3 Ftr for Fed); 2 hits to destroy; Scout
Fighter	1	1	1	1
PF	2	2	2	2

I've removed the DW/CW and adjusted the costs so that they are no longer "flat."

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Andy,

It's still one hit = one cripple unless using DirDam, no?? I truely believe you will find problems balancing out the cost of ships vs. their combat effectiveness as long as you hold to that concept.

For 24 points, you can field 3xDN -or- 4xCA -or- 6xDD -or- 8xFF .... run the numbers. I think you will still find that the larger numbers of smaller ships will beat the smaller numbers of largers ships. Yes, the larger ships have a better chance -- individually -- of hitting, but when taken in numbers the fleet of smaller ships have an equal chance of hitting. After a round or two or combat, the odds tip to favor the fleet of smaller ships.

On the other hand, if you keep making DNs cheaper to off-set this problem, you could make them too cheap and end up reversing the problem, filling the map with fleets of nothing but DNs.


Garth L. Getgen

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Well, A&A has a similar paradigm. You can buy, for example, three submarines for the cost of one battleship. Thee subs vs. one BB is hardly fair; the BB will loose most every time. It wasn't until later when there started to be some "advanced" rules that it became worth the money to buy a BB. The decision to allow it two hits instead of one made a huge difference.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Garth, the idea is that an all big ship fleet is bad and an all small ship fleet is bad, a mix is better then either.

you include a few big ships to let you score more damage and you include small ships to absorb the damage from your opponent.

I'll run some numbers on a mixed vs small vs large later.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:15 pm: Edit

David. Yes, that's the idea!

By Dave Cross (Davecross) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Andy,

Being on vacation, didn't get to this until today.

Instead of the Axis and Allies combat model, I would say the War at Sea (better known as "Dice at Sea") would work MUCH better.

In that model, every ship has an attack factor and defense factor. The attack factor is how many dice you can roll, and the defense factor is how many hits you can receive.

For combat, you allocate your ships to target enemy units. Then for every attack factor against an enemy unit, you roll one die. For every "hit" on a six, you roll one die for the amount of damage. Then, when the damage exceeds the damage rating of the ship, it is destroyed.

Big ships are thus much more survivable. However, you can only target one enemy at a time whereas small ships give you flexibility. Also, even though small ships are easier to kill, you have to kill them all which takes time.

If you have never seen this game, I can bring it by next Saturday. It is really a lot of fun.

Dave

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Dave. I've played War at Sea - thing is, the idea is for the game to be quicker than F&E (seriously, with the build rate and initial OOB, the number of high density combats would make that system unwieldy)

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 07:24 pm: Edit

David / Andy: Yes, I agree that's what we want players to do. But unless there's a good reason for them to do so (ie, not a good reason to go with all FFs or all DNs) -OR- you inflict some production restrictions on them, you may find some players won't build mixed fleets.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dave Cross, Over in the other "Ultra-Lite" topic, I was attempting to use something closer to that then A&A. Personally, I don't think it took all that long to play out a combat round, but I got a lot of flack from people saying it looked (1) too complex and (2) far too time consuming. Of course, I never saw anyone post that they actually PLAYTESTED a round of combat. {shrug}


Garth L. Getgen

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Garth, I think the current numbers will do that and will be posting some samle combats to prove/disprove this.

By Dave Cross (Davecross) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Andy,

I see the WAS model as much quicker than the A&A model. Plus, you are not limited to just making a 6 as a hit, but it could be a 5 or 6.

Thus, I think more ships will die more quickly since many can be killed in one round.

Dave

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 07:52 pm: Edit

Dave. The WAS method rolls one die per attack factor per unit and then one FURTHER die per hit. The A&A method rolls one die per unit. How is the former faster than the latter?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Dave,

what do you mean by being limited to being hit on a 6? In A&A, different units hit on different numbers, and a six is always a miss.

Using an A&A model, if frigates had an attack roll of 2, cruisers a 3, and DN's a 4, a mix of ships would be the most economical. You have a half-dozen cruisers and 1 DN, plus say 10 or so frigates. The frigates are fodder, the cruisers your main unit, and the DN is your "big gun". Ships will die by the bushel basket.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 09:22 pm: Edit

1st battle

round	side1	side2	S1 hits	S2 hits	S1 damage	s2damage
1	8xFF	3xDN	1.33	2	crip 2xFF	crip DN
2	6xFF 2xcFF	2xDN cDN	1.2 (1.53)	1.7	crip FF	crip DN
3	5xFF 3xcFF	DN 2xcDN	1.14 (1.67)	1.46 (2.16)	crip 2xFF	crip DN
4	3xFF 5xcFF	3xcDN	1 (1.67)	1.2 (1.36)	crip FF	dest DN
5	2xFF 6xcFF	2xcDN	.93 (1.6)	.8 (1.16)	crip FF	dest DN
6	FF 7xcFF	cDN	.86 (1.46)	.4 (.56)	none	dest DN
7	FF 7xcFF	none

so big vs little still favors the little

now mixed

round	side1	side2	S1 hits	S2 hits	S1 damage	s2damage
1	8xFF	DN CA DD 2xFF	1.33	1.84	crip FF	crip FF
2	7xFF cFF	DN CA DD FF cFF	1.26 (1.6)	1.76 (2.6)	crip 2xFF	crip FF
3	5xFF 3xcFF	DN CA DD 2xcFF	1.14 (1.74)	1.7(2.3)	crip 2xFF	crip DD
4	3xFF 5xcFF	DN CA cDD 2xcFF	1 (1.74)	1.46 (1.76)	crip FF	crip CA
5	2xFF 6xcFF	DN cCA cDD 2xcFF	.93 (1.67)	1.26 (2)	crip 2xFF	crip DN
6	8xcFF	cDN cCA cDD 2xcFF	.8 (1.47)	1.1	dest FF	dest FF
7	7xcFF	cDN cCA cDD cFF	.7 (1.17)	1 (1.1)	dest FF	dest FF
8	6xcFF	cDN cCA cDD	.6 (.77)	.9 (1)	dest FF	none
9	5xcFF	cDN cCA cDD	.5 (1.27)	.9	none	dest DD
10	5xcFF	cDN cCA	.5 (.77)	.7 (1.6)	dest FF	none
11	4xcFF	cDN cCA	.4 (1.17)	.7 (1.3)	dest FF	dest CA
12	3xcFF	cDN	.3 (.47)	.4 (.7)	none	none
13	3xcFF	cDN	.3 (.77)	.4 (1.1)	dest FF	none
14	2xcFF	cDN	.2 (.97)	.4 (.5)	none	none
15	2xcFF	cDN	.2 (1.17)	.4 (.9)	none	dest DN
16	2xcFF

so the mixed fleet losses, but barely and adding another FF to each side would probably favor the mixed fleet enough to win (the big ships would do more damage for longer)

now since the price stucture isn't quite linear

round	side1	side2	S1 hits	S2 hits	S1 damage	s2damage
1	8xFF	6xDD	1.33	2	crip 2xFF	crip DD
2	6xFF 2xcFF	5xDD cDD	1.2 (1.53)	1.86	crip FF	crip DD
3	5xFF 3xcFF	4xDD 2xcDD	1.14 (1.67)	1.73 (2.6)	crip 2xFF	crip DD
4	3xFF 5xcFF	3xDD 3xcDD	1 (1.67)	1.6 (2.2)	crip 2xFF	crip DD
5	FF 7xcFF	2xDD 3xcDD	.86 (1.53)	1.26 (1.46)	crip FF	crip DD
6	8xcFF	DD 5xcDD	.8 (1.33)	1.33 (1.83)	dest FF	crip DD
7	7xcFF	6xcDD	.7 (1.03)	1.2 (2.03)	dest 2xFF	dest FF
8	5xcFF	5xcDD	.5 (.53)	1 (1.03)	dest FF	none
9	4xcFF	5xcDD	.4 (.93)	1 (1.03)	dest FF	none
10	3xcFF	5xcDD	.3 (1.23)	1 (1.03)	dest FF	dest DD
11	2xcFF	4xcDD	.2 (.43)	.8 (.83)	none	none
12	2xcFF	4xcDD	.2 (.63)	.8 (1.63)	dest FF	none
13	cFF	4xcDD	.1 (.73)	.8 (1.43)	dest FF	none
14	none	4xcDD

so right now the DD is the best unit for the cost and is enough better then the 8xFF line that it would probably beat the mixed line

I don't have time to run the numbers at the moment, but I suspect that changeing the pricing to 3,5,7,9 instead of 3,4,6,8 would do the trick

when I get home I'll write a little program to generate these charts (eliminate human error and the time it takes to do them)

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Thanks David. That's exactly the type of ratios I am looking for.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Not sure if this message should be here or in the "ultra-lite" thread but since most of the people interested in this topic are following both threads, it probably doesn't matter.

Another possibility for handling combat is to employ a matrix system in which you cross index the firing ship with the target and this gives you the number you need to hit. For example, a dreadnought might need to roll a 4+ (i.e. 4 or higher on 2 dice) to hit a frigate, a 6+ to hit a cruiser, and a 9+ to hit another dreadnought. A frigate might need a 7+ against a frigate, a 9+ against a cruiser, or a 12 against a dreadnought. The actual numbers would be set to reflect the desired loss rate. This system allows the defense strengths of powerful units to be factored in without requiring the use of multiple hits for some units. But it is also compatible with multiple hits if that is desired. It can also easily support "escort" and "formation bonus" type rules by allowing - but not requiring - each side to place some percentage (should probably not be more than 1/3 and even this might be excessive) in the second rank. Ships in the second rank fire at -2 but fire against them is also at -2.

One issue that would need to be resolved is whether multiple ships could mass their fires at one enemy. A simple way of handling this would be to say that you can not assign a second ship to shoot at any target until all enemy ships have at least one ship shooting at them. If this is judged to give too much of an advantage to the larger fleet, you could modify this to say that 2 ships can always concentrate against one, but a third ship could not be added until every enemy ship has at least one ship targetting it. This would allow a limitted ability for even the smaller fleet to concentrate fire.

One possible disadvantage of this system, depending on individual preference, is that it is inherently a "directed damage" system. Unlike F&E the defender does not get to choose which ships take losses. But since more powerful ships are harder to hit, always firing at the largest enemy risks wasting many dice rolls that would be hits if directed at smaller ships. The "second rank" rules also give the defender the ability to protect some ships, though not perfectly. The second rank would be the ideal position for a carrier (especially an interdiction carrier) or scout if such are included in the game, since these units contribution to the battle is not based on their inherent firepower so the -2 penalty to their fire wouldn't be very important.

One other point about a system like this, with some tweaking of the combat matrix it is fairly simple to set up a "rock-paper-scissors" effect so that no one ship type or build strategy dominates the others.

By Ben Moldovan (Shadow1) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 12:22 pm: Edit

That sounds like... what is that game? Imperium, I think.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Ben Moldovan:

I have an interstellar warfare game called Imperium which uses a completely different combat system. But it's the 3rd Edition and my understanding (from someone who has the original version) is that it uses the same strategic situation but a totally different tactical system from the older versions of Imperium. So the 1st or 2nd Edition might well have used some sort of matrix system, though the current version does not.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Actually, now that I think about it. I'm not sure the game I'm thinking of is called Imperium and don't have it handy to check. The name is something similar to Imperium but I can't remember for sure if that's it.

By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:21 am: Edit

Just noticed this topic; I penned out a very simple system for adapting F&E into an A&A like game the other year on the way home from Origins... Got no repsonse from emails enquiring about it... now where did I put that scribbled set of notes?

How about:
Have a set of pools for the combat;
pool 5 = 5 hits to kill (CV groups minus fighters)
pool 4 = 4 hits to kill (DN/BC)
pool 3 = 3 hits to kill (CA/CW)
pool 2 = 2 hits to kill (DD/DW/FF single PF factors @ 2 or 3 pfs-factor)
pool 1 = 1 hit to kill (individual fighter factors/pdu factors etc)
Set other units into the pool system by type/mission.

Toss out crippling ships and repair needs for the basic game and assume all ships are repaired sufficiently for combat operations in between rounds with campaign repairs and some help at bases etc.

If you must have cripples... For an advanced flavor if a ship is destroyed let it roll versus its highest combat factor and if successful it is crippled and goes into a crippled pool and possibly plug it into a repair track afterwards at half construction cost to repair and must be in supply to do so. I'd suggest against this as the idea here is to make the game simple and the more the supply/repair issues can be abstracted further from F&E the better...

By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:34 am: Edit

A scout might be placed in any pool and give ECM and ECCM assistance to all the units in that pool for a given round of attacks at the risk (or protection) of needing the number of hits to kill it based on the group its with for that round. EW effect is to add +1 to attacks vs that pool and negate enemy scout effects in another pool for the attacking pool with the scout only. A scout might be abstracted for "all pools" and a damage pool rating of 3(or less if already hurt) and only defend all pools or negate one enemy scout effects for the entire fleet.

Directed damage could be at +# of the pool to die rolls to affect a specific target within a specific group and require # of hits = pool#.

For the pool thing if a hit is taken on a Unit then the Unit would move down one pool immediately and remain there for the next round of that combat. Multiple shifts during the combat round (one series of attacks) would be ok.

To kill a CV group it would take 6 hits accepted by the defender, shifting the CV group to the 1 pool then off, OR five directed hits at +5 to hit to put it into the 4 group then 4 directed hits at +4 to put it into the 3 group etc.

By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:37 am: Edit

Definitely include command limits, I'd suggest the F&E ones.

By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:42 am: Edit

To make it even more simple toss out attack/defense factors and make the hit # = to pool rating # (except for CV groups attack on a 3 until shifted below the 3 pool) on a d6.

A die roll can't be modifed below 1, ie a 1 still hits no matter what.

The idea there is that it allows for degradation of ability to fight based on damage taken in the combat sequence.

Oh, allow defenders to fire first and make attackers suffer all pool shifts before attacking.