So everybody is going to die by Romulan Plasma Mr. Steele? Thank you for the heads up. The ISC had thought we had a peaceful border with the RSE. Well, our fleets our only a PPD away from your space. See you soon!

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Oh So Mr. Mantzel is online tonight.

By Howard J. Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 09:24 pm: Edit

"Or is it let's pick on a neurotic maniac itching to shoot anything vaguely alive?"

It isn't nice to talk about Rob's green crewed ships. They have enough problems as it is. The poor guys can't tell the difference between Federation, Gorn and Romulan space. You'd think the "Gorn go home!" signs on the Fed border and the "Cloaked ships ahead" signs at the border would be enough...

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 09:40 am: Edit

LOL Howard!

If the Romulans are at war with the ISC, we don't know it yet. The "Cloaked ships ahead" signs must themselves be cloaked! What can build a module? A base? Must be nice.

Tarkin

By John Burton Steele (Jbsteele) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 03:39 pm: Edit

There are rumors that the ships destroyed along our borders can be attributed to Romulan Plasma. The fact is that ... yes the improved cloaking devices installed on our latest generation of ships often leave trails that cloak smaller objects for up to a month ( we are talking about the "Cloaked ships ahead" signs here ).

However ... The Imperial Romulan Empire emphatically refuses to believe that even the Greenest or poorest of Gorn warships ( or any of our other neighbors for that fact ) can place blame on static galactic highway signs that have been placed there many years ago.

If your warships hit these signs they WILL blow up ! It is that simple.

This should be a wake-up call to the crews of the ships patroling our borders. Don't rely on your empire's "superior" sensor suites. Use your eyes. They are better !

John B. Steele

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 09:41 am: Edit

NSM's no doubt!

Tarkin

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Monday, March 04, 2002 - 06:56 pm: Edit

John

I would like to get a better understanding of the order in which RX's (reaction movement) occur. I know they happen 1 impulse after movement has set them off, but do Defensive RX's go before Offensive RX's? I do not see that ever noted in the rules. Is that the case or am I behind the learning curve?

k

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 06:55 pm: Edit

U7.xx rules question!!!

In a campaign battle, I (the andros) came across a lone enemy ship and dispatched 4 andro Sat ships to take care of it.
EEL, TER, RAT, QNS
The battle was short and the ending result was a captured enemy ship (130bpv).
The enemy ship in the end was only 5% damaged.
The TER recieved two internals only, the RAT and QNS took a TB on the panels and that's it. The enemy ship in two turns had 20 BP's beamed aboard. The self-destruct was permanantly averted and the capture was complete.
SO! based on the U7.95 rules, here's the experience points allocation.
EEL=12
TER=33.70
RAT=12
QNS=23.72 (because it fired phasers)
There were no seeking weapons used by either side.
The TERM knocked down two shields and did very little internal.
The QNS fired 4 ph-2s doing shield damage.
No other weapons were fired by the Andros.

Then you read on, and the rule basically says about captured ships, Capturing a ship ignores all previous damage and is split proportionally by the ships providing the BPs.

SO!
That makes:
EEL=13.67
TER=13.67
RAT=28.71
QNS=25.37

In both cases, I think this is wrong. Not in the math, but in the principle. The EEL was exceptionally substantial in its OEW use, effectively making the enemy ship's firepower far less effective. The Terminator (in the second example) was the only ship capable of dropping this large ship's shields. Without it, BP would not have gotten aboard. Yet, it is credited with only 13.67 (12 of which was just for showing up and being part of a force that did shield damage and doing at least one point of damage).
I guess my main point here is that if there are no seeking weapons to distract, how is a scout able to be recognized (EP wise) for its invaluable work. It seems that Either the TERM gets good points or gets respectively none. It seems that in Both cases, the EEL gets respectively none. It seems that in the case of the RAT or the QNS, they either get good points or respectively none.
I don't see a balance here. All four ships were pivotal in this mission. All four ships had their individual mission, and if one of them failed their mission, the task on hand for the others would have been far more difficult and/or costly.
In this case, they were all equal in their task and yet, half my force is overlooked in the recognition (aka experience points).

Am I reading all this correctly?

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 10:57 pm: Edit

Glenn

This is SFB Galactic Conquest. Our rules for raising green/poor to regular or regular to outstanding are quite simple and less time consuming.

In your example under our system the enemy had 130bpv you had a force of 460bpv. The difference is 330bpv given to your enemy. You captured his ship so that doubles your available bpv to 260 minus 10% of your ships' bpv still giving him an advantage of about 100bpv even with his loss. So your ships would get no chance of rising a rank.

Now if he had survived he would have had a chance to go up a rank because of the vast difference in combat odds. The only way this would have changed if the enemy ship had been an Orion then it is worth 500% if captured.

I guess your campaign should consider making the chance of rising from one rank to another based on the percent of victory. Again in your case it would have been 0%.

Use the same example but have two 130bpv ships and you captured both of them then you would have a chance of gaining in rank. To keep experience levels down to the second decimal seems like a little to much paper work. Unless you are an account, engineer or government worker.

Make it simple, base the percent of chance of increasing a rank on your precent of victory but never go above 75% for poor, 50% for green(you get what you pay)and 25% for regular to go up a rank. If this generates to many outstanding crewed ships, then times your victory by the above precentages (example 60% victory would give poor ships a 45%, green a 30% and regular 15% chance)until you find a sweet spot. Nothing should be guaranteed espcially in battle. Also just because they survived combat does not mean they did it because they are good, it could be they just were to far back to die.

Good luck in your campaign.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 11:21 am: Edit

Thank you, Ken.
Your input is appreciated. It looks like from your campaign that everyone shares in the glory for as long as they show up (sorta like the bench warmers getting the trophy too, even if they never went on the floor to play). As long as they show up in the scenario. Am I reading that correctly?
BTW, the only reason I went to two decimal places was because my calculator did. :-)

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 12:21 pm: Edit

John Berg,

I too am interested in the order of RX. Especially a "bonus" RX that can occur in a battle. I have a general idea of what happens, but I am clueless when one gets to the details. A better understanding would help my order writing. Some examples would help.


System Assualt:

Fleets A,B,C arrive at a system simultaneously, issue an AM, and attack the system.

Fleet D (in the same hex as the system) has issued BN to attack enemy fleets.

Does D attack one fleet? Or the 3 AM'd fleets? Both are offensive RX and take 1 segment.

Does A,B,C fight D? The system? D plus the system? Or does one fleet fight D while the other two attack the system?

Suppose D did not issue BN, but issued orders to attack an enemy fleet entering the system. There is no 1 impulse delay because there is no RX. Would D fight 1 fleet for 1 impulse and 3 AM'd fleets there after? Or would D fight 1 fleet while the other 2 AM and attack the system?


Patrol:

Fleet A is patrolling its borders with orders to use its bonus RX as BN to kill enemy fleets. Fleet A encounters an enemy fleet (with no RX specified). Assuming A wins, does fleet A resume it's patrol for the full stragtegic movement because it used its bonus RX as opposed to a regular RX?

What if it takes A several rounds to win. Does A still continue for the full strategic movement?


The Trap:

Fleet A is sitting in a hex and issues 3xBN, intending to destroy any enemy fleet entering the hex. Two fleets (B and C) enter on separate impulses, each with a contingency BM as their RX. I.E. they want to avoid a fight for now.

Does fleet B fight and fleet C escape?

Fleet A has its first BN negated by fleet B's BM. Fleet A's second BN forces a fight with fleet B. Fleet C enters later and it's BM negates A's third BN. Does fleet C continue on its merry way without a fight?

Supose it is just fleet A vs B. A's second BN forces a fight with fleet B. Does A's third BN force a second fight with B?

Supose, fleet B didn't issue a contingency BM as the RX. Would fleet A get 3 rounds of forced combat?

Regards,

Tarkin

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Shipyard question: can a shipyard that has been specialized still scrap ANY ship?

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 10:09 pm: Edit

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 09:52 pm: Edit


Shipyard question: can a shipyard that has been specialized still scrap ANY ship?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an easy one, yes.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Saturday, March 23, 2002 - 06:19 pm: Edit

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 12:21 pm: Edit


John Berg,

I too am interested in the order of RX. Especially a "bonus" RX that can occur in a battle. I have a general idea of what happens, but I am clueless when one gets to the details. A better understanding would help my order writing. Some examples would help.


System Assualt:

Fleets A,B,C arrive at a system simultaneously, issue an AM, and attack the system.

Fleet D (in the same hex as the system) has issued BN to attack enemy fleets.

Does D attack one fleet? Or the 3 AM'd fleets? Both are offensive RX and take 1 segment.

Does A,B,C fight D? The system? D plus the system? Or does one fleet fight D while the other two attack the system?

Suppose D did not issue BN, but issued orders to attack an enemy fleet entering the system. There is no 1 impulse delay because there is no RX. Would D fight 1 fleet for 1 impulse and 3 AM'd fleets there after? Or would D fight 1 fleet while the other 2 AM and attack the system?

System Assault.

Lets assume this happens on segment 6, and all ZOC are lit up. Fleet D has the option of attacking your number SQ before it AMs or it may wait til you AM and attack you enmass.

Regardless of the outcome of the battles fleet D still can go back and defend the system. Any SQ that lost a battle prior to the system attack may NOT continue.


Patrol:

Fleet A is patrolling its borders with orders to use its bonus RX as BN to kill enemy fleets. Fleet A encounters an enemy fleet (with no RX specified). Assuming A wins, does fleet A resume it's patrol for the full stragtegic movement because it used its bonus RX as opposed to a regular RX?

What if it takes A several rounds to win. Does A still continue for the full strategic movement?

Patrol

Not sure how Fleet A gets this “bonus RX”? If he had wrote so complicated orders and he did use a BN then he would lose a MV, although to use that BN he would have to preallocate the MV to do so..hence he would already have lost the MV.

I think the bottom line here is your fleet need to have MV available for RXs, and when they are used strategic MV is lost.


The Trap:

Fleet A is sitting in a hex and issues 3xBN, intending to destroy any enemy fleet entering the hex. Two fleets (B and C) enter on separate impulses, each with a contingency BM as their RX. I.E. they want to avoid a fight for now.

Does fleet B fight and fleet C escape?

Fleet A has its first BN negated by fleet B's BM. Fleet A's second BN forces a fight with fleet B. Fleet C enters later and it's BM negates A's third BN. Does fleet C continue on its merry way without a fight?

Supose it is just fleet A vs B. A's second BN forces a fight with fleet B. Does A's third BN force a second fight with B?

Supose, fleet B didn't issue a contingency BM as the RX. Would fleet A get 3 rounds of forced combat?

The Trap

Fleet A uses the second BN to engage Fleet B, in a later segment Fleet A uses the second BN to engage Fleet C.
The morale……BNs are not “used up” but remain viable for the duration of the turn.

Hope this helps...jdb

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 11:31 am: Edit

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 12:21 pm: Edit


John Berg,

I too am interested in the order of RX. Especially a "bonus" RX that can occur in a battle. I have a general idea of what happens, but I am clueless when one gets to the details. A better understanding would help my order writing. Some examples would help.


System Assualt:

Fleets A,B,C arrive at a system simultaneously, issue an AM, and attack the system.

Fleet D (in the same hex as the system) has issued BN to attack enemy fleets.

Does D attack one fleet? Or the 3 AM'd fleets? Both are offensive RX and take 1 segment.

Does A,B,C fight D? The system? D plus the system? Or does one fleet fight D while the other two attack the system?

Suppose D did not issue BN, but issued orders to attack an enemy fleet entering the system. There is no 1 impulse delay because there is no RX. Would D fight 1 fleet for 1 impulse and 3 AM'd fleets there after? Or would D fight 1 fleet while the other 2 AM and attack the system?

System Assault.

Lets assume this happens on segment 6, and all ZOC are lit up. Fleet D has the option of attacking your number SQ before it AMs or it may wait til you AM and attack you enmass.

Regardless of the outcome of the battles fleet D still can go back and defend the system. Any SQ that lost a battle prior to the system attack may NOT continue.

===
In a nutshell, BN has precedence over AM then. That is important to know.
===


Patrol:

Fleet A is patrolling its borders with orders to use its bonus RX as BN to kill enemy fleets. Fleet A encounters an enemy fleet (with no RX specified). Assuming A wins, does fleet A resume it's patrol for the full stragtegic movement because it used its bonus RX as opposed to a regular RX?

What if it takes A several rounds to win. Does A still continue for the full strategic movement?

Patrol

Not sure how Fleet A gets this “bonus RX”? If he had wrote so complicated orders and he did use a BN then he would lose a MV, although to use that BN he would have to preallocate the MV to do so..hence he would already have lost the MV.

I think the bottom line here is your fleet need to have MV available for RXs, and when they are used strategic MV is lost.

===
I see I forgot to say that there was a LOO on board, which is entitled to a bonus RX. Does this fleet get three strategic movements and a bouns RX (BN in this example)?

The orders are simple: patrol the border and attack enemy fleets encountered. Use the bonus RX as BN. (Well, my order writing is simple.)

I.E. How does this bonus RX work? Does one get 3 strategic movments and an RX? Could one get 4 RX's by not moving?
===

The Trap:

Fleet A is sitting in a hex and issues 3xBN, intending to destroy any enemy fleet entering the hex. Two fleets (B and C) enter on separate impulses, each with a contingency BM as their RX. I.E. they want to avoid a fight for now.

Does fleet B fight and fleet C escape?

Fleet A has its first BN negated by fleet B's BM. Fleet A's second BN forces a fight with fleet B. Fleet C enters later and it's BM negates A's third BN. Does fleet C continue on its merry way without a fight?

Supose it is just fleet A vs B. A's second BN forces a fight with fleet B. Does A's third BN force a second fight with B?

Supose, fleet B didn't issue a contingency BM as the RX. Would fleet A get 3 rounds of forced combat?

The Trap

Fleet A uses the second BN to engage Fleet B, in a later segment Fleet A uses the second BN to engage Fleet C.
The morale……BNs are not “used up” but remain viable for the duration of the turn.

Hope this helps...jdb

===
Well, are you saying than only a BM can negate a BN? If fleet A issued 1 BN and 3 fleets entered its hex on separate impulses (with no specified RX), then fleet A would engage all 3 fleets with a single BN?

This BN is a useful Reaction Movement.
===

Tarkin

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 09:29 pm: Edit

Well, are you saying than only a BM can negate a BN? If fleet A issued 1 BN and 3 fleets entered its hex on separate impulses (with no specified RX), then fleet A would engage all 3 fleets with a single BN?

This BN is a useful Reaction Movement.

yes this is true on paper but in all likelyhood the Fleet A will be damaged and used up before the next to battles and would probably not engage again.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 09:30 pm: Edit

I see I forgot to say that there was a LOO on board, which is entitled to a bonus RX. Does this fleet get three strategic movements and a bouns RX (BN in this example)?

The orders are simple: patrol the border and attack enemy fleets encountered. Use the bonus RX as BN. (Well, my order writing is simple.)

I.E. How does this bonus RX work? Does one get 3 strategic movments and an RX? Could one get 4 RX's by not moving?

yes and yes

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 09:46 am: Edit

Thanks John. I have a better understanding of RX. While my LA has a degree in LOO school, he needs to dust off the books and try some of that schooling in the field!

Regards,

Tarkin

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 04:31 am: Edit

I have a few questions which I think I should throw John's way.

1) Poor Crew. The usual way to clear out poor crew from your crew unit stockpile has been to build a ship and fill it with poor crew units. Is there any other way of utilizing these crew units?

What if: The Gorns build a Tug plus Battle Pod (both with poor crew). The Gorn player sends this ship into battle; it survives; and the crew improves from poor to regular. Could the Gorn player bring this Battle Tug back into port, remove the (now) regular crew, and then fill this ship with poor crew units from his stockpile? This would have the effect of the Battle Tug being a penal ship wherein the poor crew units, after having done their penance, could leave and then make way for the next batch of poor crew units...

2a) PFs. Obviously, PFs brought into battle by casual PF tenders will be the standard combat type. But what about PF flotillas operated by true PF tenders and bases? Will the PF flotillas operated by these latter units just be standard types (6xPF) or will we need to also build the leader and scout variants? (1xPFL, 1xPFS, 4xPF)

2b) If we do have to build the scout variants, would their special sensors help their respective fleet in its EW status?

2c) Does the Primary of each race get to pick the "standard" combat variant for their race? (i.e. The Gorns only have one primary combat design, while the Hydran has at least 3 to choose from!)

2d) The PFs have the BPV listed in the MSC, but historically they also received a shield refit which added a nominal amount of BPV to the PF shortly after their historical introduction. Should we use the base BPV listed in the MSC for building and making combat calculations? Should we worry about the shield refits or ignore them? (I say that we ignore them...)

2e) Could a hypothetical system with five Starbases field 150+ PFs in a battle at one time and would they all fight at top efficiency (as far as the rules are concerned)?

2f) Are we really going to be keeping up with pilot quality for INTs and PFs as Ken Riffle indicated in an earlier post? Why not count these as attrition units and not worry about pilot quality?

Gary Glattli

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 06:32 pm: Edit

I'm also a bit concerned about the number of fighters that could in theory be part of the static defenses of a system. 24 small ground bases at 6 fighters each would be 144 fighters. (Isn't there a larger 12 fighter "small ground base"?) In theory 6 starbases could have a total of 36 HBM's for 216 (more for the Feds) or a theoretical total of 360 fighters. There may be some way to cram even more free stacking fighters at a system. There's also the PF/fighter ground equivalent of an SCS group ground base. Late model fighters can exceed 14 BPV (2 AF) each not counting fast drones etc. That would add up to 720 AF or more in fighters alone or the equivalent of 40 average cost heavy cruisers. Perhaps no empire could afford to defend many systems this strongly, but such a system would be extremely difficult to assault if not impossible. A few key systems defended like this (or a sizable fraction of this strength) would be an unfair advantage depending on the map geography. If min/max'ing will gain an edge, somebody will try it. We need some sort of attrition unit limit for free stacking static system defenses. We have limits on ground bases, orbital bases, DefSats, etc. for game balance purposes and fighters / PFs shouldn't be a way around system defense limits. Perhaps there should be an arbitrary limit on the numbers of fighters / PFs at a system? Say 48 fighters and 12 PFs? Or perhaps system static defenses should be CAN restricted but with most units stacking for zero can but fighters / PFs costing CAN slots? This would be easy to balance without a lot of new rules. Just to throw out numbers, say every 6 small ground bases cost 1 CAN slot. Up to all 10 DefSats cost 1 CAN. Every 2 orbital bases cost 1 CAN. 12 fighters or 6 PFs cost 1 CAN. Not affected by CAN-3 or CAN-5 restrictions. Perhaps limits increased for homeworlds. This should keep most (all?) current systems legal thus not requiring any adjustments to current systems. A little study would probably better balance these numbers. It should be balanced so a fortified system is dam tough but not impossible to breach. F&E has effective limits on the number of fighters stationed at a system, but may not be balanced for our campaign system.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 11:38 am: Edit

Joseph,

This is my understanding:

While a system fortified to the max is tough, there are already limits to the total number of ground bases, DefSats and orbital bases. Not every fighter squadron (12 fighters) can participate in a battle at once because of CAN restrictions. Each fighter squadron takes up 1 CAN slot. (Carrier battle groups have slightly different rules). Orbital bases have their own CAN. Those fighter squadrons that are not participating in the initial stages of battle are kept in reserve. As attrition takes its toll in the battle, those reserve fighter squadrons enter the battle as a CAN slot becomes available.

In summantion, one may have an excess of fighter squadrons, but only a limited number can participate in a battle. This limit is the CAN of the controlling unit (usually the orbiting base).

Defensive Satellites are automatic and do not need a CAN limit.

All Ground Bases participate in defending the system (no CAN limit). A fighter ground base would have its BPV figured into the defense, but the fighters would be under CAN limit restrictions. The fighters BPV is paid for separately from the BPV of a fighter ground base.

I admit, that I do not know how multiple orbiting bases would be handled. My assumption is that all of the bases participate in the battle, but that only 1 base commands the fighter squadrons, presumably the one with the highest CAN rating.

Regards,

Tarkin

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 02:35 pm: Edit

joseph

I beg to differ with you, if someone wants to place 360 fighters on a system more power to them. It is how they want to spend their resources. It is like why does the Federation have 2xSB, 3xBATS, 1xTCB, 10xDS and 24xGBDP on each one of their systems. Answer is because they want to have their systems fortified.

If someone wishes to place 6xHBM on each of their bases for 180 Mt-1's and 24xGLFB for 288 Mt-1's that is their way of spending their economic resources.

It is what we are planning to do at Velara. Oh, did we fail to tell you guys that we are not giving you back our system. So, let me see that will be 468 Mt-1's plus the fighters carried on our ships. Yeah, we are going to have a grand olde time at the Opry Tonight!

So as they say in the deep south "Come on Down!"

Each Base can handle its CAN Factor plus the system defenses. So if a sqdn of fighters are attached to a GLFB then the GLFB controls that sqdn. That sqdn is consider part of System defenses and it is not subject to the CAN ratings of each Base. Otherwise, why would anyone want to buy a GLFB? If the Fighters did not belong to it. It would be like a GBDP without its Phaser IV. Useless. It is just a benefit of owning a GLFB.

John if I am incorrect in this matter let us know before we build and they counterattack. I just want to make sure we can open up a large can of Whip A** on their arriving force.

Hey we can continue our saga of the billiant pebbles story. Any buyers on advance copies of what the outcome of round four "the battle of Velara IV" is going to be? The movie rights are still available!!! We hear Arnold Quartznrock will play the lead JFP Commander.

JFP High Commander

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 04:36 pm: Edit

I'm under the impression that all static defenses including their fighters are not restricted by CAN. Another way to look at it is that ground bases and orbital bases are carriers that don't require escorts so therefore their fighters stack for free. John Berg, please clarify this for us.

The problem I see with such defenses is if they become unassailable, we won't have much of a game left. There will be a rush to fortify border worlds with massed fighters. Empires will essentially be forced to build them after their neighbors do. It may take awhile, but I bet it would happen.

It looks like 24 FGB-M could be built which would double the number of surface based fighters I estimated above. That would bring the theoretical total up to over 500 fighters or over 1,000 (50 CA worth) of AF.

I'm not arguing against empires fortifying their systems. But static defenses have to be limited because of the build limits (number of SY) and stacking limits of ships. Static defenses are currently limited. My concern is that maxing attrition units on static defenses was not considered when these limits were set.

At any rate, I think this is worth looking at closely before people rush off and start burying systems in attrition units.

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 11:16 pm: Edit

joseph

I see your concern, but as you and i know at this time in the game very few races can take on the massive defenses that you have placed on your systems at this time, so why do you want to restrict a poorer race from buying cheap fighters.

So what if a race buys 500 fighters at 4ep each or 2000 ep worth, while you place 1950 ep into 2xSB and 3xBATS. Who cares? If someone wants to build a static fortress line let them. Sooner or later it will be cracked. Once their navy is gone, all the defenses in the world will not stop the system from be placed under blockade. Go ask your allies the Quari.

Also, every static defense created in the history of forever has been cracked. I am sure you thought nobody would take down your forces at Velara (2xSB, 3xBATS, 2xBT sqdns, 24xGBDP, 10xDS and a CB). At this point in the game only a few races have the power to take out one of your fortress systems. I am sure that is why you created so many fortress systems with over 4500 ep worth of resources poured into each system.

So if someone wants to dump their entire economy into static defenses let them. At some point, they like all the defenses before them will be cracked open like an egg to be enjoyed by all.

It took the Jindarians 3 years to amass a navy to take back Velara, with over 60 ships involved in the attack. It takes you 2 years to fortify a system and you now want to place restrictions on other races who do not have the time to create a fortress system on the cheap (of course it depends on how fast you can build fighters). Why don't you take 3 years to build up a force to take back a system with over 300 fighters on it. Then you can say if you build we will take it down.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 12:35 am: Edit

Uhm... Ken, I think that Felten is a Klingon in Berg's campaign...

My comment above concerning the number of PFs which could be used in a system defense battle is simply because I would like to know the way that system defenses and CAN interact with each other (or if they don't). This is a subject which is not defined in the rulebook and I think needs definition.

Gary Glattli