Joseph,

I guess we will have to wait for John Berg to weigh in on this. We have different impressions.

Ken is right, one can blockade a system (a single ship can do it). That will defeat massive fortifications over time, assuming the blockade is not contested by other naval units.

But, fighters are cheap units. And they do boost the defensive capacity of systems rather easily. The goal is to boost your defenses and build a powerful navy.

Of course with sufficiently large fleets (3xAM) attacking a system (even a heavily fortified system), one will be successful. Building such a fleet is expensive. Providing reinforcements for the expected losses is expensive too.

There are a variety of strategies in deciding what to build. That's why we play I suppose.

Regards,

Tarkin

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 04:07 pm: Edit

You've certainly mistaken me for a Fed. I can promise you, that although the Klingon Empire has some well defended systems, we don't have 4,500 EP worth of defenses on every system. We certainly wouldn't have lost a system a couple of turns ago if we had.

I'm not arguing about what has transpired so far in the game and don't see how this could favor any empire over another. I just want us to think about whether we want to allow such powerful fortifications before it happens.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 11:51 pm: Edit

I want to get out all the maps to you guys before we tackle this issue.

jdb

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 09:51 am: Edit

Just curious, will these maps be in color?

Regards,

Tarkin

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Joseph

I am sorry for offending the Klingons by the slimy Federation attachment.

The comment that you wish you had the funds to put into such defenses, well we know of 8 Federation/Quari systems that are that heavily fortified. So, someone is spending more than all of us combined. The fact is they do fall. But if you spend your entire fleet to capture a system only to lose it in a counterattack then it was a wasted effort. So, that is why you have the ability to prop up system defenses (once they are in your space) with cheap defenses, i.e. Fighters.

If you limit the number of bases on a system to say 3 bases with one being held open for the economic platform, then that leaves you only two. If people had only to place 2 bases on a system it would be 2xSB for each system. I can see the offshoot of this policy would be more shipyard built in the empire and the end result would be more ships.

Here is question for JBerg - If you allow bases to be built on the system (not in obit), do the bases get the 4xDF modifier? The next question is how many can you have on the surface. This is just to muddy the waters for some of you.

I can see everyone rushing to build SB's on each system surface.

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 06:19 pm: Edit

No offense taken. I'm starting to think we should put our empire name somewhere in our "handle" since it's hard to keep track of everyone.

I think I recall the ground base question being asked before and the answer was that they do not get a DF modifier. Maybe it was in one of the old Pravda's. BTW, is Pravda officially dead? Anyone?

By Dr. Clayton Sager (Crsager) on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 08:37 pm: Edit

PRAVDA
Pravda is not dead. I expect to publish two issues this year. Topics under consideration include a new-player section, a rules summation (including Yahoo, Pravda, and GR), some fiction, some propaganda, some lies, and the other usual features. A further announcement will be made.

STAR BASES ON PLANETS
As for bases on planets, see Pravda #8, the ASK UNCLE JOHN section. Berg authorized the following Q&A:

BASES, especially C3.20 and B11.70
Note that one of the official TCB substitutes listed in B11.70 requires a total of 6 orbital bases (3 MLB plus 3 CPL).

Q. The rules (C3.20) state a limit of 6 orbital bases in a system. Does this include all bases, civillian and military, regardless of size (SAM to TCB)?

A. Yes.

Q. The rule states a limit on surface facilities (small and medium ground bases) of 24 (48 for Homeworld). SFB rule P2.7 allows for the placement of larger bases (SB, BATS, BS, SAM, MLB) on planets. How many of these large planetary bases can be placed on a planet surface?

A. Max of 6.

Q Followup. Do bases placed on the surface, count against the "6 bases in orbit" limit?

A. No.

Q Followup. Do large planetary bases face any special restrictions or provide any special advantages, such as being hidden like small bases or getting a defensive bonus?

A. No.


There was also a dicussion of hidden bases on Yahoo. Large Bases (SAM or larger) are NOT hidden when they are placed on the surface of a planet.

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 11:53 pm: Edit

Clay

Glad to hear from you. Thanks for stepping in and educating us.

A couple of simple questions regarding this for us who use them tactically.

Q. If you place the maximum of 6 bases on the system surface can you still have 24 bases or is there a ratio to what a bases subs for x number of small/med ground bases?

Q. So what in theory is the maximum number bases any system can have?

On another issue do you need any articles for Pravda?

By Dr. Clayton Sager - Pravda (Crsager) on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 04:20 pm: Edit

My understanding is that the number of large bases (SAM or larger) placed on a planet's surface does NOT impact the number of small or medium bases (GDP, GMB, etc.). We discussed the idea of a ratio, but decided it was too much bother, and it was inconsistent with the rules (SFB rule P2.7 suggests no such limitation).

As indicated, the number of bases on the surface does not impact the number of orbital bases. I think I have an email from Berg acknowledging that yes, 12 Star Bases (6 orbital and 6 ground) plus 24 ground bases could be put on a planet, if anybody really wanted to do so.

Sounds like a lot of special sensors to me.

One other point that Berg made to me at the time was that the GR B3.45 civillian bases (or their GR B11.70 substitutes) MUST be placed in orbit, filling some of those orbital slots.

I will call for PRAVDA items when appropriate. However, if you want to start writing now, or if you have something ready, I will be glad to accept it at any time.

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 08:17 am: Edit

What tasks are there that an orbital SB can do that a ground SB cannot? At a minimum I assume a ground SB can't repair ships not capable of landing. What about the other SB capabilities such as F-L/F-S construction, fighter construction, etc.?

By Dr. Clayton Sager - Pravda (Crsager) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 02:42 am: Edit

Regarding repair, and other abilities of large ground bases:

In SFB, rule P2.44 deals with using a tractor beam to lift from/land on a planet. If this rule can be used to land an inert ground base, I expect it can also be used to bring damaged ships into a planetary base for repair and then to launch them again, if needed.

This ability is implicit in GR rule C2.20, where "small ground bases with repair capabilities" have an SRV.

Also note GR rule B8.10, which states that 80% of any shupyard is "on the system."

In short, There is nothing overt in the rules to preclude a ground SB from doing anything an orbital SB can do, at least in the GR time scale.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 11:52 pm: Edit

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...


This is not really defined in the rules. I know in the past we have let small changes of crew to take place between Older ships to newer ones.

The real problem is when someone tries to take poor crew off one ship and place them on another.

I think the best bet (following the KISS strategy) is to just say NO and leave another level of rules complication behind.


jdb

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 11:58 pm: Edit

Gary Glattli writes...

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)

When PFL and PFS become available you can build for any PF Flot.

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

yes

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!)

yes

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...)

If the refits don't add a AF or DF point 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)?

better elaborate on this for me

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?

They get no special crew/pilots

jdb

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 12:02 am: Edit

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 09:51 am: Edit


Just curious, will these maps be in color?

Regards,

Tarkin

Yes
jdb

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 12:06 am: Edit

Ok Can someone tell me what the problem is with building up defenses on a system?

Bases have a CAN. I think small/medium GB don't have to be controled. I think other bases/FTRS/PF do. This should limit the number of FTRS/PF on a system (unless they build real escorts for the FTR ships/bases).

Not sure if a SB with PF mods is a true PFT or not...don't think it is.

jdb

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 11:24 am: Edit

Regarding fighter ground bases, who commands their fighters? My general question is how many fighter squadrons can particpate immediately in a system battle and how many are in reserve?

My assumption was that the unit with the highest CAN (i.e. Starbase) would command the fighter squadrons. The number of participating fighter squadrons would be limited by the CAN of the Base. This got complicated when there could be two or more bases. I don't know the answer.

Tarkin

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 04:45 pm: Edit

We do need John to clarify exactly how system based static defenses stack. Does it all stack for free? Do fighters and PFs based on orbital or surface bases count against the CAN of one of the bases? Do other orbital or ground bases count against CAN? Do small ground bases count? If there are limits, what happens to the excess during battle?

Closest thing I can think of in the SFB universe is the Federation and Empire system under which all base and planet based fighters and PFs stack for free. There is a general limit of 3 squadrons (basically 36) of fighters in a battle force (which is similar to a GC SQ) but fighters based on bases or PDUs (Planetary Defense Units, basically our ground bases) are exempt from this limit. Similar limit of 3 squadrons of non base/planet 6 PFs each. But in F&E it is extremely unlikely you would ever see 5 SB in any one combat location. I would be surprised if it ever happened in any game. Also F&E limits SB's to 24 fighters and 12 PFs (48 fighters and 0 PFs for standard Feds), so it isn't as big of a problem in F&E. Usually you'll only face one SB in F&E and up to 18 ship based PFs and 36 ship based fighters unless fighting over a planet. Major planets are limited to 10 PDUs, minors 6 PDUs, HW's 20 PDU's. Each PDU is limited to 3 PFs and 12 fighters. So a major system could have 30 PFs and 120 fighters, HW's up to 60 PFs and 240 fighters in theory. Again, this is unlikely except at a very key planet such as a HW that was under serious threat. F&E's combat system is similar to GC's but a bit different. At most non-HW major systems, there will be no orbital bases, just ground bases with the total firepower equivalent to a DN, 48 fighters and 12 PFs. We might be able to take some of F&E's rules and adapt them to our campaign. I don't think even 6 full SQ AM'ed together (the max that can AM and move 1 hex given 3 MV units) could fight 5SB and 150PFs. That's 3,000BPV worth of bases and 6,000BPV worth of PF's. That's equivalent to about 67 CA, and we haven't added small (or large for that matter) ground bases. It sounds like you could have another 5 SB on the surface with 150 more PF's, plus 24 small ground bases with hundreds more. Whether someone could afford to build this is another matter.

By Dr. Clayton Sager - Pravda (Crsager) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Regarding the stacking of static defenses, such as fighters, PFs, and any MM forces at the planet (like suicide freighters, monitors and AxCVAs), my recollection is that these have always stacked for free in past battles (unless they were inactive per the rules). That is the precedent.

True, the image of 12 SB, with their supporting fighters, at a system is a daunting one. But it is also unlikely. And the strategic cost to whoever does it would be hideous. And it is easily blockaded. And they are unlikely to be able to replace units lost through attrition if the system is blockaded.

As to the F&E examples, I suggest that they are subordinate to the established GR precedent. GR is not F&E, the concepts of movement, stacking in combat, map size, unit denisity, fronts, etc are all completely different. To take one unique aspect of F&E, one which is not entirely consistent with the SFB rules, and extend it to GR, seems unreasonable.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Felten...note that you can AM up to 10 SQ if they don't have to move on the stategic hex.

Note you can always bypass such a fortress as well. Survey/Annex the surrounding 6 hexes and the fortress is cut off from mother.

By Mike Incavo (Kavo) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 04:49 pm: Edit

I have mixed feelings on this subject. Realistically, why can't you pile as much defenses in one area as you want. A strong hold can always be bypassed. My fear however, is a large empire can eventually have many strong holds spread throughout his empire. Which could lead to problems. Until we find that these strong holds will excist (they have not yet shone their face) I believe we should leave things as is.

A couple of fixes that I can come up with if changes are to be made would be to assign up-keep costs to bases that would have to be paid for every turn. So a strong hold would not only be costly to create but to maintain. Another possibility would be to place stacking restrictions at systems. Lets say that only ten CAN slots can start off in a battle with all other static defenses entering as reinforcements. Example; 10xSB(60xHBM,360 fighters),24xGround fighter bases(142 fighters). Ground bases not counting against the CAN, the SBs would be part of the initial battle but only 10 CAN slots of fighters or PFs could start the battle all others would come in as reinforcements. This would be done seperately from the mobile units present.

I'm sure with everyone elses idea's we'll beable to come up with a good fix if a fix is needed.

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 05:06 pm: Edit

I agree with Clay.

In all past battles where static defenses used PFs or fighters their were considered part of the system defenses.

This raises the question "is a system only allowed a CAN of 10? or is each base allowed a CAN of 10?". All of my knowledge from past games was a base (SB in this case) was allowed a CAN of 10 and you use to be allowed to assign ships as part of system defenses to that CAN limit. Of course that rule was changed so now ships must AM to be part of the system defenses if you have more than one sqdn at the system. It never applied to 6 PFs or 12 fighters before and I do not see the sense in creating messy rules just for the rare case that some nut job wants to make a living will out of one system. Let them.

By the way, no system is into itself a total fortress. Let us say you create a 10k bpv monster fortress system. Who won that fight? The guy who annexed around it or the guy who entombed himself to one system for the rest of the game.

Just go ask the Quari what all the system defenses have done for their mighty empire. Let us review their situation. They built mighty defensive systems with 2xSB, 3xBATS and max ground/DS. So what did we do? We attack only to destroy his navy. Now we wait until I have enough forces to wipe out the whole system in 3 combat round. End results, what could have been ships will now end up being space dust.

So you example of the 10k system. Answer bypass and move on. You just eliminated 10k points of ships without a single lost to your empire. So what is the problem??? It is only in your mind and maybe in my case ego. I like to take things.

Now what is the maximum a single race can place on a normal major (not HW)? Well you need 1xTCB in orbit, 5xSB in orbit, 6xSB on the surface and 24x bases of some kind, you can have 10xDS. Now if you arm all your bases with HBM then you can attach fighters as well up to 11xSB x (CAN 10) = 110 can slots worth of PF's and Fighters. That is the maximum a system defense can reach. Your figures say you can have 70xCA worth of AF or 1400 AF, Well you can do 3xAM in a given turn and keep them AM until the next turn and bring in another 3xAM. Of course you will get into bogdown rules, but the bottem line is you will defeat his cheaper units because of their lower DF and you do not have to stay the whole time, just go in wipe out a few fighters and withdrawal.

The bottom line is if some nitwit wants to make a stand on a fortress I will let them. Because any race can win against that player. Now there are times when you need to fortify a system, some what like what the Q/F have done with 2xSB and 3xBATS and max GBDP/DS but if they had put the 2,000 ep into ships they would never be on the defensive to begin with. Think about this. The FEDS and Quari have 7 systems with over 2,000 ep in defenses each. That is 14,000 ep worth of ships. Or 2,000 AF in warships. What would you have 2,000 AF in ships or 2,000 DF?

So for whatever my opinion is worth, I say let them build their tombs to the living Navies, While my fleets plunder their trade routes, blockade their systems and take all their women! Opps.... that is another game....

Oh yeah, if you fortify it i will entomb it for them. FOR FREE!

Jinbaro Riffle

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Mike

I have to disagree, so what you are saying is that a system can only have a CAN of 10. Period everything else is reinforcements unless AM?

If you do that then your fighters sitting on the surface could take up to 5 combat round before they arrive into combat. In theory the battle could be overwith before they ever get into combat. what happens to them then? they can not retreat they are part of the system defenses?

are they just eliminated or do they come in every (up to) 5 combat rounds. Just to lose? that does not make sense. I know since I do not remember once in all my years where my reinforcement every made it into combat early. I with my luck all my fighters would face the same likelihood.

And why did you pick a CAN of 10 and not 20 or 30 or 40? Why just 10? Now that some races want to counterattack a system that they can count on having over 180 fighters on it they want to impose a new rule just for them? Does that seem unfair? Does that seem like putting the cart in front of the horse just for them. Since the Jindarians have been the only race to date to take down the Monster Fed/Quari systems, now that the Feds have to take down a Jindarian Monster system you and your cronies want to change the rules..... I disagree totally.

I will let everyone know right now, Velara is going to become the Jindarian Tomb of the living Salior. If the FEDS are not cowards then let them attack it, but we will build the maximum number of bases 11 and we will have over 180 fighters on the system when they arrive. If they want to bypass us, go ahead and try. If they want to attack I call their bluff and say "Come on Down"!

So, if you plan on changing the rules just for the FEDERATION/Seltorian/Quari alliance tell everyone in advance do not do it under the guise for the benefit of the other players. Who by the way have no way of taking down your mighty fortress systems you guys have built. Now that you have them built you want to change the rules to stop less races like the Jindarians from protecting ourselves... I do not see this as fixing a problem I see it as fixing the game for the FEDS/Selts/Quari Alliance.

By J. Joseph Felten (Jfelten) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 06:16 pm: Edit

True, you can 3xAM 10 SQ together to attack a system. Of course the defender can do the same.

I don't think it's as simple as trading ships EP for defenses EP. You can't just dump 10K EP in to ships and have them appear in a few turns. You have to have the shipyards for them. You can build more shipyards but that costs time and money as well.

It's also not just static defenses vs attacking ships. It's static defenses plus defending ships vs attacking ships. The defender will have a huge strategic advantage if he can retreat to an impregnable fortress to repair and reform.

Due to the nature of this campaign system, many battles take place over systems. It's somewhat balanced in that the attacker can concentrate on one point, but the defender can have static defenses to fight behind.

The question isn't whether system defense should be limited or not. They are already limited. The question is whether the limit is too high when maxed fighters and later PF's are added in.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Another point to consider is the huge cost in crew created. 11 SB is lots of crew...wich will translate into lots of poor crew.

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 09:47 pm: Edit

John

Poor crew? Why do you think they created DD's?