Steve, Not sure if this will be of any use to you, but I created this as a grid to take an 500-parsec F&E hex and divide it up into 50-parsec sub-hexes:

http://i1170.photobucket.com/albums/r528/Getgen/Ten_Hex_Numbered.gif

To be complete, you need to add a decimal and 0-9 after it to denote which 50-parsec thick level the object is on.


Another option is this grid:

http://i1170.photobucket.com/albums/r528/Getgen/Seven_Hex_Numbered-1.gif

With seven hexes across, the scale would be 500/7 = 71.4 parsecs.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 11:43 am: Edit

Garth: If it's ok with you I'd like to have Simone copy those and put them onto the FedAdm resources page.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Yeah, sure, no problem. Feel free to use them as you can. She might be able to recreate them "better", but if you think they're good enough as is, feel free.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Sent 12 more pages to Jean today (Friday), which gets me to the end of Chapter 3. Any claim that the original manuscript was perfect and complete is just not supported by the manuscript. For example, it says that for each "point of census" on the captured planet, you must have one "unit of troops" to force them to work in the factories. Which is all well and good, except that there is no definition of unit (squad of 5 men? Division of 10,000?) or point of census (a million? a billion?), and Jay's report (from back in 2012) says that a unit of census might be one thing in local campaigns and a very different number of people in regional or grand campaigns (a detail not in the original manuscript). We'll straighten this all out but this is why the product wasn't printed a decade ago. Too much was missing and non-ADB playtesting was obviously not effective or this would have been noticed and fixed.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 05:48 pm: Edit

And it cascades through the system. A unit of census produces a unit of production which is expressed in EPs which are different in each scale but the cost of ships on the original chart is just so many EPs. There is a note somewhere that something about EPs is double at certain levels but this is all very unclear. Fortunately, I hired some top playtesters to fix it for us all. This product is finally getting some real playtesting.

I hate having to cite the problems with the original manuscript but there is criticism that the delays are all ADB's fault, and that is just not true.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 01:23 am: Edit

Something you guys could do for the project is to go to the FA preview page and look at the mission document. Note that it uses a deck of cards to assign the missions, and that between Jay and I there are more than 52 missions. We haven't shuffled them to their final spots yet.

What I want to do is to use one suit (clubs, let's do clubs) for a double list. Find the 13 missions most likely to apply to a time of conflict, and the 13 missions least likely to apply to a time of conflict. We will use those to create two club lists, war & peace. The players can then decide which list to use as part of the rules of engagement.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Is resource generation time scaled?

For example...

During an F&E turn of six months, one minor planet, one province, and one colony each generate three, two, and one EPs respectively. So on average, these combined resource generators produce one EP per month. During that same six month turn, a shipyard can take those six EPs and use them to build one CL costing six EPs or one EP per month to built it.

==============

Are production cycles also scaled?

During a typical 12 month year (two turns) in F&E, and average empire might produce one DN, two CAs, and six CWs. I seem to recall from other SFU source material that it takes one DN slipway a full year to produce one DN, one CA slipway to produce one CA in six months (or 2xCA per year), and two CW slipways four months to build two CWs (or 6xCW per year; 2/3rds the time to build a CA). From what I understand about the F&E time scale is that production is abstracted and averaged over the six month turn to allow only one DN per year, one CA per turn, and THREE CWs per turn. This was done to accommodate the constraints of a fixed six month F&E game turn. If these production scales are valid, will these too be reflected for FA or is it something entirely different?

Thanks.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Resource generation in FA needs to be time-scaled but the original draft was rather vague, which is the problem we've been discussing.

And Chuck knows he'd do better to spend 5 EPs on a war cruiser since CLs are obsolete. Then you can spend the sixth EP on a party for the crew.

Beyond that, the scale situation becomes rather ... squishy. Really, a local campaign with one-week turns and probably lasting two years doesn't need to be bothering to build new ships. If you want a new ship there should be a rule to ask national HQ to provide it. In that case, "local EPs" can be anything since they're really just a way to keep score not your operting budget. Regional campaigns are perhaps akin to F&E sectors which indeed generate "real EPs" and use them to build ships as part of an overall schedule. (The various limits on how many of this or that special ship you can build a parcelled out sector by sector.) A grand campaign is really just F&E with some extra rules.

I am kind of thinking that "one local census can be controlled by one battalion" is a simple way to handle things without definining the census in hundreds of thousands. Most of the planets in a local campaign are going to be small colonies with small populations and produce 0.001 "real EP" per turn

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 05:34 pm: Edit

From the draft document posted on-line:

---

Quote:

3.2.15 Technology Investment
Each Campaign Turn players may purchase Tech Points. This is basically the players reinvesting in technology for their empire. Technology development means to transform raw economic power (EP) into technological breakthroughs. This is the player’s Tech investment as described in section 3.3.1 Tech Investment. Tech Points, by default, cost one Economic Point and have no Maintenance cost. This is also subject to change if the CM alters this to suit the scenario or setting. Each point will always cost one EP at every campaign scale.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Yes, Garth, it would have to be a problem. But beyond that, at Local level there really shoulld not be any player involvement in technology investment or research. That's a function of higher headquarters. Just a guess, but the Federaton includes about a hundred local campaigns and they can't all be doing their own separate technology research. It just makes no sense. It just doesn't work.

The "scale" thing continues to haunt me. As I noted earlier to the playtesters, the original text include some kind of ground units but they had nothing to do with the Star Fleet Universe (no empire in SFU has "guard" units anyting like the British Coldstream Guards) and none of the units mentioned has a size. I can see that a destroyer would have the same construction cost and maintenance cost at any scale (you'd just have more detroyers at a higher scale) but since the ground units "scale with the campaign level" so that a "unit" controls a "census point" they cannot all have the same maintenance cost and construction cost. A battalion that can control one local census isn't going to cost as much as the brigade needed to control a regional census point or the division needed to control a grand census point. It's all just missing data or data that just doesn't work. Even if it's there, these things are so generic and so disconnected from the universe and from reality that they really ARE missing data in every sense.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 27, 2016 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Let's imagine a United States where all 50 states are the same size and all have the same number of counties. You can play a game covering five states or one state or five counties or one county but the levels of campaigns aren't all doing the same thing. No county sheriff is doing his own research on better body armor (beyond picking it out of a catalog). He would need 5,000 years to research better body armor instead of waiting one year for the national government to research better armor for everyone.

I really don't care if the technology research rules work just peachy, if they peachily reflect something that doesn't happen at that level then they're wrong.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, September 10, 2016 - 10:03 am: Edit

After playing with some numbers, I think a "better" combat system for FA might be use 2d6 x 5%. The original system, 1d6 x 10% allowed for too many extreme results. On the other hand, the F&E system is designed for pure attrition and doesn't allow for any extremes at all, i.e., no miracle Hail Mary saves for an outnumbered defender.

With 2d6 x 5%, there is a slim chance of said results. With a 1d6 x 10% roll, there is a flat 16.67% chance of any damage amount, be it max or min or average. With 2d6 x 5%, there is only a 2.78% chance of either max or min, and less than one-tenth of one percent for both players to do max-max / max-min / min-max / min-min damage.

With 2d6 x 5%, the average damage is 35%, and either player has a 16.67% chance of doing said 35% on any given roll. There is a 19.75% chance both players will do damage in the 30%-40% range, and 37.04% of both doing 25%-45%, and 62.50% chance of 20%-50%. This leaves only a 37.5% chance that one of the players will roll 10%-15% or 55%-65%, and only 2.78% chance that both roll in those ranges. The "Hail Mary" results, defender doing 55%-60% to the attacker's 10%-15%, happen only 0.69% of the time.

I can live with those numbers. The question is, can SVC live with them??

	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
2	0.08%	0.15%	0.23%	0.31%	0.39%	0.46%	0.39%	0.31%	0.23%	0.15%	0.08%		2.78%
3	0.15%	0.31%	0.46%	0.62%	0.77%	0.93%	0.77%	0.62%	0.46%	0.31%	0.15%		5.56%
4	0.23%	0.46%	0.69%	0.93%	1.16%	1.39%	1.16%	0.93%	0.69%	0.46%	0.23%		8.33%
5	0.31%	0.62%	0.93%	1.23%	1.54%	1.85%	1.54%	1.23%	0.93%	0.62%	0.31%		11.11%
6	0.39%	0.77%	1.16%	1.54%	1.93%	2.31%	1.93%	1.54%	1.16%	0.77%	0.39%		13.89%
7	0.46%	0.93%	1.39%	1.85%	2.31%	2.78%	2.31%	1.85%	1.39%	0.93%	0.46%		16.67%
8	0.39%	0.77%	1.16%	1.54%	1.93%	2.31%	1.93%	1.54%	1.16%	0.77%	0.39%		13.89%
9	0.31%	0.62%	0.93%	1.23%	1.54%	1.85%	1.54%	1.23%	0.93%	0.62%	0.31%		11.11%
10	0.23%	0.46%	0.69%	0.93%	1.16%	1.39%	1.16%	0.93%	0.69%	0.46%	0.23%		8.33%
11	0.15%	0.31%	0.46%	0.62%	0.77%	0.93%	0.77%	0.62%	0.46%	0.31%	0.15%		5.56%
12	0.08%	0.15%	0.23%	0.31%	0.39%	0.46%	0.39%	0.31%	0.23%	0.15%	0.08%		2.78%
	2.78%	5.56%	8.33%	11.11%	13.89%	16.67%	13.89%	11.11%	8.33%	5.56%	2.78%

Garth L. Getgen

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Sunday, September 11, 2016 - 12:00 pm: Edit

The similar proposal for F&E received little support. In my opinion, it isn't suitable for Federation Admiral either. If I'm resolving a battle using the strategic combat rules, it's because I don't want this level of detail. Roll one die, resolve the battle, go on to the next. This proposal would introduce an unwelcome random factor into proceedings.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, September 11, 2016 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Well, I disagree, obviously. And I have come to believe the F&E system as-is would not be a good fit for FA. The guy who caused me to come up with the above is a complete jerk, but he did have a valid point. FA was intended to be a campaign system / scenario generator for FedCmdr (or SFB if you like), so presumably most players will runs some of the battles under FedCmdr but will also want to abstract out a lot of them, the "unimportant" battles and the ones too large to play out in a reasonable amount of time. If you would play these out in a tactical game SFB/FedCmdr/ACTA:ST/Armada, there is a modest chance of something weird happening. The F&E system was designed for straight-up attrition and doesn't allow for any weird results at the far ends of the bell curve. The abstract system should mirror expected results of the tactical game. If two players should run the same exact fleets over and over for 100 battles in FedCmdr (or other tactical game), there will be some oddball results that just cannot be replicated using the F&E system. The proposal above does that. The original FA system, 1d6 x 10%, does that too, but does it too much, 11.11% of the time. By going to a 2d6 x 5% system, it pulls the bell curve in towards the center while maintaining the extreme values possible needed for those oddball results.


Garth L. Getgen

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, September 12, 2016 - 10:52 am: Edit

And now I'm being told my suggestion above is a bad idea because it's already received negative feedback. {sigh}


Garth L. Getgen

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 12, 2016 - 11:16 am: Edit

Small battles, such as would (I am told) be generated in Federation Admiral, are quick to resolve using Federation and Empire.

For example, a Fed force of CC 3NCL SC vs D7 F5L 2F5 would take less than a minute to do each round of combat. At its most basic level, this can be done with one die roll per side. The damage coefficient result would be 2.5% times (the sum of both BIRs + the player's die roll) plus 2.5%, resulting in a range of 10% to 42.5%). This gives each player some influence as to the results without making the results predictable.

Usually players also use a variable intensity die roll. A variable die roll results in -5% to +5% damage, but would require a third die roll (with 50% damage being possible in the case of sixes and both players picking the highest intensity they can).

I favor some sort of combat system that accounts for the use of special ships. It does not have to be F&E, but F&E is an obvious place to start when looking for what could be covered.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, September 12, 2016 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Perhaps. I'd have to crunch the numbers.

Personally, I'm not seeing the absolute need for a "fast" combat system. FA was intended to be a campaign system covering peacetime low-level conflict to generate scenarios to be played out in FedCmdr (or SFB or ACTA or Armada if you like). As such, just how many battles would one expect to be created each turn? But I guess some people want it.

Now, the person I'm having a conversation with is all wrapped up in the ability of the smaller fleet to "win" against a much larger force. He is still insisting that the original 1d6 x 10% is better than the F&E system and even my 2d6 x 5%suggestion above. As much as I hate to admit it, crunching the numbers does prove that F&E is designed for pure attrition and thus doesn't allow for such a result.

Take, for simple round numbers, a 150 force attacking a 100 point force. If the dice rolls are 1-6 every round, the defender still losses in F&E. The damage range is too narrow; the defender can never close the gap. All he can hope for is to take as much of the enemy with him to hurt him later in the campaign.

He wants a wider range so that on a 1-6 roll, the results are 150 vs 100 x 10% vs 60% = 15 to 60 damage. What I pointed out, and he blatantly ignored, is that if the rolls are 6-1, the results are 150 vs 100 x 60% vs 10% = 90 to 10 damage. With 1d6, the larger force rolls max 1/6 = 16.67% of the time and devastates the smaller force. Even rolling a 5 results in 75 damage and crushes the smaller force. Ergo, one-third of the time, the battle is pretty much over after one round. Much too often for my liking.

My suggestion was a simple change that still allowed for extreme results (something F&E can't do) but with a bell curve closer to what I suspect one would get with FedCmdr or other tactical game.

If two players took the same 750 BPV fleet against the same 500 BPV fleet and played it out one hundred times in FedCmdr, how often do you think the smaller force pulls off a marginal victory? A complete victory, the so-called Hail Mary win? How often does the attacker crush the smaller force taking little to no damage? Wins with losses but not too many losses? Just barely squeaks out a victory? Same questions for two evenly matched 550 vs 550 point fleets.

Those are the results a "simple" combat should try to emulate. I admit I have no idea what the numbers should actually be, so when drafting the suggestion above I consulted the great Vulcan philosopher T'Lar ... "That looks about right".


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 12, 2016 - 01:56 pm: Edit

There is definitely a need for a fast combat system so that players can decide if they want to play out this or that battle and just get the others done. F&E-310 (Enhanced Small Combat) will handle 2-vs-3 (and smaller) battles, but what handles 4-vs-4 through 4-vs-14 through 14-vs-14?

That's what FASCRS was for, but the original draft just doesn't work by any means. It not only doesn't produce the same results as FC/SFB/Stamada/ACTA, it has a 33% chance of producing a 1% event, and mis-handles fighters, bases, and convoys. Fixing it would require at least a new combat chart (Garth's would work as would others) and fixes for all of those details. That's tricky, however, since the scenario system adds some units to one side or the other. (e.g., a supply raid scenario adds a convoy to attack).

It would not be hard to just include F&E-300 as is, but there are reasons (not good ones) not to. I don't want VBAM loyalists snarking that we took out the perfectly good FASCRS (which was not perfectly good and which few of them have seen) just to insert F&E because we're ADB and we shove out own proprietary systems into games that don't need them because we're just mean. That isn't a good enough reason to include a bad system that doesn't work, let alone one that would get Paramount upset.

Nobody really decided if FASCRS was going to be more or less than F&E-300, not least because the guy who wrote FASCRS didn't look at F&E-300 and shoot high or low. So FASCRS ends up being sort of harder and easier, simpler and more complex, than F&E-300 at the same time. The publisher-designer-marketeer in me thinks this is a bad idea, that FASCRS should either be more complex than F&E-300 or easier, not both at once.

I'm loath to sit down and design a new FASCRS. It's a lot of work (my time may be better spent elsewhere) and my ideas may be too linked to F&E. I'm almost to the point of asking Garth, Richard, and Jay to all design and submit their own systems and then let Wolf decide which to use, or maybe use them all. At least that way we might end up with something creative and elegant.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 12, 2016 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Well, for factors at least, I suggest we stick with F&E. It does simplify things in that we don't end up with two systems with two entirely different set of factors.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 12, 2016 - 02:45 pm: Edit

I believe I said that two months ago, Doctor Eitzen. That's the chart I posted. Did anything I ever said indicate any plans to change the chart? To what?

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, September 12, 2016 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Yes, Richard, the F&E ComPot / build cost values are simple to import over as-is. I'm not saying "don't do it that way", but there is an argument to be made to take those numbers and double/triple them to allow the granularity of pricing in all the refits and upgrades that the F&E numbers smooth over.


Garth L. Getgen

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Monday, September 12, 2016 - 11:18 pm: Edit

Actually Garth there really is not. Both FC and ACTA simply ignore the refits and assume all refits are applied. Except for the Middle Year expansion in FC which seemed to go nowhere.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - 12:12 am: Edit

Please excuse my confusion on that issue, I've been doing a lot of things and sometimes I lose track of this or that.

I meant no harm.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - 12:26 am: Edit

Richard, I was just being funny about it.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - 05:05 am: Edit

Ok.