Why is it that a neutral zone planet has better defences than equivalent planets inside a major power?

Yeah, they have an economy, that's nice ... what about the ones in a race's area. What do they make ... cheese? Of the two, one would expect the planets with access to trade throughout the major power would have a stronger economy than a border planet which can't do much trade with either side, since both sides apply heavy tarrifs.

Yet all they manage (at game start) is two PDUs, and maybe a monitor.

How do these minor planets afford a BATS, small fleet, 3 PDU and a PDU a turn? How did they convince the major powers they're beside to lend them a tug so they can build their BATS? How did the other race not see the tug setting up the BATS, and assume the neutrals hadn't thrown in with their enemy?

A PDU costs 7EP (even if we call it a "capitol" so that it avoids the surcharge) ... a minor planet makes 2EP a turn (less whatever it pays on it's permitted repair) ... how the heck do they build one a turn?

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 05:01 am: Edit

Not sure about the 1PDU/turn thing.

You don't need a tug to build a BATS, just to build one in a timely fashion. IIRC you can build a base the hard way, but it takes four or five years... so F&E doesn't represent that method.

The neutral minors have better defences because they don't have a Star Fleet or ISF to come to their aid. Most of the defence resources of a minor Federation or Klingon planet are not funding local defences, but are going to the navy. Even so, they have a couple of NG ships, too, plus probably a POL or two (not represented in F&E) -- so the neutrals don't have that much more.

In the `real world' small countries often have disproportionately large militaries; compare the number of divisions in the Greek and U.S. armies (not too dissimilar), given that the U.S. population is roughly 30 times as great (the GDP difference is larger, maybe 60-70 times as a SWAG).

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 05:23 am: Edit

Neutral Zone planets also get to be shipping hubs for trade between their neighboring major powers. Tarrifs with the NZ planet would be minimal as both sides try to convince the NZ planet to throw in with them.

If the NZ planet does throw in with them, its not a NZ violation. Any planet would have the right to choose its trading partners or the right to voluntarily join a larger nation for the benifits that brings. The key is getting them to volunteer voluntarily.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 07:30 am: Edit

If a planet is in the NZ, it might ask to join -- but the NZ treaty would prohibit either signatory from accepting the request. I'm not sure ``rights'' come into it -- treaties between great powers historically have pretty routinely ignored the rights and wishes of minor states. (Persia's right and wish not to be carved up into spheres of influence, for example, had little bearing on Anglo-Russian negotiations. And the population of Danzig/Gdansk didn't really get much say in who got the city after WWII...)

[edit: bloody 'ell, the BBS mangles Polish names if you spell 'em correctly...]

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:52 am: Edit

'neutral' planets need more defenses becouse they don't have a large fleet on call to protect them

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 02:47 pm: Edit

I think having the local minor powers add either a PGB or a fighter base per turn, or a police frigate per year, or one Monitor pod per year, is more in line with their economic capability.

The total limit for a minor planet would be six PDU, six police frigates (AKA one battle group), one old CL, one monitor and a BS/BATS.

In Y169 one police frigate will be converted to a FLG and in Y172 one frigate will be converted to a 4(3) Pol-CVE and on PF-2 of the Allied/occupying major power the local defenses receive PFs (or more fighters if Federation aligned).

For fleet support, the local power should have a shipyard. It could be represented by a planetary repair dock and have similar repair capabilities.

To prevent the local power from becoming a major "for free" strong point for the allied power, the following restrictions apply:

1) newly allied major power may not colocate fortifications with the local planet's defenses -- this is a local soveriegnty issue.

2) The local power's shipyard and BS/BATS may repair the major allied power's ships, but only at a rate of 1 ep per turn. The local power's economy is not geared to resupply the major power's fleet.

3) None of the ships or defenses of the local power may leave local planetary space. Local forces will react to military raids of local space (the hex of the minor planet) and local pirate activity in local space or adjacent hexes.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit

TTelenko: What you're describing is treating a coopted minor as a minor power throughout the game. I believe that is a much more realistic way of doin it, but I'm not sure that F&E is willing to go into that much detail. (I, personally, would love to see each minor planet have its own counters, and would love to see SFB ships for Sherman's Planet, Helvetica, etc.... but I don't think it'll happen.)

The rule as written has the minor absorbed into the coopting empire.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 10:49 pm: Edit

The rule as written has the minor absorbed into the coopting empire.

Like by the Diplomatic Teams??

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 04:31 am: Edit

Frazikar: Yes -- most of the focus for both this rule and the diplo teams has been on the perceived possibility that the Klingons could get two free BATS in the Fed neutral zone and whether they could then have them upgraded to SBs by turn 7. The neutral planets rule is pretty much just `chrome' without the duplo rules allowing them (with ships, bases, etc.) to be taken over for free...

By David Lang (Dlang) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 05:14 am: Edit

as SVC pointed out in the diplomatic team section these planets would be part of an inactive fleet so the klingons would not be able to upgrade them

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit

DLang: Thanks for bringing that observation over to this topic...

By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 04:48 am: Edit

However, if the Klingons can get such defences for free, they can commence the upgrades the instant they wish to invade for the same net effect, by the following procedure:

Turn (1-5 ... whenever): Take control of neutral zone planet.

Turn 6: Move tug with DipTeam to the neutral zone and begin setting up a co-located mobile base.

Turn 7C: MB setup, Tug declares upgrade of BATS to SB, and the Eastern Fleet flies past, slamming into Federation Space, and putting a hurt on the fifth fleet. When they get done, they retrograde large amounts of ships to this hex. Drag/Strat FRDs here while you're at it, if it looks bad.

Turn 7A: Pin out any counter-offensive as normal, then retreat before and after combat to minimize casualties and get everything back onto the hex.

Turn 8C: Starbase operational, use it to repair ships, and commence MB:BATS(0) upgrade ... don't bother wasting the money on the fighters, you can have the SB build them if the MB survives. If you really want the fighters now, have the SB build one module and attach to the MB.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Turn 10C+: Twin SB over NZ planet ensures a strike point into Federation space until the offensive is dead. Total cost:63EP (28+7+28), assuming at-start MB used, and no fighters. Add fighter costs to taste. Against this cost, feel free to consider the EPs the planet has produced for you, and the XTP the planet/SBs will produce at a later time.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 05:13 am: Edit

Mark E, so you have saved 1 turn in deploying the MB.

is that really going to make a difference? (is the federation really going to be coutnerattacking on turn 9 so you have to get the bases up on turn 8?)

you haven't saved any money vs the options currently in the game. (you just got the income from the planet which has nothing to do with the base upgrades that you may choose to put there)

also remember that SVC is pondering the twin SB problem.

By Steven Rossi (Steverossi) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Concerning the 6-Point Old Cruiser.

Just to get a closer handle on what this thing actually is, are we assuming that such a vessel is approximately equivalent to a National Guard Ship? Would it then have an OpMove of 5 hexes?

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Yes, I'm still wondering about that. I have assumed that these are something like LCAs, but they could be more like the Fed CL...

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Steve, from my understanding the neutral planet warships cannot leave their hex so essentially they are move0 units.

By Steven Rossi (Steverossi) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Jimi: A good point. I knew I was reaching a bit. Just trying to think of ANY possible ships that might be OpMove-5.

Example: A Klingon diplomatic ship is able to get the neutral planet to join the Klingon Empire. Would the neutral planet warship then be able to leave the neutral planet? Well... it wouldn't really be a neutral planet anymore, but you get the picture.

IRL, recall that Bulgarian troops were used to defend Greece. If I were the Klingons, I would move that old cruiser out to work with my National Guard.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Steverossi: OT, but when exactly did the Bulgars defend Greece? What I recall was Bulgarian occupation in WWII (not to mention handing over all the Jews of Thessaloniki to the Germans). Relations have, unfortunately, not been good in the 20th century...

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 07:28 pm: Edit

TK, he was referring to the fact that the Germans were using the Bulgarians to defend their occupied territory.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

JKD: I guess it's a matter of perspective, isn't it?

In F&E terms, actually, the Germans' use of axis minors to do a lot of occupation dirty work could be mirrored by allowing coopted minor neutrals' ships (some fraction of them, at least) to be used for province garrisons -- i.e., occupation troops.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 11:51 am: Edit

If we wanted to get really specific, we could even lay out deployment areas for the neutral planets when/if they join either side, in much the same way that some WWII games limit where the Axis minor ally forces can operate. In this way, we could have the neutral planet between the Klingons and Kzin able to operate in Klingon or Kzin territory, say, while the planets on the Fed-Kling border could send ships to Fed and/or Kling territory.

We are talking about a relatively small handfull of ships, after all, and it would seem somewhat pointless to include them if they can't go anywhere.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 12:55 pm: Edit

JKD: I would love to see that... but I doubt we're going to get specific counters for these guys. If generic counters have to suffice, then there's going to be no easy way to track which ship came from which Axis, er, Coalition Minor.

For simplicity's sake, then, I think if they need to be free to move or not. What I'm currently thinking is this: When an aligned minor's hex becomes a war zone (the two races it borders are at war), two of its `police' ships are released. It must maintain 10 COMPOT plus the monitor at home, so if it is attacked and loses ships, some must return. (They probably can be any minor's ships that come back, because we can't track whose are whose once they're released.) If the planet is lost, all surviving ships are released.

The `police' ships probably ought not be treated as police ships in F&E terms, since `returning to police service' would still leave them available for home defence. Just call them 4-point FFs or LFFs.

Given that there's also a possibility of Allied-aligned minors, I also like the idea of there being homeless minor ships adopted by the controlling race after the minor planet is conquered -- a Helvetian or Bezwellian ship defending Earth in Y174 is very reminiscent of the Polish ships which fought on with the RN in WWII...

By Steven Rossi (Steverossi) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 06:00 pm: Edit

TK: Apologies. My comment about Bulgarians defending Greece is mis-stated. The Bulgarians helped the Axis powers occupy Greece 1941-1945. This is not the same as defending Greece (I get your point).

As to the real question of when the last time Bulgaria actually defended Greece, I think it must have been during the era of Byzantium. At certain times Bulgaria was vassal to the Emperor in Constantinople. (this is reaching quite far)

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 08:42 am: Edit

The single biggest unbalancing problem with a coopted minor neutral is that the local defense BATS is available for upgrading to a SB.

I would prefer that the technology be "incompatable" for such an upgrade. Either disallow it or tack on an economic point surcharge to do so equivalent to buying a MB and upgrading it to a BATS.

It is a better idea that minor neutrals were operating sector bases to start with rather than BATS. In that case the major powers simply copied the idea when their wartime economies started to gutter out and the BATS->STB and STB->SB upgrades were not available until they copied them in Y175 (or whenever STBs become available). Hence no cheap Coalition double SB defenses on border minors for the Alliance to crack.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit

...or just give them a Base Station instead -- that way it cannot be used for a quick-turn upgrade to a starbase.