This is one of a couple of rules I am going to test in my next solo game.

A DD attack may be made against a carrier skipping its escorts this has the following effects/consequences:
1) The carrier group gets an immediate free DD that takes place before the attack on its carrier with the attack value of the carrier group (not including fighters) acting as a mauler effect.
2) The carrier is considered to have the form bonus.
3) The carrier's defense (after factoring for form bonus) is increased by 1 for each escort it has.

I'm not sure how Ad-hoc escorts factor into this yet. I could say that they are simply ignored which would be the easiest. My initial thought was that they would add to the carrier's defense but not to the "mauler" effect of the DD. When I thought about it some more I thought it shouldn't add to defense, but probably should add to the "mauler" effect. Looking for input in general but especially on how Ad-Hoc escorts work.
The inclusion of the word "before" in the DD attack the carrier group gets is intentional, it means that a mauler would have to survive the carrier groups attack to get its mauler bonus, of course if you combine this with not allowing maulers to attack standard ships it is irrelevant.

By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 02:57 pm: Edit

You should only use the escorts compot for the mauler effect. If the carrier is in range to fire on a target, it's in range to be fired upon.

By John E. Kollar (Johnedko) on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 03:45 pm: Edit

I like Dereks point. The idea of an 18 point mauler makes me worry that you the Kzins will WANT the coalition to try to kill its carriers, because then they can kill the C8s in the formation - only need 36 to kill it!

The big problem with this is that there is not enough information on the counter to allow you to know what the mauler value should be - how about a mauler value of 4 per escort. 3 Escorts gives a mauler value of 12, 2 gives an 8 and 1 gives a 4 - quick and no need to "deconstruct" a carrier group.

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Derek - good point.
John - that seems like a pretty good change. Makes it easier to use for one although I might make the values a little lower say 3 per escort, or maybe 2 for light escorts and 3 for heavy ones.

The mauler "value" is of course based primarily on the idea that the escorts are getting extremely close range shots while the attackers ignore them and fly in to kill the carrier.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Clell. The "mauler" effect also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I have no problem closing with a Kzinti escort. Those Hydran and Fed escorts, on the other hand....

By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 08:52 pm: Edit

My problem with this proposal ... every time I've seen it ... is "Why is it any more dangerous to close with a carrier group than any other group of ships?"

What does the Aegis system really give you in SFB that would justify a free DD?

Why don't you get a free mauler-like direct if the enemy DDs the form ship or free scout?

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 10:45 pm: Edit

In SFB the Aegis System help you ajust your firepower against Fighters and drones Not Warships......how does this get a free DD....and in a fleet action ...my carrier group would be behind the battle line giving support from Med to long range firing....I dont see how it would work in this case...( andyesI know this is about F&E)

By David Walend (Dwalend) on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 08:46 am: Edit

One or more F&E battle rounds maps to one or more SFB games. Clell, don't let lack of an SFB justification eliminate all other science fiction mumbo-jumbo. Just link it to something in SFU.

"Slipping past fighters and escorts to trap a carrier is a dangerous attack requiring commitment, guile and sacrifice. Ships participating in this attack are vulnerable. Therefore any fleet that directs on a carrier gives that carrier's fleet an extra DD, and the carrier group's attack factors act as a mauler." for example.

This rule is an interesting one. A nation with lots of outmoded ships could trade them for an enemy's carriers.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:25 am: Edit

I dunno, because it assumes that the enemy put something valuable in their carrier-whacker fleet. Let's say they just mass a bunch of F5 and send them to DD a carrier, would getting a free DD on an F5 really make up for that?

By John E. Kollar (Johnedko) on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Frankly, I can't find an excuse in SFB for most of the things that happen in F&E. I have played many campaigns, several as the Klingons, and I have never had a desire to build a D6M in SFB. Also, most regular warships in the games I have played made a better escort then the "purpose built" escorts, even with the AEGIS difference. So, frankly, whether there is an "SFB" effect for me is a useless measure. I have seen a D7A freeze something, but it was against the worse SFB player I have ever seen. (Example, flew his Tholian PC backwards with shields down through his own web, and got too close to a bunch of drones that happened to be Swordfish drones - I crippled the PC with Ph-3s.)

The stated purpose of the rule is to increase carrier casualties. Okay - I might not agree, but as this is a house rule I would like to help out.

Way to do that, allow carriers to be directed on. But then you need a penalty. Allowing the escorts to whack something in the offending fleet seems to be a nice piece of payback (although how an E4A can whack anything other than a poorly-flow shuttle is beyond me)and it is simple.

Frankly, I wouldn't let this rule near the canon F&E - but for Clell's game i think it would be interesting.

-John

By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 01:07 pm: Edit

This rule may actually be a little pro-alliance, partly because of the nature of their carriers.

Under this rule, killing a strike carrier based on a war cruiser hull would cost (7+4)*3+2=35 or (7+4-5)*3+2+5=25 with a 10 point mauler. But how often do alliance players (except the Gorns) build war cruiser carriers? Kzinti CVS would be fairly safe-- 47 or 37 with a mauler. CVAs would be extremely tough to hit-- 57 or 47. But D5Vs, SPBs and Lyran CVLs would be prime targets for alliance fleets (as would Fed CVB and CVS)

One question--what if the Coalition player puts two maulers on the line? You kill one with your DD attack, but does the other one still get to maul?

Also, do things change if the carrier is crippled? Because if not, crippled carriers are toast.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 01:39 pm: Edit

How about instead of escorts strength used for DD, use the Fighter group's strength instead. So, if you want to direct on a Hydran 4CV, you get directed on back by the 14 Fighter factors. Having the Fighter group zeroed in on protecting their carrier makes more sense to me than the escorts (as the escorts, and their weaponry, are designed to protect the fighters as they come in for landings, not necessarily to protect the carrier - though this is a useful side benefit).

This also makes putting carriers on the line with reduced fighter groups more of a risk.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Here's a vague thought: Why not require mixed escort groups? If the carrier's escort group only has Aegis escorts, then you can DD the carrier with normal ships (representing the lower ship-to-ship combat ability of Aegis escorts.) If the carrier's escort has no Aegis escorts, then you can DD the carrier with fighter attacks (because the fighters just swarm past the warships.)

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 03:06 pm: Edit

It really is a strategic game folks.

By John E. Kollar (Johnedko) on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Mike-

I think that is too much work to keep track of which escorts have AEGIS and which not - and what about limited AEGIS like the D5 has?

Andy-

The reason I didn't put that idea up is because then you need to know how many fighters are on each carrier on the line - I normally just have one overall counter for fighters...

Clell-

Paul has a good point, for the CVS that is almost where you can direct on a DN. If you want carrier casualties I would say you should need 27-30 (with a Mauler) to kill a CVS - I think you can work back from there to determine a proper formula.

CFant-

Totally true, but if Clell wants to add a whole bunch of rules to his house game, I have no problem helping him out. Obviously these rules don't have the snowballs chance (nor should they) of getting official approval, but I don't see anything else too exciting to kick around at the moment... we're bored... :-)

-John

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 06:04 pm: Edit

well my little noe about Aegis System was not tobe on here ,,,it the wrong site ...itwas pointed at the no fighter issue

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 06:05 pm: Edit

sorry agin this is the right site....ggeeeeeeee bad week for me

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 10:17 am: Edit

I'm hoping if I try these rules I MAY eventually come up with a solution that would (with tweaking) translate out of house rules into perhaps the level of a balanced optional rule, but certainly these rules are not intended to be that solution.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 10:43 am: Edit

John K: We already know what ships are "Aegis Escorts"--they're the "escorts" that are already listed in the game.

I would say that combat ships with Limited Aegis, like the D5 and B10, should just count as regular warships for this discussion. The Aegis on those ships is for self-defense, not for protecting another ship.