In a typical game, it is my belief that the quantity of every ship type should stay roughly constant over time. That is, if you look at a typical race's fleet on turns 1, 10, 20, and 30, the total number of frigates, cruiser-size ships, dreadnoughts, and carriers should all be more or less the same.

By "more or less", I mean, if it goes up and/or down a bit, that's fine. But there should not be a consistent trend in one direction or the other. And there certainly should not be a trend that holds across all games.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 08:17 pm: Edit

You have got to be out of your mind.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 09:11 pm: Edit

The total numbers of ship types also depends on enemy actions. Are you trying to say that the build schedules should go up on types depending on what is killed? That means that the Hydran build schedule is eventually going to be 6 CAs a turn unless the Coalition starts directing on FFs.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Michael Jockusch. With the increase in both quality and number of fixed defenses (especially PDUs), the overall ship count HAS to go up to compensate.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 03:13 am: Edit

I'm not suggesting any change in particular. Merely that my criterion, if fulfilled would make the game much more playable than it is now.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 08:18 am: Edit

Right, because its totally unplayable right now. Proof would be the very low numbers of players at Origins. 3-to-1 vs SFB is a horrendus ratio. I really hope that by 2007 we can get that poor ratio up around 4-to-1 and 5-to-1 by 2008.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 11:57 am: Edit

---

Quote:

In a typical game, it is my belief that the quantity of every ship type should stay roughly constant over time. That is, if you look at a typical race's fleet on turns 1, 10, 20, and 30, the total number of frigates, cruiser-size ships, dreadnoughts, and carriers should all be more or less the same.

By "more or less", I mean, if it goes up and/or down a bit, that's fine. But there should not be a consistent trend in one direction or the other. And there certainly should not be a trend that holds across all games.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 12:03 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I'm not suggesting any change in particular. Merely that my criterion, if fulfilled would make the game much more playable than it is now.

---

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 01:00 pm: Edit

But doesn't the game get to a point where ships die faster than new ones can be built?? I haven't seen it personally, but many experienced players tell me that in the later years whole fleets simply evaporate.


Garth L. Getgen

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 02:05 pm: Edit

I would imagine that in the late war, when everyone has an extra 36 compot of PF flotillas in the battle line (to say nothing of the PFs over, say, the Romulan capital) and X-Ships are flying around, that small ships blow up left and right to avoid having to damage the important units.

-Peter

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Also not having the EPs to be able to afford both a full build schedule and repairs will cut your ships down quite a bit. Just ask the Roms, who in my opinion really get the shaft with exaustion.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 08:25 pm: Edit

"In a typical game, it is my belief that the quantity of every ship type should stay roughly constant over time. That is, if you look at a typical race's fleet on turns 1, 10, 20, and 30, the total number of frigates, cruiser-size ships, dreadnoughts, and carriers should all be more or less the same."

Ummm, no.

"That means that the Hydran build schedule is eventually going to be 6 CAs a turn unless the Coalition starts directing on FFs."

Exactly. The fundamental purpose of carriers is to replace standard ships. The ratio of carrier to cruiser *must* change as the game develops, or the carrier cannot perform it's function of protecting the cruiser.

I can see why you'd want to modify *how* the fleets are going to change over the course of a war, but I cannot imagine the fleets not changing at all. The late war fleets are going to be very different than the early war fleets. Not just bigger, faster, more dangerous - but different. They will have evolved to a mixture of what you really want (and can afford), and what you don't really need (and are going extinct.

One late war fleet might still be loaded with pin factor ships, while another might be missing cruisers altogether. Some fleets will have units they are no longer using, and slowly give them up in combat or convert them to something else. Some players will choose to crank out the same old ship type, counting on numbers and tenacity, with others will be concentrating on building the next new thing, sacrificing their old fleet to work build up the new one.

Each player will have a different idea of what the optimal end war fleet will be, but one thing is for certain - it will be nothing like the fleet you started with.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 08:52 pm: Edit

"With the increase in both quality and number of fixed defenses (especially PDUs), the overall ship count HAS to go up to compensate."

Only if you want it to.

If you want the late war alliance fleets to be be on the offensive, just like the early war coalition was, then yes, you need to increase ship counts to compensate for the improved defenses.

Personally, though, I am counting on the increased defenses of the late war to slow the alliance counterattack, possibly stop it altogether. Without that effect, I see no reason why the alliance would have agreed to a mutual cease fire. They would have prosecuted the war to a complete conclusion, bringing the coalition to its knees.

I don't want that result, I don't want the alliance players grumbling that they ran out of time. I want to see the players reaching exhaustion in tune with the game economies. One effective way to create this is to increase the defenses higher in relation to the increase of the attacking force, and thus increasing the pain of the offensive. Both sides will finally have to lay down their arms, as it becomes too painful and unproductive to continue to fight.

And that was, by the way, the historical result, as per "A Brief History of the General War".

By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Clearly you want to see some •••• die, go round up some friends and play Winds of Fire...
Lost my Kzinti CVA with an extra escort over a battle station last time I played it...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Simple way to fix this ... New DirDam rule. First DirDam attack is 1:1 and second is 2:1. I would say the third is 3:1 but I have no idea how you would get that far.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Do maulers get to direct at 1:2?

(ducks and covers...)

-Peter

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 04:46 pm: Edit

No. Under that rule, maulers don't get to direct against anything but bases and maybe slow stuff like convoys. And out of phase retrogrades don't happen.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Huh. That actually seems pretty reasonable.

In this particular plan, can you still CEDS replace escorts via magical conversion from a hull in the same hex?

-Peter

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Ah, but do CV groups count as 1 DD attack? Or do you kill the escorts as the outermost is the first DD attack at 1:1, the next one in is the second at 2:1, etc? Also, it is per shot and not for the entire hex? And do the formation bonus ships get one level higher DD or a flat 3:1? This new DD rule would work out pretty well with the Flagship Escort Groups (which I thought were pretty pathetic as is).

I could see the defender getting to 3:1 over their Capitol, but only if he REALLY wanted to kill something...Like a Fed CVA group.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Somebody remind me to actually write this rule.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 07:17 pm: Edit

SVC

Write the rule to change DD into

---

Quote:

New DirDam rule. First DirDam attack is 1:1 and second is 2:1. I would say the third is 3:1 and maulers don't get to direct against anything but bases and maybe slow stuff like convoys. And out of phase retrogrades don't happen.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 11:56 am: Edit

Outline of rule:

First DirDam attack is 1:1 and second is 2:1 and third is 3:1 and fourth is 4:1 and if you can do a fifth and sixth and seventh you can do the math.

Maulers (including things that act like maulers) do not have any effect on "warships" but only affect bases, convoys, and such things. Not overloaded tugs. Maulers are "one down" but minimum 1:1.

Formation bonus ships get "one up" on the dir dam attacks, so if your first attack is on a formation bonus ship it is 2:1.

If you DirDam a whole CV group it's one attack but mimimum 2:1. If you do individual ships, each individual ship is an individual DirDam so the outer escort would be 1:1 and the inner escort would be 2:1 and the carrier 3:1.

Magical escort conversions continue, and count against base capacity as they do now.

No "out of sequence" retrogrades.

Any other questions?

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 12:02 pm: Edit

How would that affect directing PDUs? Would 4 be considered one big DD attack, or would you do them one at a time?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Thoughts on Maulers:
Maulers can still elect to contribute their ComPot in the normal combat way, right?

One interesting thing might be that Maulers could cancel out their equivelent ComPot of an one enemy ship.

This translates to the alternative uses a mauler has on a battle. This would be on a per round basis. If anyone wants me to explain the alternative tactics I'm thinking of I'd be happy to. I imagine generally everyone knows what I mean though.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 01:22 pm: Edit

SVC, this effectively makes 3+ ship carrier groups unable to kill.

Take a Fed CVS+DE+FFE for example. To kill: 12*3+9*2+8*1+3 (escort bonuses), it takes 65 damage total, and that's with junkie escorts, not the top of the line NEC+DWA.

So you are gaining the short-term ability to kill 2 escorts (DE+FFE in the group shall take 29 to destroy both) to not being able to take out entire groups (admitiedly w/ a mauler).

Ship kills goes up, but it's going to be mostly low quality frigates as everyone will do a 1:1 direct on a CA for 12, then 16 to destroy a K-F5/F-FF/L-DD. Tons of battle generate 28+ damage, and then their are lots of battle rounds per turn, it's a lot of ship kills.