I like the Fighter adjustment but would still like 2:1 on the Formation ship. If nothing else, to make the FEG rule a decent choice to use, since it would seem to be made for this rule. It would actually be the reason that FEGs were developed, to protect the Flagship from being directed on at 2:1 alone. Putting it in a FEG would let it be directed on at 2:1 AFTER something else was directed on if only given 1 escort and at 3:1 if given 2 escorts.

---

Quote:

Robert: I could see doing something about fighters, maybe limiting the 1:1 attack to six factors, and the 2:1 attack to 12 and the 3:1 attack to 18.

---

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 05:19 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I totally disagree that unlimited 2:1 dirdams would have any significant effect on ship counts. It just would not happen often enough to matter. So, no way is that a valid alternative, and I'm not even interested in testing it. Indeed, I have no choice but to regard your counter-proposal as a method to neuter the rule.

---

By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Sure it will. The B10V is a monsterous carrier and will be well protected by its escorts. You just have to be somewhat cautious about its use until Y175.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Lawrence wrote:
>>It only matters when you do one attack or get to the 4th attack. >>

I don't have real strong feelings one way or the other, but I think Steve's view (at least what I read into it) is that, say, two x 2:1 attacks is less likely to actually happen than a 1:1+2:1. Such that where a 1:1 and a 2:1 attack are likely to occur in every fight (killing 2 ships), you are much less likely to see 2x 2:1 attacks. For instance, say you do 30 damage (not at all unlikely for a standard battle line), with a 1:1 and then a 2:1 attack, you are going to blow up a CA (12) and then an FFE (18 in a 3 ship CA group) for your 30 (or something like that), where if you had unlimited 2:1 attacks, you still would really only ever make the one direct damage attack.

In a situation where you do a *lot* of damage (60+?), yeah, 2:1/2:1/2:1 is the same as 1:1/2:1/3:1, but that happens a lot less often than doing about 30 damage. With Steve's plan (1:1, 2:1, 3:1), you will still regularly see two ships blow up (as it would be foolish *not* to make the first 1:1 direct attack, and then you still often will have enough damage to blow up something else as well). With your plan (unlimited 2:1 attacks), in *most* fights, you'll still only see one ship get directed (as the first 2:1 vs something attractive is going to use up most of the available damage).

-Peter

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Lar

---

Quote:

1:1 + 2:1 + 3:1 = 2:1 + 2:1 + 2:1

---

By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 09:58 am: Edit

I'll still build the B10 and put two SFG's on it. Wanna face two of these in the line together? If you've got enough left unfrozen to direct on one of them, God bless you!

But you're right on one point: I'll never take one into an attack over fixed defenses.

By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 10:00 am: Edit

On fighters: do it by squadron, not by factors.

That way I can direct on the group from say a Fed CVB's group, some A-10's, or any other weird group.

(Ya gotta love what this would do to the assault on Tholia!)

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 05:25 pm: Edit

I really don't like the all CA, CC, and BC die aspect of this rule. The history claims that FF went obsolete over time, NOT the BC! But BC will die for 15 if used on the line, and CA for 12. Who wouldn't target them at that?

I'd be tempted to sub an extra 4 point FF for a CC if it's legal under this rule! 9EP to absorb 14 damage once is stunningly inefficient. Will anyone put a CA or heavier on the line with this rule if they have a choice? What will the Hydran fleet look like if they come out and play?

I'd prefer a rule that allows multiple directed damage attacks to have a built in reason to target the small trash units that are supposed to die like flies in the General War.

Try this:
(XXX) Alternate Directed Damage: Any player may declare alternate directed damage in place of normal directed damage.

(XXX.1) If the player recieves an extra directed damage attack for some reason (penal ship, stasis) this is not effected by the use of alternate directed damage and the extra attack may be resolved normally prior to damage reduction for the Alternate Directed Damage attack.

(XXX.2) Declaration of Alternate Directed Damage reduces total damage inflicted by 7 or by 25% (round up) whichever is larger.

(XXX.3) Alternate Directed Damage allows a player to make multiple directed damage attacks, each such attack (individually) does the first 7 points of damage for a 1:1 cost, and any additional points of damage for a 3:1 cost. Thus an 8 point CA could be crippled for 10 damage (7+3) or killed for 22 damage (7+3+12) while a 5 point FF can be killed for 10 damage (5+2+3) and a 4 point FF can be killed for 6 damage (4+2).

(XXX.31) Some units have their defense strength increased when targeted for alternate directed damage. Any unit in the formation box or free scout has its defense strength increased by 2. All scouts add 1 to defense strength (cummulative with the free scout bonus). Escorts add 1 to defense strength if part of a legal group and the entire group is not being targeted. Units in the support eschelon double their defense strength.

(XXX.32) Excorted units and inner escorts may only be targetted if combined in a single special directed damage attack with outer escorts.

(XXX.4) A mauler or X-ship may assist in a Special Directed Damage attack on a single target (at most one per attack per round may be assisted by each side). In this case the Mauler allows additional damage to be inflicted on the targeted unit equal to half its attack factor at 1:1. Maulers (but not X-ships) are limited to targeting only slow units or basses.

(XXX.5) Special Directed Damage Attacks are resolved one at a time. If a unit carrying fighters or PFs is destroyed by a Special Directed Damage attack then the owning player may interrupt the special directed damage procedure to give up some or all fighters and PFs that were carried by that unit at 1:1 prior to any further special directed damage attacks.

(XXX.6) Units targeted by alternate directed damage are treated as self killed for purposes of rules such as rescue tugs and depot repair where the method by which a ship was killed matters.

(XXX.7) Sometimes multiple targeted by Special Directed Damage are combined for purposes of defense strength. Sum the defense strength of all such units targeted in a single attack. The attacker need not target all units. This is treated as a single unit (i.e. either all crippled or all killed, and the 7 reduced cost directed damage points are recieved only once).

(XXX.71) All fighters and PFs attacked in a single round are combined.

(XXX.72) All SIDS steps inflicted on a single base are combined with defense strength 9 each.

(XXX.73) All PDU and PGB attacked are combined with a defense strength of 5 each. (Note: since this is a single attack the fighters from one PDU need not be destroyed prior to destroying the next PDU).

(XXX.74) All units in a single group that are attacked must be combined. Attacks on a group may only target protected units if all outer escorts are also targeted.

(XXX.8) If there is still damage left after the last alternate directed damage attack then this is resolved normally by the player targeted.

By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 05:50 pm: Edit

I'll put up this addendum to SVC's rule if you want to force the kill on FFs.

[xxx.1] The first DirDam attack must be on an SC4 ship, the second attack on SC3 or smaller ship, third and subsequent attacks on any ship.
[xxx.11] If you skip a size increment, you suffer a "one up" shift for each SC you skip.
[xxx.12] If your current target size isn't in the force, you can go up to the next largest SC without the shift. Ships in the form bonus don't count for target restrictions.

As an example, you opponent puts up a C8, D7C, and E4. Your first shot is the E4 for 6, followed by the D7C for 28, for a total of 34. But if you only have 30 points of damage, you can skip over the E4 for an up shift, letting your first attack be on the D7C at 2:1, or 28. If the E4 wasn’t there or was in the form bonus, then the D7C would be an easy shot at 14. The down side is that trying to kill the C8 directly would be 3:1, even without a form bonus.

This provides a measure of protection for the larger ships, unless there are no smaller ships present to act a screen. There is a danger of squadrons of Lyran DNs roaming about with virtual impunity.

Another option is to allow multiple 1:1 attacks, provided you work your way up in target size. In the above example, the E4 would take 6, followed by 14 for the D7C (20 total), then a final 18 for the C8 (36 if it was in the form). On the other hand, this would allow you to vaporize a large number of small ships quite easily, making them obsolete, just like the history says.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 06:03 pm: Edit

SVC

One change to the "Maulers only affect bases...." for this rule. Maulers can also target victims of SFG attacks since the SFG turns the warships into immobile targets.

By James Chou (Jchou) on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 11:30 pm: Edit

well, I see several problem, although I like
the idea in general.

1. With more efficient DD, the will not be a lot of points left over for fighters to soak. I suggest only 2/3 of the damage can be used for DD, and rest has to be resolved by opponent. This will also make larger ship less vulnerable (less points available for DD).

2. This makes cruise class carriers a lot more vulnerable -- to the degree it may not be worthwhile to build, unless fighters are not lost upon the destruction of carrier. The game balance issue at early game may be addressed by giving Kzinti and Hydran mothball cruisers.

3. vulnerability to DD really depend on the position, rather than the size of the ship. I suggest 1/2 of the ships be vulnerable to 1:1 DD while the rest are 2:1. Maulers/SFG using the special ability is 1:1, so are outer escorts.

4, intentionally targeting small ships so there will not be enough small ships for carrier escorts may become an intentional tactic. This make mandatory carrier escort a liability.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 08:56 am: Edit

I like Greg's take on the fighters, it just needs to be adjusted a little.

---

Quote:

On fighters: do it by squadron, not by factors.

That way I can direct on the group from say a Fed CVB's group, some A-10's, or any other weird group.

---

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 10:49 pm: Edit

Call Lightening
This discusion on more DirDam attacks looks like an attempt to be able to finaly get to a nice tasty carrier.
If one wants a DirDam that much then how about using a prime team to direct the fire for the second attempt.
1/2 - loose prime team no DirDam
3 - loose prime team imperfect DirDam at 2:1 but target gets +1 on its defense rating
4 - Prime team returns no second DirDam allowed
5/6 - Prime team returns second DirDam at 2:1

Mods

Calling fire on a G-ship or ship with above normal G factors -1 on the die. Decks too crowded to sneak about on. A Base requires extra G-Modules to qualify for this.
Calling fire on a Scout (ship with scout channels) -1 on the die. Sensors detect transmission
Crippled ship +1 on the die.
Second or subsequent Call Lightining attempt for that team in this battle -1. Prime team demotivated at being cannon fodder
Third and all subsequent attempts by a side to use Call Lightening in a battle -1 as enemy has clued up to whats happening.
All combat in a mutlisystem hex affects the attempt count.
Not possible in pursuit as all power is on movement, tractor and weapons

The prime team is calling the fire on their own position then attempting to beam out. There is a 1/3 chance of the attempt costing 5EP (in replacement prime team) as well as the inconvience of being without the team untill ones next turn.
Just a suggestion to see how much people really want the extra DirDam

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 10:26 am: Edit

Derek, I like that idea. It gives a reason to include FFs in a battle force besides using them in BGs. It will also make DWs more attractive, as they'll take 9 damage instead of the 6 (or 8) a typical FF will take.

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 11:16 am: Edit

I'm slightly surprised that nobody has thought to mention how much extra time the proposal will add to the game.

As we're all aware, there're the rules for persuit in the game. There's also, from numerous anecdotal reports, a plethora of "meaningless pin battles" in the game.

So, what the proposal will do, as I see it, is lead to a situation where each player does all sorts of math to figure out the best (however they value that) way to

1. cripple or kill as much as possible,
2. leave their opponent with at least one cripple, and
3. leave insufficient points to resolve by destroying their cripple(s), thereby ensuring either an extra round, or the possibility of persuit.

By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Dave, not sure about you, but I do all that math anyway. Then again, I'm very good at math and can do those calculations quickly and (usually) accurately.

Bases definitely become much easier to kill as written. So we say you can only DirDam a base at 2:1 (unless you're using a mauler) so long as there are any defending ships in the battle force.

As for FF v DW, we just put in a stipulation that you can't kill something in later DirDams unless you killed everything prior. Of course, the 3EP 5/3 FF is still better than the the 4EP 6/3 DW in this regard. Not sure what to do about this one.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Yes it may be better looking at the economics of it, but when that one extra point of damage was the difference between loosing a unit or not, then 1 EP is a bargain. And I know I have had many occasions where I wa (or my opponent was) just one point short.

I had made the assumpution that you had to kill the SC4 ship, but we all know where assumptions lead us......

I also thought that SVC said bases were not included (and that maulers would still work against them), but again I may be seeing things

By James Chou (Jchou) on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 12:49 am: Edit

This is getting nowhere.
If all you are interested is getting more ships killed, here is a simple rule:

in a given around, no one my resolve damage by crippling more than 1/3 of the ships used in the round.

small ships resolve less damage, so player either has to cripple larger ship, or destroy smaller ones.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 02:01 am: Edit

Ummmm.... Wow.

You may be on to something there. Simple, yet functional. It won't create lots of kills, but a few more here and there. It won't increase carrier kills, but it will thin out the frigate hull population.

Capital assaults would be painful, as they should be.

Let's ammend that to say that only 1/3 of the remaining ships can be crippled - thus if you kill 6 of 12 ships, you don't have to kill a 7th, because you can cripple 2 of the remaining 6 ships, and still qualify of the 1/3 rule.

I haven't run tests on this (obviously), so maybe there's problems I don't see. What do the rest of you think of James Chou's idea?

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 02:02 am: Edit

And if 1/3 is too harsh, would 1/2 work better? (Or would that just defeat the purpose of the rule?)

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 02:22 am: Edit

This is a good one too. And 1/3 is not too harsh.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 09:13 am: Edit

Kevin, it doesn't need to be ammended to 1/3rd of remaining as long as you clarify that killing a ship isn't crippling it for purposes of this rule. Thus a fleet of 15 ships in a capital assualt can take 8 killed and 5 crippled for example.

We do need to clarify that number of allowed cripples rounds up.

Strikes me as pro-alliance, how often is the alliance in the early war going to have this apply?

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 09:25 am: Edit

Ah, good point, Douglas. Right then - 1/3 crippled it is, plus any number of kills.

But you might be right on the pro-alliance thing. Is is possible it will become pro-coalition near the end of the war, to compensate?

By James Chou (Jchou) on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 09:40 am: Edit

I meant to say 1/3 of the ships committed (not include free scout and drone bombardment).

So a force of 10 battle line ships, you can cripple up to 3. But if there are any more points that need to be resolved, you must start to kill ships.

I choose 1/3 because that's a bit above the medium of 25%-30%. Normal intensitity battle won't result in too many dead ships (assuming equal fleet) unless your opponent has a good roll, and you and avoid the to trigger this rule by reducing BIR.

This rule favors fleet with larger compot density, and defense. At the beginning of the game, it does favor alliance, since alliance is on defense.

As an attempt to restore a bit of balance --
how about this?

no more than 1/3 (or even up to 1/2) of the fighters may not be given up to resolve damage.
(this reduce the benefit of carrier, and may force them to stay on line for more rounds in order to fully use the free attrition).

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 04:00 pm: Edit

As long as the rule is balanced throughout the ENTIRE war, both sides can use it equally well/poorly (like Auxillary CVs), it doesn't need to be balanced any further. Besides which, your attempt at balancing this through fighters will screw the Hydrans over.