This is a very simple idea, and reflects the fact that many battles in SFB are squadron and firgate level...

Every battle round, before assigning battle forces, roll a die for each system in the battleround...

1-2 Frigate level battle.

Only size class 4 units allowed. No Admirals allowed. No medium or heavy carriers. No command points allowed. MMGs are allowed. 1 squadron of fighters do not count against command limits. Only 1 support ship allowed. No formation bonus box.

If the battle is at a starbase, sector base major or capital planet, the attacker may elect to force a die reroll unless the defender declares that the SB, SecB, major, or capital planet will not be in their battleforce (in which case it cannot be targeted).

An EW shift of 1-3 causes a die roll shift of 1
An EW shift of 4+ causes a die roll shift of 2.

Frigate level battles cannot count for the purposes of the raising battle intensity rule over bases.

3-4 Squadron level battle.

Only size class 3 and 4 units allowed. No Heavy carriers. Only 1 Command point allowed. MMGs OR Admiral are allowed. 2 squadron of fighters do not count against command limits. Only 2 support ships allowed. Only 1 swac. Only 1 SFG ship. Federation 3rd way allows a 3rd squadron.

All enemy bases must be included under normal rules, although the double starbase rule also applies as normal.

(note in point here - there has been considerable COMPOT and fighter inflation in the game without a concurrent increase in base strengths, making bases successively easier to take out. This forcing of SC3 lines to attack capital planets will rebalance things a lot, and note - the defenders only get SC3 ships as well).

5-6

Fight as normal.


Approach battles

If the battle is only frigate or squadron level, the attacker winning it does not force the battle to go onto the base. It only makes the battle count towards 1 of the 3 rounds before the battle MUST go onto the base.
If the attacker loses a frigate/squadron approach battle, he does not get any nearer to the base at all - the round not counting for the purposes of the three rounds.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 11:59 pm: Edit

I sort of like it (had tried to develop similar ideas before), but I don't really like the first round of frigates only. I guess I sort of think the cruisers would be up in front, searching and probing, while the frigates are support craft. Maybe something where you can have one cruiser and a few frigates, and command limits are half the normal stated amounts (Cruiser with CR8 can have four frigates accompany it, or something like that).

Another idea I had worked with before was to set up a complete line of warships, admirals, command points, the whole works, and then randomly break it down into smaller groups. Literally line them up in a row, your choice of what order, and roll a d6 - that many ships are in the first battle, against a d6's worth of the opposing line. Then from the remaining ships, roll another d6 each, for a second battle. Then for a third, and so on, till the remaining forces fight.

It was a little wonky, and could be manipulated, but if some of the your ideas and restrictions were layered atop the idea, it might work better.

After the different small groups had fought, then a 'second' round was fought normally. Or, alternatively, you do the same process again, but with d6+3 ships per group.

*~*

As a further explanation of my idea, in case you wanted to steal it... uh, I mean, utilize it:

Early war, Klinks invading the Kzinties.

Klingons set up line of C8, D7C, 3 D7, D6M, D6G, D6D, Battlegroup of 2 D5, D5S, F5L, 2 F5, plus D6S.

Kzintis have DN, CV group, CV group, CVE group, CC, BC, CL, and DD. CD as the scout, plus 2 DF giving drone support.

Both lines are ordered as follows:

Klingon: C8, D5, D7, D6M, D5, F5L, D6S, D6G, D7, D7C, F5, F5, D5S, D7, D6D.

Kzinti: DN, BC, CD, DD, CV group, drone support, CC, CV group, CL, CVE group.

Klinks roll a 3, Kzinties, a 5. First battle looks like: C8, D5, D7, vs DN, BC, CD, DD.

Note, the CV group is excluded, as the die roll is rounded down (unbreakable group). A 1 is added to the next Kzinti roll, to make up the missing ship in this battle.

Second battle, Klinks roll a 2, Kzinties, also a 2(+1). Battle is: D6M and D5, vs CV group.

Note, either a rule should be added to insure that the a mauler is always afforded a pair of consorts... -or- the Klingons should not have risked a mauler in the first round of battles. As it stands, the D6M is only at half firepower.

Third battle, Klinks roll a 5, the Kzinties, 2.

F5L, D6S, D6G, D7, D7C, vs CC with 8 points of drone bombardement in support.

The randomness of dice makes it possible for an easy cruiser kill. This might be a good thing, or maybe the proposal needs to be re-written to avoid this madness. You decide.

Ok, I just got bored with my proposal, so I DM-fiat the remaining ships to engage for the forth battle.

F5, F5, D5S, D7, D6D, vs. CV group, CL, CVE group.

Then repeat the process again for the next round, but with each die roll at a +3, to make larger battles. Third round sees full lines.

*~*

Yeah, it was wonky, and as I stated, I quickly got tired of rolling a d6 to determine how many ships for each fight. The actual engagements were interesting, though, and so maybe there's a way to fix the idea, possibly by adding elements of your idea with elements of mine. As I said, if you wish to steal... er, incorporate, any of my ideas, be my guest.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, October 15, 2007 - 05:52 am: Edit

The first round was not frigates only..

Every round is random. 1/3 chance of each of full fleet, SC3+4 only, SC 4only.

Part of the rationale for this is that it is more difficult to resupply and do quick, small-scale repairs on SC 2 ships, especially with respect to the heavier carriers with all those expensive fighters.

There are many occasions where a ship gets sub-crippling damage in SFB, and friagats would be much quicker at returning from that kind of damage.

However, it does occur to me that maybe you could have -1 MOD on the first round, and also the first round at any base, and +1 mod if there is a SB or capital planet in the battle.

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 04:31 pm: Edit

While not keen on the idea as it adds more randomness; Frigate battles should be able to use legendry commodres

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 04:24 am: Edit

Commodores are not in any rulebook last I looked.

And its not really randomness. Each side should come prepared for any eventuality, AND the fact is that SFB has many, many frigate scale battles not represented in F&E.

I could remove the random factor at the cost of added complexity - by introducing heavy and maximum supply levels. The other system I had in mind allowed players with ships in heavy or maximum supply, or with spare ships over a standard battleforce, to force smaller scale battles.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 03:09 pm: Edit

We do not need to have a rule to force players to have many many frigate fights "Just like in SFB." I manage that quite well on my own as I'm killing off province raiders and stripping my opponent of his income by occupying his provinces. If you are not seeing the kinds of battles that you believe that you should see, adjust your play style until you get what you want. There are too many rules that many players don’t use because some players think that they don’t add anything of value to the game or they cause an unforeseen problem (Variable Drone Raids anyone).

Combat can take a long time and you’re suggesting a random way of dragging out that process even more? That’s just crazy talk. This game needs easy ways to streamline combat, not complicate it.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 04:07 pm: Edit

"Combat can take a long time and you’re suggesting a random way of dragging out that process even more? That’s just crazy talk. This game needs easy ways to streamline combat, not complicate it."

I utterly disagree with that statement!

Now mind you, I do agree that we don't *need* a rule to make more small battles. This whole proposal, and any others like it, is simply a way to explore different ideas for the game. The game works just fine as is, doesn't need any expansions like this.

But overall, F&E can take forever to do the economics, planning, operational movements, reactions and reserves, and after the battle, retreats, strategic movements and setting reserves. The amount of time spent pushing fleets around the board to the point where two stacks of pieces end up in the same hex can be enormous... and then that battle ends quickly, because combat is *way too streamlined*.

If we were going to drag out the gametime in any way, I'd want it to be in combat. In fact, I'd like to streamline the economics and movement rules, while expanding the combat rules. More time for warfare, in this warfare-game, I say. And if we can't streamline the economics and movements, let's at least expand the combat rules, even to the point of making the whole game take longer.

We took forever getting to the point of combat, let's make the most of it!

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 04:43 pm: Edit

I take about 1 hour to do my econ & planning each turn (as the alliance or the coalition, doesn't matter) and spend 3 doing combat. My opponents spend about 2 hours doing econ & planning and 3 doing combat. We average one full turn per game session. But I understand what you're saying as I've been in games with Cuck Strong and he takes forever on the planning side (no offense Chuck).

Easy ways to streamline combat are not intended to eliminate the combat but to limit those non combat functions that take place during combat. You know, like having to role random events between each combat round instead of conducting combat.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 05:18 pm: Edit

"Easy ways to streamline combat are not intended to eliminate the combat but to limit those non combat functions that take place during combat. You know, like having to role random events between each combat round instead of conducting combat."

Ok, yeah, I can see that. That's why after I playtested my proposal for a bit, I got bored with it and went back to standard play.

*~*

If you're looking for more variety in the combats, I still find that increasing the minimum number of rounds of combat (or other casualty-increasing proposals) tends to make for more oddball battles, simply because the smaller surviving fleets are forced to use their resources more efficiently.

Just last night I found myself planning an operation where I assaulted a BATS with two Battletugs and two frigates, for that was all I had available to spare. If reserves showed up, I would burn a frigate and run. They didn't, so I fought it out, but I took a frigate killed, another crippled, and finally a Battletug got crippled as well.

If fleet sizes were larger, even for both sides, I probably would have had the standard 12 ship force hit the BATS, with the typical, boring result. Smaller fleets means more oddball (ie, SFB scenario-ish) encounters, IMO.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 06:05 pm: Edit

well, the original idea I had forced a fleet scale battle, but then one or other player could also force a squadron and/or frigate scale battle before the round ended.

Note that this proposal attaches meaning to frigate and Cruiser command ratings. And a LOT of ships will become useful that were not before. A prime example is light carriers.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Battle Groups do that by getting smaller ships into a battle force. And raids help by forcing players to deploy more (or larger) province garrison ships in order to defend against raids.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 08:01 am: Edit

Daniel.

Small ship command ratings are still meaningless in battlegroups.
Light carriers are still almost useless except perhaps for specialist duties, which was not what they were built for historically.
Putting provincial garrison ships against raids does not generate any combat per se. If anything it reduces combat as the attacker may end up with no raid targets. It certainly does not increase frigate-scale battles, as most of the combats that result will involve fast ships or DNLs on the part of the raiding player, usually facing something that they will win easily against (2 friagtes) or they will have been dumb to deploy them in that raid.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 07:43 pm: Edit

True, but in reality you always try to attack with a superior force. This is realistic in that any commander will look for an advantage in attacking an attempt to minimize disadvantages in his defense.

The trick is to make your forces vulnerable enough to be attackable yet strong enough to survive them.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 06:26 pm: Edit

But this is distracting from the point. What ppl are complaining about is a lack of sufficient combats. One way to resolve this is to have a gaggle of smaller combats around the main fleet combats. This idea also indirectly makes a lot of small ship varients MUCH more important, and indeed explians why anyone would bother with them at all..

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 10:22 am: Edit

Commodres were in a captians log, something like CL32. Historicaly a group of three ships could be assigned a commodre to deal with strategic planning. Being a playtest rule they may fit nicely into the smaller combat theme here