F&E General Discussions

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E General Discussions
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
Archive through May 06, 2014  25   05/06 08:17pm
Archive through May 07, 2014  25   05/08 08:48am
Archive through May 11, 2014  25   05/13 09:56am
Archive through May 14, 2014  25   05/14 10:36am
Archive through May 15, 2014  25   05/15 06:23pm
Archive through May 21, 2014  25   05/21 01:50pm
Archive through June 19, 2014  25   06/29 07:21am
Archive through July 01, 2014  25   07/02 06:11pm
Archive through July 04, 2014  25   07/05 11:36am
Archive through July 06, 2014  25   07/06 12:55pm
Archive through July 13, 2014  25   07/13 08:24pm
Archive through July 16, 2014  25   07/16 04:11pm
Archive through July 22, 2014  25   08/17 11:38am
Archive through August 18, 2014  25   08/18 06:43pm
Archive through August 20, 2014  25   08/20 01:11pm
Archive through August 21, 2014  25   08/21 11:53am
Archive through September 09, 2014  25   09/09 12:25pm
Archive through September 12, 2014  25   09/13 05:50am
Archive through September 13, 2014  25   09/14 03:15am
Archive through October 18, 2014  25   10/18 05:51pm
Archive through October 20, 2014  25   10/21 05:25pm
Archive through October 24, 2014  25   10/25 11:47am

From a post on February 13, 2006

This topic isnít archived, isnít "answered", is not processed. Itís just a place for quick questions and quick answers.

-- SVC

Please keep this in mind as you post here. This topic is to have a maximum of 500 messages, no more than six months old.
By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, October 24, 2014 - 10:57 am: Edit

the feds needing to be subsidized by anybody is not in fact normal. you're taking the dire alliance circumstances in your particular game and claiming in effect they are an inevitable consequence of the rules. if you flip sides with richard, like you did in the 4pw, and similar results ensued, that would be a much stronger argument- and would surprise me quite a lot.

there's little dispute that the alliance has a harder row to hoe without the extra cash and prizes they gain in the supplements, but the other brown paper bag F&E games that you see around here aren't as lopsided as dont/cant, by any means.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 24, 2014 - 02:30 pm: Edit

When was the last time you played a game of basic F+E out to T15 or so? Like, really?

I have played multiple games of basic F+E out to T15 or so. And what I have going on in my current game is not that far out of the realm of what has happened in the past, either playing the Alliance or playing the Coalition. In fact, this particular game sees the Alliance doing better than they could be, relative to how they ended up at this point in previous games under previous rules sets.

Why would the Federation *not* need financial aid from allies? They have a build schedule that runs at 130+ EPs per turn. They have an economy than can *easily* be dropped by 75-100 EPs a turn though Coalition action (most of which consists of Romulan province raiders that, at best, die 1/3rd of the timeÖ). If they have any significant number of cripples that need repair, they are very quickly going to run into a situation where they have to choose between:

A) Building ships.

or

B) Fixing the ones they have that are crippled.

As you generally don't want to give up ship builds, you down sub and build smaller ships where you can. And even then, you can easily not have enough money to fix all the ships you need to fix. Over many turns. The Gorns, on the other hand, only build about 40 EPs of ships per turn, and likely have an economy of about 60 EPs a turn. Sending 10 EPs a turn to the Feds means that they can either fix 10 EPs more worth of ships per turn, or get closer to their actual build schedule. Either of which is advantageous.

This happens in games of basic F+E. The 2K10 rules seem to be working ok, relatively speaking, for the Alliance, relative to other games I have seen either as the Alliance or as the Coalition. But saying "the Feds never need to be subsidized" is either the result of not actually playing basic F+E to this point and just envisioning how the game works with the expansions (which, all indications are, *vastly* improve the position of the Alliance overall) or having played not real good Coalition players. A reasonably played Coalition that has mostly average luck? It can put the Alliance in a situation like this pretty easily (in the basic game).

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Friday, October 24, 2014 - 03:46 pm: Edit

I have only ever played basic F&E (albeit not under the 2010 rules). I concur with Peter that the Fed economy typically drops to under 120 EPs once the Romulans get fully engaged in the war, and it is not unreasonable to see it drop to under 100 if the Coalition pushes into the Fed capital and starts devastating planets. I have seen it bottom out at about 80 EPs a couple of times, necessitating financial aid from both Kzinti and Gorn in order for the Alliance to build the maximum number of hulls. No point in building a Kzinti DN when with the same EPs you can build 3 Fed NCLs.

I understand the dynamic changes drastically with the expansions, but I have no personal experience with it and probably never will. I just wish the basic game was more balanced, as none of my friends will play it again, citing the lack of balance, and they do not wish to play with the added complexity of the expansions. :(

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 24, 2014 - 08:04 pm: Edit

My gut feeling is that the alliance will turn this game around - when exactly remains to be determined.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, October 25, 2014 - 11:47 am: Edit

Here is to hoping!

By D Swan (Cygnet) on Saturday, November 15, 2014 - 05:33 pm: Edit

In the past I experimented with two changes to the mauler rules that seemed to work quite well.

1. Attack compot is reduced from 10 to 7 (and from 7 to 5) if the opposing force does not contain either a fixed or slow unit, [and the BIR is 6 or less].

This reduces both the attacking compot, and the amount of directed damage that can benefit from the mauler effect.

2. Maulers still have to make their shock role if crippled in combat. If the mauler is crippled and then fails the shock role, it is destroyed.

The first change is a simple way of reflecting Maulers greater value against fixed defences. They are still very useful in open space battles, just not so devastating.

The second represents a situation where the mauler survives the battle, but the shock damage means that it does not reach base or is too structurally weak to reuse. It has an interesting game dynamic - the Alliance may well spend 20/14 points for the 1/3rd chance of a kill. This nicely captures the way a mauler using its battery power offensively is no better defended than a regular hull (and may be in a tactically more vulnerable position).

Of course that creates play balance issues. But my sense is that the Alliance needs some help in basic 2010, and I'm sure we can find a pro Coalition change in the advanced rules set.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, November 15, 2014 - 05:58 pm: Edit

I am opposed to any major rules changes in the 2010 rulebook until such time as the game undergoes a new release and a major revision.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Sunday, November 16, 2014 - 06:43 am: Edit

has anyone ever done a consolidated list of damage needed to direct kill all ships (directed damage to kill list)

just occured to me that this would be very useful but also very tedious and time consuming to complete.

kind of like a quick reference sheet(s) (only bunches of sheets simliar to the msits im guessing.)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, November 16, 2014 - 08:44 am: Edit

Yuck. Why bother when all you do is add the appropriate numbers and then multiply by 2 or 3?

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Sunday, November 16, 2014 - 08:47 am: Edit

because its the very meaning of 'quick reference' it saves a smidgeon of time, plus the fact that im a lazy bugger about that sort of thing. i was only musing the point to see if that mountain of work had been done. it would be nice but yeah i guess its alot of work for fluff really.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, November 16, 2014 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Jim, if you think it is something that would be needed, put it together a sample and submit to ADB to see if they would like the whole shebang.

Like Richard, I just do it in my head. Quicker than looking it up on a leaf of sheets.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, November 16, 2014 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Yeah, not to gang-pile on Jim here, but as quick-references go, this seems like one that is more trouble than it saves. The vast majority of ships in the game have a completely obvious number for direct killing (CA: it's 8/4. So 24 to direct, unless it is in formation, when it is 36; D5 is 7/4, so 22 to direct, unless it is in formation, when it is 33). The small number of ships that are *not* super obvious (D6M, FAL, most BTs, uh, the CR?) are easy enough to check (or just remember) when they come up.

I suspect that doing the simple math is generally going to be quicker than looking a ship up on a database or list. But then, if you wanna make one and use it and it makes you happy, go nuts :-)

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 16, 2014 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Jim, most players know the required number of points to cripple or kill a specific high value target with directed damage. Yes some units are a little harder to calculate or remember than others.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, November 16, 2014 - 09:23 pm: Edit

I was curious as to what kind of experience people have had with some of the "split EW" hulls currently in the game system - those which offer a different EW rating depending on how many attack factors you wish to retain (such as the Fed GSC or GVX, or the Romulan SPC or FHC).

By and large, is it more common to max out those ships' EW ratings when putting them into battle groups, or are there certain situations in which it might be more advisable to go with the higher damage output instead?

And does the choice become any more distinct once X-hulls are involved? (There aren't too many X-scouts aside from the GVX which currently offer that conundrum, but that might change in the event that the GSX, or some of the larger Romulan X-scouts from Module X1R, were to be ported over to a future F&E module.)

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Monday, November 17, 2014 - 07:57 am: Edit

Starting from T1, the Lyrans have the DWS.

The benefit of the variable EW capacity is that the exact EW decision is made *after* the opponent has revealed his line.

If both sides have this capability, then it's a guessing game. However, if only one side has variable EW, then it's a simple matter to dial EW exaclty where you need it after seeing the opponents line.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:  
Password:

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation