Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through June 03, 2021	25		08/29 05:47pm
	Archive through February 17, 2023	25		02/25 07:52am

Nothing is going to change because nothing is wrong, so popcorn until you drop.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, February 17, 2023 - 11:52 am: Edit

Why not move this discussion into F&E General, as the question asked has been answered?

--Mike

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Friday, February 17, 2023 - 01:40 pm: Edit

I'm not advocating for change.

The rules for F&E don't really reflect SFB, especially BPV, except in a vague-ish kind of way. The Gorn/Romulan ships are "buffed" in F&E (if you want to see it that way) because large plasmas are some combination of better in fleet play and/or better at assaulting fixed positions (a big part of F&E), I presume.

There isn't a lot of nuance in the ship classes so "all the DNs" are 12 point ships, for simplicity/game balance.

To keep on topic, The original question asked why Gorn ships were more powerful (see previous paragraph for my guesses as to the answer) but then used the Fed DNG as one of it's comparisons, so I was adding my own observation about it being underpowered.

And yes, I've flown the DN+ against C8/9s and that is approximately an even fight. _If_ F&E wasn't generalizing DNs to 12, but rather was using some BPV related comparison of relative power, the DN+ would be the match up with the C8/9 as they are only a few % different, up to about 8% with full refits, whereas the DNG has a significant BPV advantage over all the other DNs, except Gorn/Rom where it only has a difference of a few %.

I'd be happy to discuss further over in general, but I feel like the question has been answered and The relative power of the various DNs is on the SSDs I'm not sure where else the discussion needs to go.

And response to Mike, spefically,
Mostly 1:1. Hard to say "the DNG has a higher win rate than the Gorn DN" in fleet actions. But my college group liked to do DN duels (go figure) and one of the player only played Gorn, so weirdly I have a lot of Gorn DN vs. other race DNs data. And yes, understand it's not historical. But I can still wince a little when I see the 12 and 14 on the respective ships, even when I know it's a game simplification!

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, February 24, 2023 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Here is a small burst of Why? questions surrounding Combat calculation and the decisions made in creating the rules.
(Note: I believe I made a suggestion surrounding this before but the why portion wasn't really answered in that discussion and the focus shifted to pinning...which wasn't the point at all...and the proposal thread just got quiet).

Under the rule (bolded for emphasis),
(302.41) SUB-STEP 1: Each player calculates the total attack factors of all units within his Battle Force; this is the combat potential. See (309.0) Drone Bombardment.

(501.232) In combat, triangle factors on multiple carriers of the same side can be combined to be counted as full fighter factors. Half factors of any fighter types can be combined into a single fighter factor. A single half-factor triangle is simply ignored.

In the age of laptops and calculators, why is it in Combat Calculation that we by rule (501.232) eliminate the the 0.5 Combat factor when calculating Attack Factors? Why was this restriction needed?

Initially a multitude of ship counters were printed without the triangle representing the 1/2 factor and were rounded up. Was the belief at the time of this change (back to the 1/2 factors) the thought it might be too cumbersome to count up all the 1/2 factors for combat? I feel like we do this anyway we just have to drop the last 0.5. I would still like to see an official (not a house) rule change or added where players can add this half combat factor of these units back into the battle (combat calculation), but wanted to know the why behind intent of the restriction.

Why would we not want to factor in all attack factors before the calculation is performed, it just seems simple to not have this exception? Unless I am missing something I can only see an ever so slight effect for the damage determination that follows where the players do round up the calculated damage of 0.5 or more in (302.43) Sub-step 3 every so often another point can be generated, but it doesn't seem to break the combat game. (Combat Potentials of 81.5 vs 81.0)

(302.43) SUB-STEP 3: Each player multiplies the combat potential by the Damage Coefficient to produce the Combat Damage Result, which is expressed in a number of Damage Points. (Drop fractions of 0.49 or less; round fractions of 0.50 or more to the next higher number.) These points will be resolved in Sub-Steps 5 and 6 below.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 25, 2023 - 07:52 am: Edit

It was thought that the triangles were kewell and more accurate. I am not changing it now. We fixed a fudge and I am not going back to doing it wrong.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, February 25, 2023 - 08:59 pm: Edit

Lawrence, did a quick check and that 0.5 AF changes the result 10.5% of the time.

s=Doing all 16 percentagesw from 1 to 240 -
10, 12.5, 25, & 50 had no changes [0]
20, 40, 42.5, & 45 had 20% upticks [48/240]
32.5 & 35 had 15% in upticks [36/240]
the rest with lesser upticks ...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, February 26, 2023 - 01:30 pm: Edit

It corrects a fudge and produces more accurate results.