Proposed rule:

The side that is running away cannot use the special ability of a mauler during the pursuit battle.

Reasons:

Running away is one situation where you can often use a mauler with no risk of getting it blown up by the other side.

Maulers are very strong. I have no problem with that. But I think it's more fair if the other side has a chance to kill the mauler. When used by the fleeing side in a pursuit battle, that's not the case.

You could justify it by saying "when you are running away, things are so disorganized that it's just about impossible to line up for a shot with your mauler."

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 10:56 pm: Edit

That's not really a reason....

What game mechanic is threatened? What negative affect is there on balance? What do you propose to balance this reduction the mauler's ability.


Why is it "more fair" to make the mauler more killable?

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Suggest changing it to say that using a Mauler while retreating requires the player to give the Mauler up as a kill after the Directed Damage step. This counts against any remaining damage the player has to take but even if there is no damage left to take the Mauler is destroyed. This would represent the Mauler turning to attack as the rest of the fleet retreats.

Edit: Not sure what you would use to balance this change.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Rule (307.4) the pursuer (not the force being pursued) may use directed damage at any number of targets. Maulers (308.4) can be used on only one target.

The above rule already eliminates the use of a mauler's special ability by the pursued force. You could include an uncrippled mauler as one of the three uncrippled ships to be included in the pursued force, but why would you want to risk it? In late war situations a SCS group with fighters and PFs and two or three other good ships could do enough to cripple a mauler used in the forces trying to run away.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 11:16 pm: Edit

No it doesn't. It defines how the pursuer may use his mauler (on one target). It does not specify that the retreating force cannot use their mauler.

Edit: And crippling it as it's retreating still lets it excape. Not gain for the persuer as he can't direct on the uncrippled mauler and crippled ships.

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 11:50 pm: Edit

Maulers can be used on more than one crippled target. (307.4.)

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 08:42 am: Edit

"requires the player to give the Mauler up as a kill after the Directed Damage step."

Way too much, Dan.

Now, if you want to make it more vulnerable, like stasis ships, that'd be one thing. But dead on the spot? No way.


"Not gain for the persuer as he can't direct on the uncrippled mauler and crippled ships.
"

Sure it is. If nothing else, it's expensive to fix.

By John de Michele (Johnad) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 10:07 am: Edit

I agree with Joe; autokilling the mauler just eliminates an option for no reason. You might as well just say that maulers can't be used by the retreating force, since no one is going to use them if they're just going to die. If the autokill is changed to 1:1 dirdam, at least it preserves the use as a desperation measure.

John.

By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 02:06 pm: Edit

I would think that any time the mauler is being used it could be direct upon at 1-1 at least to cripple it. This is more of an sfb observation than a F&E view however. I do not personally see a need to hamstring the maulers some for balance purposes.

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Maulers have always been rather "unrealistic" in F&E relative to the way they work in SFB. IMHO, they should only get their special ability when attacking fixed defenses or slow units, and in so doing they should be subjected to 1-1 directed damage in return. Ever tried getting a mauler lined up point blank next to a starbase in SFB?

Using them in a pursuit battle as part of the retreating force is just another small way in which they are broken.

However, I recognize that any changes at this stage would horribly unbalance things in F&E. Is there anything that is as horribly out-of-whack in favour of the Alliance that we could fix in exchange?

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Here's another thought: perhaps shock roles should be made BEFORE maulers get to use their special ability.

On a 1-4, the mauler would get to proceed with its special directed damage attack as per usual. It would not be subjected to another shock role for that round, although it could still take normal damage, including directed damage.

On a 5-6, it shocks BEFORE it can proceed with its special attack. Resolve damage normally thereafter (including the ability to directly damage the now crippled mauler).

If multiple maulers are in the battle line, each one that wants to conduct a special attack would have to role for shock. However, only one would need to succeed for the attack to occur.

Again, such a change would probably have major play balance affects. But it would make mauler attacks less the sure-kills of key units that they currently are.

By John de Michele (Johnad) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 04:36 pm: Edit

But why would a mauler take shock damage before it fired? That makes no sense.

John.

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 04:49 pm: Edit

My rationale is that represents the mauler getting hammered before it gets close enough to use its weapon. Perhaps this could resolve damage points?

By John de Michele (Johnad) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 05:15 pm: Edit

But that presumes that the opposing fleet is always in a position to zap it 1/3rd of the time. There is already a mechanism for doing that if you want to: directed damage. It should also be remembered that the special 1:1 dirdam isn't all the mauler's doing.

John.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 06:17 pm: Edit

"But that presumes that the opposing fleet is always in a position to zap it 1/3rd of the time."

And yet we have always been willing to assume that the mauler is in position to get their dirdam bonus on any target of their choice, 100% of the time?


As for the original proposal, I don't like saying the mauler *can't* be used, but I do see it as being totally logical that the mauler would be at great risk if it were used. The rest of the fleet is running, and your mauler turns and closes to point blank range to fire its main weapon. Yeah... allow dirdam of the mauler at 1:1, at least to cripple if not to outright kill.

As for taking shock before it fires... I *could* see that, the weapon shocking the ship as it fires, to the point where the actual firing falters and fails to accomplish anything. However, that's utterly and completely opposite of what SFB says. In SFB, the mauler cannon works, and shock may or may not happen as a result. Therefore, if we are to keep to SFB to some degree (and arguable F&E already does not, but at least tries)... then shock rolls must come after firing, not before.

Perhaps if the opposing dirdam could come after shock rolls, instead of before? "Admiral, the enemy mauler shocked in the attack upon our base." "Direct available firepower at the crippled mauler, I don't want that one escaping!" But that would mess up the order in how damage resolution is done - prolly can't work.


I'm sure that there are plently of workable ways to mute the mauler effect in F&E, if that is your goal, and there are some alliance advantages that could be cut to balance. CEDS, perhaps? Myself, I simply chose to rebalance the whole system on the idea that maulers can't be used on mobile targets. Maulers are only there to hit the fixed defenses. Takes away the whole pursuit issue, as maulers are then only there as extra firepower and as targets.

But you've got 20+ years of legacy to go against if you try to do the same thing for the published game. I'd stick to only trying to modify the maulers in pursuit, not for in the regular combat round.

(Edit: I see now that William was only proposing a change to pursuit - it was others that were suggesting ways to mute the mauler for regular combat rounds, not William. Well, the point still remains, just stated generically, not pointed at anyone.)

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 06:39 pm: Edit

I agree Kevin. There's 20+ years of water under the bridge, so it isn't likely the rules will change. However, it never hurts to toss out ideas like this - one day something useful may come out of it if SVC ever considers making such a major change.

I guess my central point with maulers is that I don't like them being "guaranteed" to work in F&E, especially against mobile targets. It just doesn't work that way in SFB. How to best address the issue is another matter, however.

(Edit: And sorry to hijack William's proposal. It just seems to me the problem of using maulers in retreat is a small part of a larger issue, which should be looked at in its entirety.)

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 07:46 pm: Edit

OK, next question:

What is the BALANCE offered to counter this?

The game is built on the balance we have now. This is a fairly substantial change to that balance.

Asthetics means nothing if the game is undone and unplayable.

By John de Michele (Johnad) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 08:10 pm: Edit

@Kevin:

It seems like people are assuming that the standard mauler tactic is to run right up to range 1 on its target, and plant its beam at 2x power on the target's #1 shield, just ready to be blown away by the firepower of the target plus its fleetmates. I don't think that DirDam reflects this reality at all. The (normally) reduced damage you get with DirDam reflects that your fleet in the battle has to do some maneuvering to get into a firing solution, thus reducing its damage. The Coalition just happened to come up with a weapon that makes it easier to do DirDam. The mauler isn't doing all of the damage. At the very best, it can do five points of damage itself (A roll of six on a BIR of 10), assuming a standard 10pt cruiser mauler. This would probably represent the scenario at the beginning, where ships are hell-bent at doing maximum damage without regard to their own ship's safety.

John.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Joe,

If a retreating force uses a stasis ship the stasis ship is lost automatically because It had to park. (312.264) Any friendly ships frozen by the retreating SFG unit are also automatically destroyed.

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Dan,

Maulers don't have to "park". Stasis are quite different.


"Any friendly ships frozen by the retreating SFG unit are also automatically destroyed."

Something that should never been in the rule, IMO.

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 08:58 pm: Edit

I want to point out that while the retreat force is trying to get away, the ships still get their full factors; they aren't helpless.

There is no real basis for doing this to the mauler.

Also, Dan, the stasis items you mentioned were in the rule originally to help balance it out. They probabably should have been removed when the stasis was tamed. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, and there's nothing that will be done about it now.

But we can avoid making a NEW mistake.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 12:03 am: Edit

Considering you have to turn and fly strait into the enemy to get the mauler cannon aimed at him due to the limited firing arc I don't see it as unreasonable due to the rapid separation of your mauler from the rest of your retreating force.

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 12:09 am: Edit

The mauler still has the ability to manuever, and it would be inaccurate to think that every minute of the battle that the enemy would only ever be in the chase position.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 01:04 am: Edit

@John:

"It seems like people are assuming that the standard mauler tactic is to run right up to range 1 on its target, and plant its beam at 2x power on the target's #1 shield, just ready to be blown away by the firepower of the target plus its fleetmates."

Yes, I am assuming exactly that. There is no other logical assumption to make, all things considered.

If we were to play the mauler 'smart', taking long range snipe attacks, using exacting amounts of battery to accomplish exact targetting and damage application (something the mauler fairly well excels at in SFB)... well, it just wouldn't possibly amount to enough to qualify it for the F&E benefits it has been granted.

The only way it could possibly get the dirdam advantage is if it went all in, **and with the fleet in full support behind it**, did a range-1 full press nuke of the target.

That's exactly why I believe it shouldn't be allowed to be used on mobile targets - it's just too hard to accomplish that perfect situation, and even then it's of questionable value in SFB. But for fixed (or slow?) targets, I'm willing to accept it.

Of course as I stated before, undoing 20 years of F&E heritage is not to be done lightly... but making lesser changes (like maulers being pursued) I think is doable. Making the mauler dirdamable at 1:1 if it uses it's mauling attack seems quite reasonable.

And I don't think it would take too much rebalancing for just that little rule change. After all, it's not every round, it's only when the coalition retreats from a battle, is pursued, and chooses to use it's mauler (which is entirely voluntary). A small adjustment might be needed, perhaps, probably part of a bigger package deal when and if this rule gets accepted.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 01:34 am: Edit

I was pondering Joe's question. ("What exactly is the balance to this rule?") At first I couldn't think of anything, but then I had an inspiration.

Let's make the assumption that the rule is as I posted above (and I note that this wasn't William's original proposal, sorry, I hijack)...

(If a retreating force wishes to use it's mauler to dirdam a pursuer, then that mauler can be targeted at 1:1.)

Now, the pursuing force might choose to kill the D5M that turns on it, for just 11 points of damage. But if they were really after that crippled C8 for 12 points, then they kill that instead, and the D5M captain is promoted for reckless bravery and lives to see another day.

Of course, the problem arises when the pursuer scores 23 damage, and both the D5M and the C8 die. So that's when it hit me: What if the pursuer can dirdam on any number of *cripples*, or against a single *healthy* ship, but not both. (Actually, that might already be in the rules, but I'm too lazy to go check).

So, either the pursuer kills the reckless mauler and lets the original targets get away, or they go after the original targets, and the mauler flies in the face of danger with only the fear of shocking to worry about.

Thoughts?