Archive through March 20, 2009
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Proposals Forum:
Maulers in pursuit:
Archive through March 20, 2009
If I have only crap that is crippled, I may or may not choose to play the 'overcrippling game'.
But if I have a crippled C8, a crippled carrier, and a couple of crippled maulers... yeah, I'm going to force you to eat 7 minus points every single round if I can help it.
I'd be willing to stand and fight another round of combat if I had found myself lacking that 7 point shield on the last round. I'll stick around, dare you into a strategy of directing on unimportant vessels, and if you don't, I *WILL* arrange to have a 7 point minus point shield for you to eat in pursuit.
And I'm only doing that when I have a pile of really important cripples, so it's not like I can't afford to be overcrippling all the time.
And that's not counting penal ships, if I have them.
Joe
Not sure what your saying.
Are you agreeing, that if the Coalition retreats with 7 points owed and a mauler - you let them go (and so surely should support Williams original idea that maulers are too powerful)?
I agree that getting exactly 7 points is not always easy or possible - but equally, how ofen will a non optimal persuit be available (killed escorts/lack of fighterss etc) - and if the battle has gone on long enough to generate 2 crippled Maulers and a crippled C8 (unless they were already crippled) - always assuming an optimal persuit force is possible, is less likely to occur.
So yes - there might be only -2 or -3 points - but the persuit force might only muster 55 compot - net effect it's a wash - unless VBIR goes up and you roll well, you can't get 2 key hulls - and are likely to lose a hull in exchange.
Lastly, you seem to be comparing the random chance of dice versus a known possibility - there is only 3 ways to NOT get -7 points
1 - Your enemy rolls eactly enough to direct on something leaving no owed points (basically, do an odd amount of damage and your almost certainly not going to do this (unless you can direct on a even numbered carrier group, i.e the +1 or +3 escort ship bonus!)
2 - Tactically, it's difficlt to cripple/kill sufficent ships to be left with 1 to resolve (so you can overcripple by 7)
3 - You do not have any 8+ DC ships you want to cripple - so have to settle for less
So whats the chance of VBIR going up 2 and rolling a 6 versus either of the above happening?
Hopefully we can agree the Coalition retreating with 7 owed is far more likely to occur (as basically it's a planned event versus a 1/36 chance event)?
I am with Paul on this.
Both sides, say, have an average of -5 damage owed when the pursuit battle is started.
Pursuer has about 52 compot (~65 if hydran cruisers).
Coalition pursued forces have about 60 compot. (ADM, 3 ~ 10 compot ships inc. mauler, 9 ~ 3-4 compot crippled ships). Please not that the pursued forced generally find it a little easier to put in a scout.
Assume VBIR 5, roll ~ 4, say 30%
Standard pursuer does 15-5 damage = 1 crippled cruiser killed (usually a heavy/command cruiser).
Hydran cruiser pursuer does 19-5 damage = 1 cruiser and 1 frigate killed.
Pursued force does 18-5 damage = 1 UNCRIPPLED cruiser in the pursuing force killed.
Thats a bad exchange for the pursuer, even if he is using mainly war cruisers for pursuit. If he is using heavy cruisers in his pursuit force, it's awful. It'll be very tough for the pursuer to bag a crippled C18 in form under any circumstances.
And note - here the pursuer is doing well. There have been enough rounds of battle to cripple 9+ coalition ships. Thats not the normal state of affairs. More often than not, the coalition reatreat after one round if they are going to retreat (exception - big capital battles).
Finally, please note that the coalition will usually have ~ -10 to -14 (two systems) when retreating from a capital battle. And they can choose to overcripple a tug or C18 for -11 if they are really worried about a pursuit.
I mean - I'm all for making it a little difficult to pursue - but being able to nerf pursuit totally such that it is always pyhyrric (bar large carrier groups) seems idiotic.
My point Paul is that you are using the extreme cases to try and make a general example. Your example only holds under those specific conditions; IF the compot is no more than X, IF the pursuer only rolls Y, IF there are Z minus points.
So you've created a possible example, and as near as I can tell, are protraying it as the likely one, even though it requires a bunch of conditions favoring one side.
I have a big problem with that.
Joe, I'm not sure how Paul and/or David are being extreme. In fact, they seem to be making the case quite nicely that even under optimal circumstances for the pursuing force, it will still lose an uncrippled cruiser in order to destroy 1 or at best 2 crippled cruisers.
"to destroy 1 or at best 2 crippled cruisers. "
"at best" is fairly likely for the Hydrans.
And this is under the CURRENT rules.
The proposal was to make that mauler an easier/automatic target
Joe, as Kosta mentioned, I accept the Hydrans have a 'good' chance of killing 2 Cruisers (although probably still only 1/3rd chance).
But, to show I am not 'stacking the cards against Maulers' - can you state what you think (from your posting) X, Y and Z would be, where the Coalition is retreating from a Major batle.
We can then openly and fairly discuss this.
Thanks
Joe
With a typicl shift against you in EW, you will get, say, 27.5% average damage as Hydrans.
If the hydrans had a serious chance of bagging 2 cruisers, you can be SURE the coalition will have put in at least -6, bar the Hydrans having got exact damage and directed last round.
So, for the hydrans to direct kill 2 coalition cruisers in pursuit requires 8+8+6 = 22 damage.
At 27.5%, that means the hydrans are pursuing with 80! compot.
Say, PAL, PAL, LB, LB, LM, LM.
Thats quite a pursuit force! Are you serious about the Hydrans always having this? And there is a good chance an LB goes pop in response - the coalition only need to do 18+6 = 24 damage (assuming -6 by the Hydrans). If the Hydrans put in a cruiser as opposed to all command cruisers or better, it's almost a cert that they will lose a ship.
I'm sorry. The reality is that I have been personally stung. I have yet to manage a pursuit action against a mauler-inclusive force with minus points where I thought I came out of it well. Basically, I take cold comfort in watching the coalition overcripple one war cruiser and consider that my "pursuit" damage. I then abandon the pursuit.
So David, you're saying that a Coalition line of C8, D6M, D6S and 9 crippled cruisers (best cripples you can have on average), which weighs in at 62 Compot can easily muster up 18 damage, 24 assuming 6 minus points? Those odds are longer than a Hydran pursuit force doing 22. Granted the line Paul gave was stacked, but the average Hydran pursuit line will be 70+. I think the Hydrans have a better chance than the Coalition of coming out ahead in that pursuit battle.
"With a typicl shift against you in EW, you will get"
With one scout? Remember, there is no free scout.
"Say, PAL, PAL, LB, LB, LM, LM.
Thats quite a pursuit force! Are you serious about the Hydrans always having this? "
It's a bit much (although possible),
PAL, LB/LM, LB/LM, DG/RN, DG/RN, DG/RN, is EASILY done
considering it takes 26 pts to kill a PAL with a mauler, I'd might risk that 2nd one; the Coalition has to get 42.5% given the line Rob put up, which is really the best possible in the early to mid war.
OK - so we have what I would consider a pretty heavy Hydran persuit line - but it could be higher (LGE's for example)
The only thing is - until turn 8, that line is only possible in one place (as only maximum of 3 Paladins before then!) - but I accept, a raid on 617 or major SB might result in that sort of persuit force.
So, against that force, the Coalition does have two choices (and as the persuit force is designated before any roll is made - the persued can design their force to counter it).
Option 1
Hydrans had no Scout included, so include say a D6S or D5S and a D6D - Hydrans will be on -2 on the dice - so an above average roll of 30% becomes 25%.
Coalition have D6S, D6D and D6M, plus 9 cripples (including Battlegroup, PT's could also be added), has circa 62 compot.
Hydrans have circa 80 compot (84 with 2 PT) = 20 or 21 Damage, less say 6 owed = Just 1 dead cruiser
Option 2
Go for broke and try to kill a Paladin - so Max compot in the persued force is needed.
C8+PT, DN+PT, D6M, 9 cripples as Battlegroup (1 x dn, 1 x bc, cc, 6 x d5/cw + bunch of other valid targets - including two crippled Maulers!) = 38+41 = 79
(If no battlegroup/PT both sides will be lower and if it's major battle, you might get a couple more points by replacing ca's with dn/d7c/cc's - or have 3 x cw and 3 x d5 or 6 of one type, to gain leader bonuses)
So thats the forces - and the Hydrans want to kill 2 D6M's...
Option 1 - you need either a roll of 5+ or the Coaition to only have a couple of owed points (say 3 or 4) and roll atleast a 4.
In other words, a 50/50 chance at best.
Option 2 - Coalition go high on BIR (as do the Hydrans) - and assuming no change of VBIR - try to kill a Paladin on a roll of 5+ - but do almost certainly lose 2 hulls (d6m and bc or 2nd d6m, assuming dn in Form etc). If the Hydrans are owed 4 or less - a roll of 4 will get the Paladin.
The Western Coalition can build 5 full Maulers a year easily....the Hydrans only 1 Palain a year.
So as the Coalition, I would willing trade 2 Cruiser Hulls for a Paladin - even if the chance of it was moderate (nominally a 1/3rd chance or higher)
You could also double bluff and put up the High compot line - and hope the Hydrans pick low (as do you!).
If it was me though and currently being the non-gambling man at the moment (can't hit the proverbial barn door from 5 yards....) - I would go for option 1 - a reasonable roll might just get a Hydran cruiser still!
So, as the Hydrans would you risk a valuable Paladin for the likely chance of killing a 2nd D6M? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.
So we get back to - you suffered the horrors of watching the Coalition pound your SB or Capital - and now face Mauler in persuit - do you risk another key hull for the chance of killing a second mauler?
The Coalition (until X-Ships arrive anyway, or the 1 Gorn force with the DNT) don't need to worry about that - and get there full revenge in the persuit battle - yet the Alliance doesn't.
Does the game need that inbalance?
Paul,
That's like arguing the game is imbalanced because the Coalition start off with more ships and higher economies than the Alliance. This seems more and more like a tempest in a teacup.
John.
"The only thing is - until turn 8, that line is only possible in one place"
Mostly likely, there is only one place where you'd be seeing a crippled C8, and/or TWO maulers where the Hydrans would be in position to pursue.
"Does the game need that inbalance?
"
That's how the game works NOW. Are you saying the game isn't balance NOW?
John
Your not wrong - but I think it could enhance the game.
Joe
Which is why I said it was fair enough (although it's possible some of those hulls could have died - if it's a key battle, if they are alive and useable - they will be there).
With regard to the second point - as with anything, the game is balanced BUT could be enhanced with tweakings (I am sure someone was saying the Game was balanced - but needed Romulans CVD's, more/better Romulan Carriers for example 
) - if Maulers where slightly detuned, the Alliance could also be detuned somewhere else (or Coalition gain something!).
So how about this - very much KISS.
A mauler can be used as normal in a Persued in a Persuit battle - but if it fails the shock roll - it actually dies (if your playing with the Depot Rules, it could automatically go to the Depot,not quite as powerful change, but adds an additional risk in using it)
i.e. it turns and shoots...(achieving it's aim in killing the target) - but suffers a breakdown...and is unable to be rescued, as the rest of the retreating fleet is now too far away to help it. It then gets 'overrun' by the persuing fleet (or other elements of the fleet which didn't persue).
Suddenly, there is a 1/3rd chance of losing the Mauler outright - but it might still stop the persuer, or forces them to be more cautious.
End result - the Coalition can't always escape 'for free' (as the risk isn't worth it), but should the Alliance risk the persuit, and suffer a loss, at least their might be some silver lining to that cloud.
(Note, the Coalition can still Maul and Self Cripple, so no additional effect would then occur, although it not be a good idea to do so - the option is still there)
"I am sure someone was saying the Game was balanced - but needed Romulans CVD's, more/better Romulan Carriers for example"
CVDs were added to a product that had been balanced. Everyone got them except one empire, and that empire got nothing else in that product to compensate. That made that product no longer balanced.
However, when the Rom CVDs get added, they'll be balanced against something else, even though they shouldn't be; you keep laboring under the idea that things that haven't yet been officially added have, and then yammering on about their affect on balance (like the Rom carrier schedule), even though we have no idea what will be added to the other side.
The net effect of adding Rom CVDs will be some addition to the Alliance, or some deletion from the Coalition, and an imbalance will still remain, and yet you'll STILL complain about the Roms getting something.
I really wish you could look at the game without being so partisan ALL the time.
"End result - the Coalition can't always escape 'for free' (as the risk isn't worth it), but should the Alliance risk the persuit, and suffer a loss, at least their might be some silver lining to that cloud.
"
And what do you offer to the Coalition for this loss of ability?
Let me guess....
Not only the Coalition have ships that have shock ratings. (Yes, they have most of them.) And it is possible to capture Maulers as well.
Joe
First, alas, I think your ability to 'state this is needed to balance X or balance Y' and then declare a proposal made by someone else would 'ruin the game' makes you more partisan than me - but we each have are own failings.
But to reply, - what do I offer as payment, should it be agreed one enhancement to the game would be the weaking of maulers in persuit battles?
Well, I haven't thought much on that (until now), but I would have thought something to weaken the Gorns would be an idea.
Why?
The Kzinti 'gained' the CLE (and are losing the CVE in Battlegroups), and so probably don't have much they can pay with (and alas, the only other thing they have, would be reducing that huge free Drone Stock pile, will not balance much )
Hydrans - Could be said have most to give (they gained a fair amount), but are unique in being on their own - and so with no likely outside help, needed those gains.
Federation - Other than tweaking entry dates on some of the later ships - probably don't have much to offer (other than restricting Survey ships returning to the map I suppose?)
Which leaves the Gorns - and about they only easy tweak to them, would be a delay in when their cheap repair ships kick in - after say 1 1/2 years of the war, and a lack of carriers, they decided to go down the Repair Ship Route? i.e. Gorn Logistics kick in say Fall 175 rather than Spring 174 - and the additional repair pods are all bumped down 1 year.
For the Gorns, it's a fairly major effect - but doesn't unbalance the Western front nations too much.
Thoughts?
"First, alas, I think your ability to 'state this is needed to balance X or balance Y' and then declare a proposal made by someone else would 'ruin the game' makes you more partisan than me "
Based on what?
Please explain how taking a product that was already balanced, give everyone but ONE something, how that is still balanced, an doesn't require anything to balance it.
The proposal made by someone else AFFECTS BALANCE, but you want to call that an "enhancement". Please, you are in no position to call anyone biased.
I stopped reading at the point where weakening the mauler was called an "enhancement", and that you'd not even expected there to be a price to balance it.
"The Kzinti 'gained' the CLE "
Thanks to the Alliance whiner club, who were SO upset and the Lyran CWS (and failed to noticed the MSC, MEC and a bunch of other Alliance units that were available too early)
I was all for leaving that as it was. But that ONE unit was SUCH anathema to the AWC (yourself included), that you ended up losing more than the Coalition did. So if that one bothers you, look in the mirror.
But even that move was balanced against other things in AO (including but not limited to the CVE in BG, which I supported).
Now, I agree that the Kzinti should get something to compensate for the loss of the CVE being available for BG... but making a big change to maulers is not the answer there.
Joe
Kindly explain why you think the Romulans needed the CVD then - or are you stating you think FO as a product was unbalanced?
Paul, he has stated that many times before.
Not having played with FO, I don't know if the lack of a Romulan CVD is unbalancing. And if it is, I don't know whether it was done intentionally to correct some previous perceived imblance.
Balance in this game is tremendously difficult, which is why I empathize with those who oppose changes because they may unbalance the game, even when I am proposing a particular change.
I have always found basic F&E (which is what I've played exclusively) to be unbalanced in favour of the Coalition. I understand that the expansions have gone a fair way in correcting that, but I don't know that from personal experience. Some believe they have gone too far the other way.
The game is closely enough balanced that far more often it comes down to skill than an inherent advantage to one side or the other.
And when skill is close enough, then it comes down to dice.
Doesn't that mean it's balanced?
"Paul, he has stated that many times before."
Yes, that's correct.
CW was balanced
The FO additions were unbalanced
Had CW been imbalanced, and FO added things to correct that balance, then things might be different.
But that is not the case.
So lets just this straight -
Quote - By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 07:35 pm: Edit
"The Kzinti 'gained' the CLE "
Thanks to the Alliance whiner club, who were SO upset and the Lyran CWS (and failed to noticed the MSC, MEC and a bunch of other Alliance units that were available too early)
I was all for leaving that as it was. But that ONE unit was SUCH anathema to the AWC (yourself included), that you ended up losing more than the Coalition did. So if that one bothers you, look in the mirror.
But even that move was balanced against other things in AO (including but not limited to the CVE in BG, which I supported).
Now, I agree that the Kzinti should get something to compensate for the loss of the CVE being available for BG... but making a big change to maulers is not the answer there.
Reply - Your saying because I may or may not have wanted historic entry dates on variants (I honestly can't remember) amoung the many many people who inputted thoughts about F&E 2K, basically means your ideas are worth more, as your saying now (again I can't remember), you though it was a bad idea?
So what happens, when a formal Project Staff member allows a product to go to print...and then decides it's unbalanced because his favourite race didn't get enough goodies in the product (which when it was 'signed off' surely was agreed to be balanced across the whole product)?
So if you feel so strongly now that FO is unbalanced - why didn't you raise it back in 2004? Hopefully you will agree it's a fair question.
With regard to maulers in this topic - are not all proposed rule changes 'Game Enhancements'?
Anyway - we can probably agree - this is now going nowhere and so I'll leave it at that.