OK, I wanted to open up a new topic here and not clutter up Ted's topic about restoring balance ot the Coalition. And since I am playing in the same game as Ted, I can agree that there are some issues with some of the rules in Planetary Operations.

The rules I think need some tweaking or fixing are Commando Raids, Rebellion and Inflitration.

Commando Raids (320.4):
I really like the spirit of this rule, but I feel that this type of raid has been given way too much immunity from damage. It makes no sense that a G ship can fly past every defender, when even a cloaked ship only has a 50% chance of pulling off the same feat. Defending ships in the hex should be a factor in this type of raid. At a bare minumum any defending G's should be able to assist in responding to the raid. Now, it is true that a Monitor can stop these raids cold against PDUs, but the Monitor does not protect any bases in orbit. Perhaps Commando Raids should not be able to target bases that have defending ships? The defender in this type of Raid cannot even declare that some units are "with" the base, because the Commando Raid rules are very explicit in that only the fixed defenses can fight off the raider. Maybe if the fixed defenses got to fight at BIR 10 and were assumed to have rolled a 6? ANd also take out the VBIR part, so the Commando Raid would be forced to be a straight roll? And lastly, perhaps not allow a ship that is conducting a Commando Raid to be escorted? I don't like that idea since the escorts have to come from the raid pool, but it's a thought.

Rebellions (537.13): I think the simple fix here is that if the Rebellion roll is successful, it simply prevents the planet in question from producing income for one turn after a troop ship is sent to the hex. Take away the part about having to suppress it with Marines, as that part of the rule always read funny anyway and had the unintended effect of creating a battle hex where there really should not be one. I think that's all I have on this one.

Infiltration (537.12): There should be some type of modifier to the roll for Infiltration, perhaps base it off of size class like the E&S rules? Make the baseline ship for the rules SC4 and add one to the roll for each "step" larger the ship is? This would make DN immune to the attack (I think) and ships like BCHs and CC would need a 12 just to cripple. Perhaps on top of that (or maybe instead), if the planet in question has a Monitor or PDU/PGB, then that planet cannot make an Infiltration roll at all? That could limit the options the original owner would have to make such attacks. Or maybe put a cost to the Infiltration rolls, representing the sending of certain resources to the planet to help them blow up a ship (maybe suicide fighters or something like that)?

That's all I have for now, just wanted to get a discussion rolling and see where this can go.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, May 30, 2009 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Rob, maybe Monitors could or should deter ground attacks against those bases that have been previously designated as co-located with a planet. Similar to Starbases in captial hexes.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, May 30, 2009 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Thomas, that might be an idea.

My main goal here is to just have people toss out ideas and see what makes the most sense. Or if I am totally off base and have no case. Either way discussion is always good

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, May 30, 2009 - 01:01 pm: Edit

After having read all of this I looked up the raid rules. I posted a specific question about commando raids on bases. That may help balance part of the problem. It's definately not a cure all, but it should help both sides.

Also a EWN does modify interception of drone and fighter/pf raids. It should have some effect on commando raids as well. After all your paying for those units they should give you some return on investment.

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, May 30, 2009 - 04:44 pm: Edit

I'll just copy a comment I made in another topic over here:

Regarding commando raids: Please note that it's been ruled that the commando ships have to fight everything in the hex that wants to fight before they get their shot at the base. It's a standard raid: you go, they react, you fight, you may then do one of [disrupt province | duel a target ship | perform a G attack]. This dates back to May of 2006 (and should have been in CL33, but doesn't seem to be in the Archive section for that CapLog). Maybe now that Jeff doesn't seem to be FEDS, the answer has changed, but I somehow doubt it.

The suggestion regarding Rebellions makes them worse, IMO. Currently, while it's a die roll every turn for every captured planet, it's not entirely unreasonable to put sufficient G and IGCE on the planet to defeat the rebellion so that it has no effect aside from killing some ground troops. The suggested "fix" guarantees that it has an effect, that cannot be prevented. I'd suggest that (537.132) be deleted, so that the potential of Rebellions (at least at the scale that F&E cares about) can be eliminated if the occupier wishes to stop rolling nearly pointless dice (and thereby speed up the game, fractionally).

(Also note that the Rebellion does not create a Battle Hex; the rebellion is an RDF, which is not a unit. Therefore it doesn't create a Battle Hex (see (301.2), which indicates that a Battle Hex must have units from opposing sides present). And, yes, I'm aware that this creates a problem in that, by that same rule, it's not clear if combat can even happen in the hex; I assume that since (537.131) says the Rebellion may be suppressed, it's a specific exception which permits (ground) combat in a non-Battle Hex.)

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Dave,

If oyu can point to a ruling that says Commando Raids have to fight the Interception battle first, that makes a HUGE difference. However, I believe there is a question in Q&A right now that references ruling that say the exact opposite. In fact every ruling I have ever seen always said the same thing. that reaction to a Commando Raid is pointless since there is no interception battle before it gets to lay waste to some PDUs or a base.

I'll agree that on the Rebellion front what I suggest makes them worse, but at least it gives them a purpose (and takes away the whole RDF thing, which a player is allowed to reserve to even though it is not a unit, the planet it is on is a unit). But it also makes zero sense that the rebellion would get put down at the instant it popped up, making the rolls just one big waste of time. At least what I proposed gives them a purpose (and takes away the whole combat part of it, so all a Coalition player has to do is just move a troop ship to the location and problem solved).

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Rob,

The ruling by Jeff is here.

If you read the rule, it says something like "if a raider performing a normal raid has a G unit, it may instead..." (My emphasis.)

I believe the confusion was due to the reference. It pointed to the beginning of the raid rule, and said, fairly clearly, that it supplanted the normal raid rule at that point. I believe that was merely a misdirected pointer, and instead should have been pointing to the section where it then does the alternate attack (and could therefore do the "alternate attack" as a G-attack rather than a ship based attack.)

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 08:41 pm: Edit

(There's a sort of general thesis statement in the second last paragraph (and some math in the last) that might be worth reading even if one skips the rest of this post.)

@Matthew
Indeed. (And Jeff's ruling is on the appeal regarding Nick's ruling that's quoted in the current Q&A.) Everything makes much more sense if the reference in (320.41) to (314.25) is actually a reference to (314.28).

(Basically, the whole "commando raids are unblockable" thing falls apart once you get to the bit in (320.41) that says that "instead of making its attack (314.25) it can roll a 'G' attack [...]". Thing is, a raiding ship doesn't get to attack under (314.25) unless the defending ships get out of the way, by (314.252) and subsequent subsections. It may be attacked by the defending forces, but can only choose to attack if it is not attacked (314.252) (or survives such an attack uncrippled (314.28)).)

@Robert
Sadly, what you propose doesn't really do all that much. Even if we say that a troop ship already at the planet can't stop the rebellion (i.e. you have to send a new G ship), then we're just going to see a carousel of G ships visiting the planet.

So what you've proposed is, effectively, that we force the attacking empires (Coalition early on, Alliance later) to buy an extra troop ship or two, and roll a bunch of dice looking for what's likely a 1-in-36 chance that any given captured planet doesn't produce one EP (two, for a major) for a turn.

That's not what I'd call fun; it's what I'd call tedium. Here's a simpler idea that does 99% the same thing.

Replace the whole of (537.13) with the following: "Every year, an empire possessing one or more captured planets must produce (by any means) at least one troop ship (XXX.XX) and move it to one of those captured planets. If it does not, each enemy empire may select one of their original planets that has been captured by that empire to rebel. A planet that has rebelled produces no income for a capturing empire until it sends a troop ship to the planet to end the rebellion (which happens automatically upon the arrival of the troop ship)."

No fuss, no muss, no largely pointless dice rolling, just "do X or suffer consequences Y". I could live with that. (I'd prefer to see (537.1) excised from the rules, which won't happen; I'd be happy to see both (537.12) and the last eight words of (537.132) removed, but that's unlikely; I'll therefore settle for something that eliminates the need for me to roll for every single planet I've captured on the off chance that it might cost me an EP.

I'll note that one can only reserve to a Battle Hex (203.73), a hex with units blocking a supply path to friendly units that would otherwise be out of supply (203.731), or to allow another Reserve to go to an otherwise legal hex that it could not otherwise go to (203.732).

Since the RDF is not a unit, none of those apply to a planet in rebellion. Yes, the planet is a unit (756.0), but it's a friendly unit: nothing in (537.13) says that the planet's captured status changes, merely that it doesn't produce income. (IOW, if the Klinks capture 1506 and it rebels, then they've got N friendly units there (including the captured planet) against a lone RDF.)

All that's mostly irrelevant, however, because it's squirreling the issue. At a fundamental level, the question is "are Resistance Movements worth the trouble of saving". My vote is no; it's a half-page of rules that add a bunch of calculations and dice-rolling over what effectively works out to at most a couple of EP, provided that you've built troop ships. (I can't see how the expected value (in terms of economic damage) of the whole of (537.1) is more than 0.5 EP a turn, per empire with captured planets[*].) That's just not worth the time it adds to the game.

[*] Assume that the occupier builds units to mitigate the effects of the rule as best he can, and that frigates cost 3 EP: (537.12) is then worth ((3-0.75)*3/36 + (1*3/36)) = 0.270833333... EP per turn; (537.11) is worth nothing (modifers make it impossible); and (537.13) is worth some fraction of 1/36th of an EP per planet (for the off chance that maybe an IGCE is killed after a string of rolls of 12+ scythes through all the free-replacement G that are present, in the unlikely event that the rebellion happens at all).

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 08:05 am: Edit

Well, Jeff's ruling does it I think. It's a bit on the weak side in the wording, but I'll take it since I think the raid should work that way anyway.

Dave,

I think either I wrote what I intended badly, or maybe you didn't read it. What I am trying to get at is, either Rebellions should just go since suppressing them is a joke, espically in a captured capital hex, or we change them a bit to allow them to have their intended effect of (potentially) reducing the capturing players income. All I am saying is that instead of the whole "suppress with marines thing" and all the associated G attack rolls, simple state that any planet that goes into Rebellion stops producing income for a number of turns equal to 1+ the number of turns it took to send a G ship to the planet. So if you already had a G ship there, it would simply not produce income for the next turn, and that would be it. And maybe, just maybe take out the part about a 12 is always a Rebellion. That way a player could simply prevent them instead of always having to react to them.

And I'm not proposing adding any die rolls, those rolls are already present. I'm just looking for a way for this all to work better, and maybe make a bit more sense. I would most definately not be a fan of a rule that forces a player to produce a particular type of unit. That kind of thing never goes over well. I wouldn't have a problem with something like a Monitor having an ability to suppress things like Rebellions though, as it would make sense. Perhaps a Monitor could even block an Inflitration roll, that would make them even better.

Also, you're last presise is flawed, since every empire can produce a G ship at the base hull cost of the carrying ship, so there would be no extra cost to what you had proposed. FTSs work way better for that roll though, as I have seen

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 10:13 am: Edit

---

Quote:

And I'm not proposing adding any die rolls, those rolls are already present. I'm just looking for a way for this all to work better, and maybe make a bit more sense. I would most definately not be a fan of a rule that forces a player to produce a particular type of unit. That kind of thing never goes over well. I wouldn't have a problem with something like a Monitor having an ability to suppress things like Rebellions though, as it would make sense. Perhaps a Monitor could even block an Inflitration roll, that would make them even better.

---

---

Quote:

Also, you're last presise is flawed, since every empire can produce a G ship at the base hull cost of the carrying ship, so there would be no extra cost to what you had proposed. FTSs work way better for that roll though, as I have seen

---

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Dave, have you ever read the PO rules? Everything you are calling "my proposal" is *already* a rule in PO. Now we both know that there is exactly a zero percent chance of getting the Rebellion rules removed, so I fail to see why you keep ranting on about "my proposal" that is adding dice and time, when in fact *the rule already exists*???

Trust me, I don't want to add something like this, but it exists now so we have to find a decent way to deal with it. I'll also note that you were silent on the part of my actual proposal that would allow the defender, if they have enough Gs, to remove the roll totally. I don't know if that means you were OK with that, or if it WAS. NOT. WORTH. YOUR. TIME.

All I am looking to do is to fix what I percieve to be a bad rule (and we haven't even discussed Infiltration rules). I am not looking to bandy words over something that frankly is not worth arguing over. But if it can be made better, let's try to do that. Deal?

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 05:41 pm: Edit

OK, so let's recap a bit:

Commando Raid rules issue: Not an issue aymore with Jeff's ruling coming to light.

Rebellion issue: So far we've made no headway on this problem. Hopefully that will change.

Infiltration issue: There has been pretty much no discussion on this yet. Surely there must be an idea or two out there?

By John de Michele (Johnad) on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Robert:

Re: Infiltration. This looks like a job for a Prime Team. Change the rules to require the presence of a Prime Team, and add a rule to 534.0 to give them a chance at infiltrating the planet first on a previous turn. Add some of the sabotage modifiers from 537.113 (adjusted for the different roll, naturally). As an alternative, dump the rule in favor of 534.245 and add a modifier for sneaking in behind enemy lines.

Re: Rebellion. I would suggest eliminating part of rule 537.132 where it states "...but an unmodified "12" is always a rebellion." This gives the occupier a chance to put enough feet on the ground to prevent rebellion, if they're willing to spend the EPs.

John.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 08:45 am: Edit

John,

I like the infiltration idea, but it seems to be very slow. Remember a turn is a six month period of time, so I see no reason to delay the roll a turn while the PT gets into place. Your suggesstion would make it more reasonable, and then it could use the E&S rules instead of the Infiltration rules. Actually, isn't there an E&S mission now that does the exact same thing?

Rebellions: I was thinking about that too. If there is a way to stop the rolls, it makes a lot more sense.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 09:35 am: Edit

Personally, I see thre easy fixes to infiltration. 1) Allow G units present in the hex to modify the roll - including the ability to modify the roll so that sucess is impossible if sufficient G units are present. 2) Inifiltration simply won't work on any unit SC3+.
3) Require the player to spend 1 EP to make the infiltration roll in the first place. After all, an ESS mission requires spending EPs, and you would think that significant support would be needed to actually board a starship and destroy it! This EP will prevent a lot of the uses in the first place.

By John de Michele (Johnad) on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Robert:

The reason for the delay is presumably, the Prime Team is recruiting and training civilians for the strike. Sure, you could send an untrained mob, but given the technologies available, they're probably going to get vaporized in a hail of phaser/disruptor fire.

There is an E&S mission for crippled ships, but not for undamaged ones.

Ted:

1) I'm not so sure about this one. Hexes are big, and the ship may be in a different location than the planet.

2) I disagree. Instead, I would suggest that the E&S size class modifiers be used. This would make it well nigh impossible for a BB to be captured, very difficult for other SC2 ships, down to only somewhat difficult for a SC4 ship.

3) I agree 100%, along with the use of a Prime Team. Then the player would have to weigh the risk of losing 6 EPs against the cost of his opponent losing the EPs that went into the ship being targeted.

John.