OK, with all of the talk of autokills, it got me inspired with trying to fix the "unkillable" carrier syndrome we have with F+E, so here it goes.

One of the main reasons why have never tried to keep track of "Fighter Production Lines" is there is no way we can track the number of CV's in service each turn. (Is a player going to take 10 minutes to count his carriers every economic phase?)

Now with going to no CV group counters (ie a D7V+AD5+F5E will be three seperate counters), and a little extra chart. We should in theory be able to keep track of the carriers in service.

We create a chart (like the fleet charts) that keep track of a race's fighter production facilities, like this (and I'll format it for all of the CVs/SCS):

CV Type	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
C8V
C8S
UD7
D7V
D7U
D6V
D6U
CVT
D5V
D5B
D5U
F5V
E4V

Then we have three large boxes underneath that table, like this:

Destroyed Carriers	Unbuilt Carriers	Escorts

Players would have to sort their CV/escort counters when they set up the game (most have counter boxes, so this should be easy).

We then have use counters (blanks would work, or even pennies) to keep track of the number of fighter production lines available for each type of carrier (i.e. the number of K-CVTs, D7V, D6V, etc). If a new carrier to your fleet is built (with new fighter factories) the track is moved up by one.

If an individual CV is then killed, it goes in the destroyed box after the salvage phase. The number on the track does not move with each CV kill.

The next turn the CV can be taken from the destroyed box, and converted/substituted back into fleets and off it goes.

The #Track is used to keep track of the total carriers you have built and have factories for. This will let you double-check you fleets at any time.

If you upgrade a CV, i.e. D7V->D7U (ACS) you move the D7V track down one,and the D7U track up one.

The whole reason for this of course, is now we don't have to worry about any rules to ensure that CVs get away every time or are invulnerable.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 11:34 pm: Edit

...more accounting?!?...

Speaking only for myself I want to spend more time with fire and movement and less time with pen and paper...sorry.

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 02:11 am: Edit

Why do you need to keep track of the carriers in service???

All you need to know is the number killed (as that is how many idle fighter production lines are available that you don't need to repay for). And that is easy to keep track of... you just need to keep a pile of the dead CV counters!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 08:44 am: Edit

No, there's too much paper to keep track of now. Even with the paper folios that have been introduced and the even better spreadsheets that we use now. More accounting takes too much time away from moving counters and blowing things up.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 12:00 pm: Edit

And why do you need to know what kinds of CVs you have/ lost?

All that matters is fighter types and numbers. How does a factory building 12 ZVs every month care if they supply 1 D7V or 2 F5V?

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Agreed. The book keeping is actually pretty trivial.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 11:52 pm: Edit

I don't agree and am not supportive of any additional record keeping or counting of any units as there is enough already.

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 11:46 am: Edit

Michael C. Grafton:
And why do you need to know what kinds of CVs you have/ lost?

All that matters is fighter types and numbers. How does a factory building 12 ZVs every month care if they supply 1 D7V or 2 F5V?

Agreed... but with the caveat that fixed defences (Bases, PDUs, and even FRDs [if they can have fighter modules?]) don't have fighter production lines (and hence don't add to the unused pool when destroyed) even if they deploy the same sort of fighters as mobile carriers (ZVs etc).

The reason is that base fighters (unlike carrier fighters) generally only die once since their base then usually follows suit. Hence no production line needed (and base fighter factors should be cheaper).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 11:49 am: Edit

You guys do know that the origins crowd voted unanimously not to change carriers, right?

Now, just me, I want to limit the number of carriers in service, eliminate free fighter factors, and do some other things to demote carriers from godhood to their proper place as a supporting arm, but it's been made clear to me that I will not be allowed to do this. So, while I know that carriers are "wrong" I do not see any way to correct the problem.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 11:51 am: Edit

Occurs to me that the easy non-accounting way to limit the number of carriers in service is to get that many counters before the game starts, put them in a bag, and not allow any other carrier counters to be added to the ongoing session.

But that's just me.

By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 12:04 pm: Edit

My personal wish would be to get rid of FFF, and track fighter losses the way we track PF losses. Spend 1/10 EP per fighter factor replaced. This leaves fighters twice as efficient as PFs economically at taking damage, but half as effective in combat. Maybe have each empire get a certain number of free replacements each turn based on FFF.

This alone would cut down on carriers being the gods of the game, and would also probably lead to more ship kills just by itself. It would also cut the cost of a PDU from 7 to 4.6, making defenses more affordable. But I'm crazy.

By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 12:19 pm: Edit

Continuing my thought: Heavy fighters and mega fighters should cost .15 per defense factor to replace (Mega-heavies .2?). This would discourage building of the heavy fighters and encourage a historical transition to PFs.

If you still want to discourage CVB production, make F-15s cost .15 per factor.

My opinion is that we already track PF losses using coins, we can do it the exact same way for fighters. It is more record keeping, but I wouldn't think that it would be that much more.

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Steve Cole:
You guys do know that the origins crowd voted unanimously not to change carriers, right?

=:-O

I'm not surprised, I guess. There are people with years invested in perfecting immortal-carrier-centred strategies.

Now, just me, I want to limit the number of carriers in service, eliminate free fighter factors, and do some other things to demote carriers from godhood to their proper place as a supporting arm

I so wish..!!!!

I don't know how others feel, but godlike carriers is the ONE KEY thing that breaks my ability to relate F&E to SFB/SFU, and which thus continually niggles at me through the whole campaign.

but it's been made clear to me that I will not be allowed to do this. So, while I know that carriers are "wrong" I do not see any way to correct the problem.

The problem as I see it (vested interests & play balance testing aside) is that carriers as they currently exist are actually an intermesh of quite a few rules/concepts, none of which can be effectively changed in isolation. Ie, any carrier revamp Proposal can't just change FFF, or escort switching, or DD on carriers - that gains nothing. Instead it needs to be comprehensive (brave / intelligent) enough to change the system as a whole. And that requires a well-stated goal.

I do rather like "demote carriers from godhood to their proper place as a supporting arm" as a goal!!! :-)

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Adam got a good idea on added a cost to free replacement Fighter at a 1/10 EP...and special Fighters (F-15).15. and ect....Plus take away the Free Fighters each race get per year....That will make cariers to cost more amd cutting down on bluiding new carries per turns...and why not set up a rule that all fighter cannot be giving up in a battle round ....if they are, they (Carries) got to back to a rear Base for retraining the Fighter Wind for the Carrier and set out for 1 Turn I feel that would cut down of the number of carriers that contorl the game....mholiver

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 04:54 pm: Edit

...more record keeping is required to track and replace lost fighters...no thank you.

By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 05:03 pm: Edit

We already do it for PFs...but I imagine few people ever get to that point, so it is moot.

In a game as record keeping heavy as F&E is, I feel this would add very little overhead. In a big battle, I'm already keeping track of how many fighters I have remaining after each round--I add up how many there are in the hex before combat, and subtract the number killed each round so I know what I have left. It would be very simple to transfer this into a total of kills over the turn, then multiply that number by 1/10. It seems easy to me, but as I said above, I know I'm crazy.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 05:30 pm: Edit

I will not support any proposal that requires additional counting of units and/or additional record keeping.

I don't know how I can be any more clear.

By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 06:04 pm: Edit

That's fine Chuck; I knew it didn't have a chance.

Let me preface this next thought with a disclaimer: I take great pleasure in F&E. It is one of my favorite games; I'm almost always willing and excited to play it. I enjoy the theme, the mechanics, and the strategy. I'm looking forward to the new edition.

That said, it isn't a perfect game. Of course, no game is, as they all have to compromise somewhere. Frankly, it is a record keeping nightmare. The same game mechanics that I take pleasure in are facilitated by and require very complex and convoluted paperwork. The only game that I know of off the top of my head that is more byzantine in its red tape is Campaign for North Africa, which is widely considered unplayable. All of this to say, with the utmost respect for SVC and the staff, is that the ship sailed on excessive record keeping back in 1986 when F&E was published. For most monster gamers F&E is the poster child of too much. It has too many rules, too many ships, too many tax forms. Don't believe me? Go to Board Game Geek or Consimworld and see what others think about it. It has a reputation as *almost* unplayable.

That is why I don't think that my modest proposal is an excessive additional burden *in this context.* But, I do understand that there is strong opposition from almost the entire player base. I suppose we all have something that we are in the tiny minority on in regards to a game as big and complex as F&E. I just wanted to put my pet idea out there.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Here is a relatively simple idea which will go a long long way to fixing a lot of this stuff.

Eliminate free fighter factors as of the PF Introduction Date.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Would that be the intro date per empire or the first PF intro date in the game?

Would Feds base it on the F-111 date of Y177?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 06:37 pm: Edit

PF1 date.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Would the Lyrans still get free PFs under this scheme? (rule 442.23)

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 06:57 pm: Edit

I kinda thought we had already eliminated free fighter factors once PF's come in - simply because everyone uses the FFF to build extra PF's.

Carriers are rarely built after PF's come available. Maybe only the SCS's and similar ships, which are PFT's with some fighters alongside. And a lot of those are converted from existing carriers, thus no new fighters are built.

By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 07:11 pm: Edit

I feel of you but a cost on Free replacement fighter and TAKE away the free Fighters( and yes do away free PFs)....that will cut out about 1/2 of carriers that will be builded in the long run....cost of building Carriers go up ....and then you get lees Carriers on the broad.....and more record keeping....if you bite the issue at the beginning of the game you will not have all that added record keeping then....well that what I see.....mholiver

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 09:44 am: Edit

Michael Oliver: Please restate your post. It seems to have some typos or garbled english.

Did you mean...

I feel IF you PUT a cost on ...