the defense factor of a ship in F&E is by definition the damage it requires to cripple; in SFB terms, one shield and half its internal boxes. a crippled ship with a fresh shield facing the enemy would therefore obviously take an equivalent amount of damage to destroy, and not half as much.

i propose that self-killing crippled ships absorb damage equal to the _original_ defense factor instead of the crippled side. if a hale unit be dir-dammed to death in one round, killing damage should use the crippled value (1 impulse death with no chance to interpose a second shield, common enough in fleet engagements in SFB).

if a previously-crippled ship is put in the battle force, it should use the uncrippled factor even for directed damage- plenty of time for shield repair and EDR/ CDR between battle rounds.

my feeling is this would have only modest effects on game play, but all the nudges would be in the right direction. *shrugs* YMMV

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 03:04 am: Edit

I agree on principle that there is room to move here.

Things that I consider fixed:
o An uncrippled unit requires its uncrippled-DF to CRIPPLE.
o A unit that *goes into battle* crippled fights with its crippled-AF and requires its crippled-DF to kill.
o Direct Damage is some proportion (usually x2) of that.

Even assuming all that we are still left with what it takes to directly kill an Uncrippled ship.

Currently this is very cheap... perhaps, as you suggest, too cheap? If voluntary kills absorbed more damage they would become more desirable, which is a good thing. If involuntary (direct damage) kills required more damage then we wouldn't need so many specialty rules such as Formation bonus and Immortal carriers.

Just my 2c.

By Terence Sean Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:25 am: Edit

I mostly play Federation Commander not SFB. In FC, certainly you need to mark nearly every box to make a ship go "boom", but I understand that it's different in SFB especially in cases where it's all one huge volley.

F&E combat is so abstracted compared to FC/SFB that it's hard to tell what's "really" happening in SFB terms from the F&E rules.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 06:10 pm: Edit

It's not April yet, is it?

This is not a nudge. It is a complete game changer, and not one in the right direction. For years SVC has been talking about a ship kill rule and you want to change the rules in a way that will reduce ship kills? Understand that a crippled ship in F&E is not exactly the same as a crippled ship in SFB or FC.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:06 pm: Edit

This is not so different a proposal than one that was introduced awhile ago (and for awhile, was considered 'accepted', but has now since been dropped I presume), that a player can choose one of his own ships to self-kill, but it is assumed it was directed upon. Meaning, it dies at the 2:1 rate.

That means, the crippled CA dies for 8 pts, just like in this proposal. The crippled F5 actually would die for 6 pts, one point higher than in this proposal. So this is not entirely a new idea.

But I point out, that earlier proposal *has* since died, so I'd guess this one would share the same fate. Personally, I vote no.

*~*

As for justification of a ship dying for half the damage it took to cripple it, you must understand that a fully functional warship has a multitude of defensive measures they can use. Chief among them, they can quickly evade the enemy, but also they can kill incoming drones, reinforce shields, threaten to blow away nearby vessels, and so on.

Those defenses are reduced or outright eliminated when the ship is crippled. A wave of drones are coming in? Launch a wild weasel. Oh, the shuttle bay is in ruins. Fire a volley of ADD and phaser-III's. Sorry, those were knocked out too. Run away, run away! Warp drive is reduced, we can't outrun them sir. Can we at least get a fresh shield facing the drones? Well, yes, we can - but that will present a downed shield towards the ship that fired the drones, and they have disrupters armed and ready.

Sue for peace? Sorry, that Klingon ship is commanded by Kommodore Ketrick. Do you have your last will and testament faxed into starfleet command? That same 4 pt volley that Ketrick is about to nail you with would not even had been able to cripple you before, would have needed additional volleys in support to do the job. But now, he's gonna overrun you and cause catastrophic damage. Ship goes boom for 4 pts.

*~*~*

As a complete aside...

I like how everyone writes up their 'Klingon Name', by replacing the first letter with a K. Ketrick, Klatter, Kay, Kurdoch, and so on. I guess Knipfer doesn't change.

But I got shafted.

Kevin J. Koward.

That's totally unfair!

By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Daniel G. Knipfer:
This is not a nudge. It is a complete game changer, and not one in the right direction. For years SVC has been talking about a ship kill rule and you want to change the rules in a way that will reduce ship kills?

Chris' proposal doesn't reduce ship kills... it increases them. You get more value for a self-kill so it now becomes more worthwhile.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Self-killing an E4 presently absorbs 6 damage and costs you 1.875 EP (assuming salvage). 0.3125 EP/damage point, very bad.

Under the proposal self killing absorbs 8 damage and costs you the same 1.875 EP. 0.234375 EP/damage point, cheaper than crippling a CA with the same damage.

So it would increase kills, at least of crap ships. Late war it would make self-killing even more attractive.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:51 am: Edit

No way you'd get to take that bonus on self killing, as it would allow you to take the damage on fewer ships lowering the ship kill numbers since you wouldn't have as many cripples in pursuit.

Edit: Some simple numbers.

Current rules - Klingon player takes 16 points of damage. Kills 2 E4s for 6 each and cripples a third for the remaining 4 that will be forced to be in retreat with any other cripples. Player now has to repair a ship or possibly looses it in combat.

Your Proposal - Klingon player takes 16 points of damage. Kills 2 E4s for 8 each and that's it. Now he gets the salvage and doesn't have to risk any other ships in retreat.

Any number you plug in will come out with a similar result. The number of ships damaged or destroyed will go down because the damage will be soaked up faster, and the number of cripples in pursuit will plummet as players self kill to keep the money even more than now.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 01:54 am: Edit

You are right Kevin, Knipfer does not change because it is a true Klingon name. Koward would be the equivalent to naming your son Sue.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 09:37 am: Edit

HA-HA!

(Oh wait, I'm laughing at myself?)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 10:54 am: Edit

This is either a joke or a witch hunt. I'm going to assume the first since if it's the second I'm going to nuke the topic. In either case, this ain't gonna happen, not least because the data is all whacked and just wrong. But, assuming that you guys are just yucking it up, feel free to continue yucking it up.