| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 02:54 am: Edit |
(5MBL.0) LIGHT MOBILE BASES
Light Mobile Bases (MBL) are built and function like Mobile Bases (MB) (510.0). They use fewer modules and are less capable than a standard Mobile Base but can be deployed more quickly. MBLs function in all ways as a MB except where noted below. Combat factors: 5*/3. -- Chuck Strong
(5MBL.1) PRODUCTION
(5MBL.11) General: Light Mobile Bases can be substituted for Mobile Bases during production and cost 6 economic points to build. See SIT for availability dates for various empires.
(5MBL.12) Modules: An MBL has two module positions. The first position may be empty or have a single fighter module. The second position may be empty or have one of the following modules: fighter, PF, or repair. No MBL comes equipped with modules; modules can be built and added via (441.42).
(5MBL.13) Upgrades: An MBL can be upgraded to a MB (a one-step conversion) at a cost of 4 economic points; or to a Base Station (a two-step conversion) for 8 economic points.
(5MBL.2) LOGISTICS
(5MBL.21) Movement: One tug, LTT or two tactical transports can move and deploy an MBL.
(5MBL.22) Deployment: Move and deploy the MBL using the standard MB construction rules (510.2) with the exception that the MBL becomes operational at the end of the phasing player’s turn during the Final Activity Segment 10E.
(5MBL.23) Redeployment: During tug assignment phase 2B7 or at the beginning of operational or strategic movement a player declares an MBL non-operational. Transporting unit(s) may then move the MBL but do not have to start the turn in the same hex as the MBL; they could move to the site of the MBL and expend one Movement Point picking up the non-functioning base and then continue its movement carrying the MBL. This Movement Point is not expended if the transporting unit(s) starts in the same hex as the MBL.
(5MBL.3) OPERATIONS
(5MBL.31) Supply Point: MBLs can only extend supply three hexes.
(5MBL.32) Electronic Warfare: MBLs have an EW rating of one; zero EW if crippled.
(5MBL.33) Limited Strategic Movement: An MBL can only service 15 units as a strategic movement node; this total only counts strategic movement into or through the MBL. There is no limit on the number of units moving out-bound from the MBL using strategic movement.
(5MBL.34) Damage: MBLs do not use SIDS.
| By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 07:37 am: Edit |
Quote:The second position may be empty or have one of the following modules: fighter, PF, or repair.
| By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 10:36 am: Edit |
Mobile Bases would never again be built. Only the Light Mobile Base would be built, due to the improved capability of it being set up faster than the standard MB. Then double-convert it to a base station if you need the longer supply range and greater strat move capability. Heck, if you find you need longer supply range, build a convoy and set it on the LMB at the start of the turn.
I like the tactical advantages of this proposal, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Logically, it should cost *more* to gain an advantage, instead of less. So how do we make a 'light' mobile base cost more than a standard one?
I have already tried the idea of giving similar advantages (faster set-up time) to standard MB, and I would suggest something similar here. Maybe an extra ep cost to do a fast setup, using the standard MB? No extra counters needed, just a ruleset.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 11:04 am: Edit |
I am concerned about the unintended changes to the game this proposal will have. Much can change if there are new ways of setting up supply.
Is there a specific reason for this proposal, or why it is needed? Or is it just cool?
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 12:18 pm: Edit |
Matt, there are no rules for repair modules yet. The MBL should be more expensive at the start, 7 or 8 EPs instead of 6 EPs.
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 12:48 pm: Edit |
@Kevin - It seems to me that the balance factor is first, the cost to upgrade to a MB and second, the fact that the two step conversion yields a BS rather than a BATS. Although, I will admit that the latter part seems intuitively illogical.
@Ted - That's precisely my mentality when a new unit is proposed. WHY? I do like this better than I like those Stellar thingys.
@Thomas - If they are more expensive, why would you bother for a slightly quicker deployment time?
| By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 02:55 pm: Edit |
The BS, 3 supply range, and 15 Strat puts a good inherent limit on this thing. If the Lyrans put one up over Klinshai then they could strat a RESV worth + a money tug or so. But they wouldn't be using it as a supply chain into Federation space. I wouldn't use this in some forward areas that I wanted the option of doing a couple-turn conversion into a SB. The one situation I can think of that this would be immediately useful is if my supply chain was already whacked and I already have a bunch of ships in theatre. Then I could theoretically move one up and have ships back in supply for a counter-attack. Other than that I'm somewhat with Ted on this. I'm going to have to ponder.
| By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 03:42 pm: Edit |
I agree with Ted that these likely have some balance effects that we would not want. I am pretty sure my opinion leans toward the MB should remain the smallest base unit in this game.
IMO supply should be challenging to extend into enemy territory. These will make it 40% less risky in terms of economics on the base side. Couple that with the cheap to produce TT's and you should never have an issue with supply. Redeployment (ie pick-up) of these things during the fly-by is pretty powerful by itself.
Hmmm...Chuck this is your second proposal to make supply issues go away. Are we having a supply issue all of a sudden that make these proposals necessary? 
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 04:20 pm: Edit |
Guys:
Please study the SoP and the MB set up/upgrade rules befor a before you comment.
A MB cost 10EP to produce where as the MBL costs 6EP and a convoy costs 6EP. Read the proposal when the MBL is operational on the SoP. A convoy cannot be place on the MBL until the owning player's next turn; this is no differnt than when a standard newly deployed MB would become operational.
Also you cannot begin to upgrade the MBL any sooner than if you set up a standard MB (on the owning player's next turn).
The advantange is quick set up allows supply during the opposing player's turn.
The disadvantage is that supply is permanently limited to range 3 and a cap on strat movement of 15 units.
OPBs are far more flexible as they are always "set up".
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 04:34 pm: Edit |
Lar: I did not propose the DETACHED UNIT SUPPLY rule; I just wanted to codify the rule because much of the detail was missing from the new capablility. I had a lot of "what if" issues in my mind and instead of asking a lot of designer intent questions I chose to write the rule to answer many of my questions and allow the designer to "correct" my reads.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 05:32 pm: Edit |
Randy, as Chuck said supply reasons for one. Second, you can upgrade it to BS as a 2 step upgrade great for possibly faster base replacement. I can think of a couple of advantages to this over the MB. However Most things I would do as Chuck suggests by using a Op Base or full sized Mobile Base.
That being said, supporting an expiditionary fleet or to start a logistics train into enemy territory does lend to some interesting tactical situations.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 05:40 pm: Edit |
Chuck, under the rules for Base Stations (444.22) an undevastated planet can upgrade a MB to a BS. Could (444.22) be used by a planet to upgrade a MBL to a MB, then to a BS as a series of 1 step upgrades?
Also, Fighter/PF modules under (441.422) start functioning upon delivery. Unless deployed at the same time as a mobile base is deployed. Would modules delivered to a functioning MBL start to function immediately upon delivery as other bases under (441.422)?
Sorry for what may seemn like stupid questions, but I feel things like this should be fully developed with all other existing rules.
| By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 05:44 pm: Edit |
1) How about a MBL can only have ONE module! Fighter repair or PF.
2) Require an ENTIRE turn for the MBL to MZB step. And then you can do upgrades from there.
3) There should be SOME cost for the (nothing -> MBL -> MB) over that of just building the MB directly. How about a single EP surcharge?
| By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 05:50 pm: Edit |
If I did the math right (big if at the moment 
), 3 4pt DB platforms on a Drone Raid should kill this with a 30%+ result.
More than what's needed to kill a convoy, but a convoy can be escorted.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 06:03 pm: Edit |
Chuck, I guess I just don't see the need for this unit. I recognized immediately that it's primary purpose was to setup supply on the opposing player's turn. That *might* have a substantial effect on game play, as you can setup such supply after combat - which you can't do with other types of supply units. Is there a reason you are thinking this is a desirable element to the game?
Quote:The advantange is quick set up allows supply during the opposing player's turn.
| By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 06:55 pm: Edit |
Chuck, what is the proposed Year in Service? If this is a mid to late General War logistics unit it shouldn't be unbalancing (I say this without seeing the complete F&E2010 rules changes), but it occurs to me that this unit could be the reason why the Coalition sued for a white peace and ended the Four Powers war (as just after Hydrans deploy it).
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 08:21 pm: Edit |
From F&E 2010:
(509.1-C) Move/Set Up Mobile Base: A tug can be assigned
this mission (510.2) during the Phasing Player Turn at the moment it begins operational movement or strategic movement, or
as part of the Final Activity Phase (10C).
CHANGE TO READ:
(5MBL.22) Deployment: During tug assignment phase 2B7 or at the beginning of operational or strategic movement a player declares his intent to deploy an MBL during the turn; the player must designate each specific MBL to be deployed. Deployment actions can be revoked only during the Final Activity Segment (10E). Move and deploy the MBL using the standard MB construction rules (510.2) with the exception that the MBL becomes operational at the end of the phasing player’s turn during the Final Activity Segment (10E).
| By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 09:55 am: Edit |
Chuck,
It'd like to know just how is the MBL supposed to be "upgraded" to a MB?
Presumably the MBL will have different main Mobile Base pods than an MB. So then they just extend the MBL pods in the field to make them MB pods?
What I see these used as, you go and set them up on your movement phase. It's active during the opponents turn, then if it lives you can upgrade it on your next turn (infact you can upgrade it to a BS whereas a MB you can't).
Verses currently, a MB is deployed on your turn, and not set up to your next turn, then if it lives you can upgrade it on your next turn.
It's the same timeline, but the MBL is "active" at least when the enemy comes and attacks it to try to kill it. So it can at least contribute 1EW to the battle (lets say the 5AF is not a significant factor here...)
The thing is, *I* won't use it to extend supply 3 hexes, I'll deploy it at the ultimate location for the base it's replacing (upto 6 hexes) for supply reasons.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 10:30 am: Edit |
MB can be upgraded to BS or BATS.
MBL can be upgraded to MB (by adding pods; see illustration in the new F&E rulebook) or BS.
The MBL main core is the same one used by the MB (look at the SSD).
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 11:16 am: Edit |
Still looking for why we want to change the game to allow supply points to be setup after the combat phase.
| By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 12:28 pm: Edit |
After talking with Chuck and with his clarifications above the Final Activity Segment (10E) follows all things that would affect game balance (Retrograde, Field Repair, Strategic Movement).
This thing would indeed be active for the enemy's turn (giving them a new target). The benefit I see is that by it being active (should it survive) on your next turns Econ phase you would be able to create a Convoy there extending both supply range and limits.
If there is a problem the feedback from playtest will reveal it.
Question:
Convoy (not a valid retro point extends supply 6).
MBL (valid retro point extends supply 3).
If your current battle fleet retreats to a hex 5 hexes away from your MBL + Convoy can it get back?
IOW: In retrograde is it the "supply range to" or the "actual distance to" that determines ability to get to a retro location? or is it both?
| By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 03:40 pm: Edit |
Retrograde eligible is based on being in supply at the time of combat or the moment of retrograde. Retrograde movement range is based on the retrograding unit.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 12:14 am: Edit |
Ted:
Quote:Still looking for why we want to change the game to allow supply points to be setup after the combat phase.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 10:46 am: Edit |
This is what I was looking for. I understood the what, just not the why.
Quote:I see these units supporting rear area logistic networks or hasty retreats. With an in-bound limit of 15 units on strategic movement, the MBL can only support one in-bound reserve fleet.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 10:50 am: Edit |
Another tactical use for the MBL is to shore up a supply system that has been weakened on a prior opponent's turn. I could fill in a key hole so that the opponent cannot deny me supply after his turn is done.
That might be a problem for the alliance in the early phases of the GW, but a benefit in the late. In the early it will be more difficult to disrupt Coalition supply with cleverly designed attacks. In the late it will be more difficult for the Coalition to do the same.
It's possible this rule will make a more complete victory easier to achieve for either side.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |