Following on from the previous topic on raids, I thought the following might assist in reducing the problem.

However, I think to keep the rule package 'balanced', there would need to be other changes.

Removal of 2 E&S missions

(Coalition has the PT’s and Cash to do high risk missions, so this change is more pro-Alliance)

Prime Teams may no longer assassinate Ambassadors, nor raid uncrippled ships to cripple them.

(Rational, I would hate to 'the perfect Hydran Expedition', and get the Ambassador or ship killed, seconds before it entered Federation space! It would also protect key unqiue ships - Hydran Supply Tug or SFG Ships for example)

Raid Protection Rule – Close Protection

Close Protection effects all forms of Raids.

6 Factors of Fighters (no more and no less than 6) can protect 1 base or ship.

The fighters die before base/ship takes damage - all other details remain the same though (Slow Target for example)

However, any Fighters used for Close Protection can’t react (nor can the ship they are based on) and they can’t be used unless the unit/ship is also in the battle round (or say until round 4).

In addition, if a ship is being escorted – the ship can’t react (it's too difficult to protect the unit if it moves over extended areas!)

A max 3 units per hex could be protected (i.e. a Huge FRD park is still vulnerable, but one or two key units can get protected - due to limitations on where units can operate while still being protected).

A SB/SBX may allocate upto half of it's fighters (min of 6, so a SB(0) or SB (6) would not be able to use this rule) to guard a unit/ship.

A warship can allocate all of it's fighters (formed into groups of 6 fighters) to escort units or ships.

An Auxillary Carrier may not allocate fighters to close protection.

Example - Hex has a BATS, FRD, crippled D7A plus 3 carrier groups of a 3D6V, 3D5V and 2FV.

Klingons could take the 6F from the D5V and a total of 6F from the D6V and FV to protect both the FRD and D7A.

If the Hex had 3 4C8V groups also in it, and 4 more FRD's, only 1 other FRD could be protected.

Rational - A Base isn't going to sent all of it's fighters away, leaving it 'naked', and Auxillary Carriers are not trained to operate in Close Protection.

As small FRD parks could become raid proof, I feel the rule is Pro-Coalition.

Due to the loss of flexibity (reaction and inability to use them freely), there is a cost to pay to protect key units, but if the benefit is big enough - players will do it!

So - Raid rules get toned down (but at a defensive cost) and Prime Teams are stopped from potentually turning the game into a 'crap shoot'.

Excellent, Good, OK, bad or awful idea and any stupid points to this?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 09:49 am: Edit

I think we can streamline all these ideas but not right now as ISC War has the priority...

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 10:10 am: Edit

Frankly we should also get rid of infiltration. That rule drives me positively bonkers.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 12:03 pm: Edit

We shouldn't get rid of infiltration.. there is a 3 in 36 chance (8.33%)of a ship destroyed and a 4 in 36 chance (11.11%) of a ship crippled. 7 chances in 36 anything happens at all (19.44%).

So that should on average result in a ship killed about every 12 turns for each empire that a side has captured planets from. And if you bite the bullet with garrisons its a Frigate. You get one cripple about every 8 turns and again that is a 1 ep repair if you play it right. So in 36 turns (about the length of the game) you should suffer 3 killed ships and 4-5 crippled ships. If you properly garrison those should be FF class ships... 7.5ep for Frigate deaths and another 4-5 ep for repairs. so about 12ep over the course of the game... rule isn't broken.. but I will elaborate on what I think its real benefit is.

The penalty is fairly easy to abrogate keep 3 small ships at every conquored planet. What it does mean is you cannot keep perfect ESSC forces as a garrision without risking a large ship getting killed. But again this is a rule that benefits the alliance more than the coalition, AND its threat is far more reaching than what it actually does. It forces the Coalition to spread small ships out at its conquored planets.. it makes it quite hard to base LAV/SAV at those planets, and in addition they cannot put perfectly tailored ESSC forces their either without risking a valuable unit, they have to go to 4 ships to keep larger ships safe.

Infiltration is not broken, and in addition I have magic vodoo powers that let me roll 10, 11, 12 on 2d6 with online dicerollers... Those are bad results for most things except infiltration and rebellion!

But seriously in summary infiltration needs no fixs, its one of the few things that allows the alliance to shape the map in the early part of the game. Its only really effective of one tries to garrison planets with things like CW DDG FF so that the CW is vulnerable. Just garrison with whatever you want that is 5-6+ def compot and 3 frigates.. yep you do not have perfect ESSC but your now taking kills and cripples on frigates.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 12:46 pm: Edit

If going with Paul's "close protection" I'd simplify, for FRDs, BATS and larger bases, and ground bases, all close protection fighters MUST come from the unit being protected and may not be used for approach battles.

We KNOW how you are supposed to protect these units, you attach fighter modules!

This leaves only the problem of protecting non-carrier slow units and mobile bases.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Not just you. Every opponent I've faced has insane luck with infiltration.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, September 12, 2010 - 11:46 am: Edit

Ted,

A rule driving you bonkers is not really a valid reason to get rid of it. In fact, I think we should test future rules just to make sure they drive you sufficiently bonkers to be worth implementing.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, September 13, 2010 - 08:04 am: Edit

Chuck - OK!

Douglas

Not a bad idea for Fighter modules on FRD's. The cost of the Fighter Pallet though might make it a rule which is hardly ever used.

I don't like the idea of BATS though being able to 'Close Patrol' something! Those BATS fighters can't all fly 24/7 (I am happy for ship based fighter to do 24/7 - as the ship can move to pick them etc)!

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 13, 2010 - 03:09 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Ted,

A rule driving you bonkers is not really a valid reason to get rid of it. In fact, I think we should test future rules just to make sure they drive you sufficiently bonkers to be worth implementing.

---