Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 10, 2011	25		03/10 02:33pm

---

Quote:

It is true that my modified version has 9 points and is somewhat involved - but it does allow 312 to be applied normally during ESSC and it does account for reasonable assumptions of what would happen.

---

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Going with 0AF-0DF is the simplest way to account for the SFG in SSC, as the SFG ship still has to make three separate rolls...

[Maybe another Q would be why keep the DF as it's funciton is for the initial modifiers...]

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Use all rules and rulings as they now stand but add the following:

--frozen ships count 1/2 (rounded up) their defensive compot for purposes of the compot comparison for SSC.

--if an SFG unit is used in SSC to attempt to freeze, all casualties received by the SFG unit's side must first be resolved on the SFG unit. These must be resolved before any retreats.

--if any unit is frozen by an SFG, all casualties received by the side with the frozen ship(s) must first be resolved on the frozen ship(s). These must be resolved before any retreats.

Seems elegant, simple, and realistic to me, but everyone has their biases.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 09:52 pm: Edit

The original concept ie "the old method" did base the modifier on success or failure. It was a 33% chance of success, there was only one attempt made. Relating the "SFG success equals +2 to the die roll" would be likely be represented as +2 casualties in this new method.

But I think its to strong though to go down the automatic +2 casualties road. I think it should be kept as a simple modifier after success roll. Only one roll should be made for success no matter how many chances you can have.

There is no basis for using 1/2 the DF on frozen ships. IMO if this were to be changed it should be frozen = 0 DF.

Either way that gets decided should not see the DF reduced and a die roll modifier. It should be one or the other.

Food for thought: IF it gets decided that J-ships can be used to protect then I would agree it should be player option to use a J-ship to resolve casualty. Please review the nature of the J ships rules because they seem to indicate they would want to sacrifice themselves to resolve a casualty thus requiring it. I am not a proponent of taking away player choices but in this case it would seem logical.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Just to let you all know that the staff will deal with this issue as part of the CO Warbook update and not until after ISC War is complete.

That said my initial inclination for the CO SSC update:

--frozen ships count 1/2 (rounded up) their defensive compot for purposes of the compot comparison for SSC. (Note that one must un-freeze a unit to fire upon it -- this allows the unit some limited self defense opportunities.)

--if an SFG unit is used in SSC to attempt to freeze, at least one non-retreat casualty must be received by the SFG unit if their side suffers two or more casualties.

--at least one non-retreat casualty must be applied to each frozen unit before any retreat casualty is permitted.

Now back to my regularly scheduled programming...

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Not to chime in late, but something Ted said earlier got me thinking about something that would be a very cool use of SFG ships.

Basically it was a conversation where he used the SFG to protect his own ships from incoming seeking weapons to great effect. So what if a SFG ship could be used like a SWAC in that same manner? You could say use the SFG ship to negate drone bombardment, but at the cost that it can be killed at a 1 to 1 damage ratio and does not count as the one directed damage attack. Or maybe it could have a degrading effect on the enemy BIR like a SWAC, but again it could be killed very easily.

Just a thought, but it sounded cool on the surface.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 03:31 pm: Edit

If the SFG is made so effective in SSC - I think the penalty for failure should be equally effective.

Also, if the SFG is made so good, the Coalition player will use it where it is most effective, so we need to be careful not to make the 'ultimate force' - to which the Alliance has no equivalent.

In SSC, the Coalition starts with Maulers, and so generaly has the upper hands.

Lets say a fair raiding force is a CD and 2 x DF.

What force could the Klingons put up, to make it a very unfair fight?

C9A, D6D+PT and D5 would be fairly easy to do (not all fast, so no auto success). (Assuming a Mauler and SFG would both require 2 seperate consorts - as a C9A, D6D+PT, MD5 would be even better!)

The C9A can safely attempt 3 freezes - but lets say it only gets 2 (the CD and DF).

So with half DC on the Alliance gets -1 on EW and -2 on due to size of hull comparisons.

OC 4 v DC 19 is -5.

So, best the Alliance could do would be 1 casualty (if they roll a 12), so the SFG unit is safe - unless the rule requires the first cripple to be on the SFG unit - and then it's just a 1/36 chance.

In return, it's OC 16 v 10 DC, so +3.

On an average roll of 7, thats 3 casualties - so the two frozen hulls get crippled and the 3rd can be a retreat.

A 9+ results in 1 dead, 2 cripples (and a retreat.

A 11+ results in all 3 dead.

On double 1 - just 1 ship is crippled.

Purely on the basis, the Alliance can never be as effective in SSC as that - I feel it would be bad for the game.

Just my 2p though!

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 03:40 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Basically it was a conversation where he used the SFG to protect his own ships from incoming seeking weapons to great effect. So what if a SFG ship could be used like a SWAC in that same manner? You could say use the SFG ship to negate drone bombardment, but at the cost that it can be killed at a 1 to 1 damage ratio and does not count as the one directed damage attack. Or maybe it could have a degrading effect on the enemy BIR like a SWAC, but again it could be killed very easily.

---

By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 09:00 pm: Edit

So Paul your saying that if a stasis dreadnought and two drone cruisers (+ PTs) somehow freeze a cruiser and two frigates and kill them all with a 1 in 12 chance (11+) that this is somehow broken?

Did you figure out the odds of intercept for the Klingon group. Or the risk analysis done by the Kzinti player KNOWING there is a C9A that could intercept their raid. And how many C9A are there on the map?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 04:45 am: Edit

Peter

What I am saying is that the Klingons already have the lions share of unique things - and I would rather not see they getting another unique attribite would could be very very powerful.

Under what situations would the Alliance be able to destroy a similar Coalition force?

If I had to allocate a C9A (or C5A or C10A - they are all in the same bracket), a D6D, a D5 and a normal War Cruiser to have a good chance to kill 2 enemy ships - I would do it.

You could even use a D7A and just go to freeze 2 enemy targets.

So using a D7A, D7C+PT and a D6D (or CWS+PT) and continuning the same Alliance force from my original example, unless the CD isn't frozen - which I estimnate is about 35% of the time - it still gets the Alliance under the maximum minus level (and so the SFG is safe).

Plus, this assumes the Coalition is defending - what happens if those 3 ships are the attackers - you basically as the defender would, unless you could guarantee the combat ISN'T SSC, you would avoid combat as best as possible.

Even if you got the combat to be normal combat - the SFG ship is safe, as it could be an ignored Flagship.

So, one side gets very very powerful benefits (with minimal risk) in SSC - which the other side can do very very little about!

Plus it's complex, will take time AND gives one side the above benefit. Seems we have broken two of the rules of SSC - and on that basis, doesn't go with the flow of the rules.

So to me, we should go back to the very early suggestions of a simple modifier.

Why not just roll 1D6

1 = -1 to Coalition
2-4 = No effect
5 = +1 to Coalition
6 = +2 to Coalition

Makes the weaker hulls better, and better hulls 'worse' - but it's simple!

A cloaked Romulan DN is far more powerful than a cloaked Romulan FF - yet the modifier is the same - so to me, in effect we have the presedence of 'power' of unit being discounted for simplicity.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 07:37 am: Edit

With the exception of the possibility of the defense factor issue, I think some of you are overthinking the problem. Generally you use the larger hulls for SFGs because they have a better chance of success of freezing, regardless of the form of combat. As Chuck stated, to damage the enemy ship you have to unfreeze it which gives it some limited self defense capablility, but very little offensive capablility for a certain amount of time. (I don't have my SFB Rules handy, they are packed up at the moment.)

Under (312.261) you must have 2 other ships or ship equivalent of fighters or PFs as consorts excluding a mauler and the SFG ship itself. This would apply to SSC as well as normal combat.

Now if you want an evil 3 ship SFG group here you go: B9AA and two D5DX ships. You get the fast ship bonus, x ship bonus, EW, and SFG use plus two OC for the Prime Team you included on the B9AA.

I seriously doubt anyone would raid a hex containing those 3 units.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 09:45 am: Edit

Thomas

Whats to stop those ships being the attacking force though?

It would mean the Alliance would basically NOT be able to protect a hex from a raid, which would involve SSC.

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 10:23 am: Edit

Paul

What stops them from being a raid is the limit on sending multiple raid ships to the same hex (excluding special raids, which they wouldn't be) They could be used offensively in op movement, at the risk of a reserve dropping on their head.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Patrick

That has already been mentioned earlier - you can't mug the SFG ship with a reserve - as you just use the Flagship rejection rule to keep the best 2 ships out of the fight.

(Which is what normally happens if a reserve turns up to mug a small attacking force - so no changes there)

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Paul

The point was that using a 'super ESSC' group offensively is a pretty tough proposition. You can't raid with it, due to the raid rules. In operational movement, the enemy can always force the action out of small-scale combat by sending a reserve... and in the case of TM's group above, even if you didn't mug the stasis ship you'd be mugging a D5DX (which isn't exactly cheap in itself) and denying your opponent the chance to use his stasis DN in support of a larger battle.

While I do think we have to be careful not to make stasis ships the end-all and be-all of raid defense, I'm pretty sure existing interactions would keep it from being abused on offense.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Patrick

Sorry - should have been clearer.

Defensively - you use the best group possible (and late on D5DX's meet the bill!).

Offensively though, a SFG+D7C+CWS with 1 or 2 PT's make an excellent force.

If the reserve turns up - you lose the CWS - which is a nice hull - but if all that you lose, it's not a bad trade (as the reserve would have done damage elsewhere).

Against a weaker force of 2 or 3 ships - a F5S or E4S might suffice.

As it stands, I haven't seen any 'existing interactions' to not only stop SFG's from being ESSC killing forces - but a chance to kill the SFG ship too.

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Paul

No worries, I think we're just looking at the same thing from different angles. What I meant by 'existing interactions keep it from being abused' was this:

Someone smashing your force offensively in ESSC practically requires your cooperation.

1) It requires that you have three ships (or fewer) defending a location that do not exceed 14 offensive or 19 defensive factors (otherwise, the defending player could require it to be resolved as a normal combat under 310.115).

2) It requires that you are not willing to give up that location (otherwise you just throw an expendable ship under the bus and withdraw).

3) It requires that you are not willing to send a reserve to defend that location.

Does it mean you'll have a chance of killing that SFG ship when it gets into that specific situation? Probably not. Then, setting up fights loaded in one side's favor isn't special to use of SFGs.

What it does mean is that your opponent is using his limited SFGs to kill low-value targets in fights you aren't willing to commit forces to instead of freezing Hydran or Gorn cruisers off the line. By giving it a very limited tactical immortality, he's made it a weak asset strategically.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 08:42 pm: Edit

BTW, the limited defense for a recently unfrozen ship is (D6.68) - 4 impulses of being a sitting duck (allowed to fire DF weapons at seeking weapons within three hexes), so the timing of a drone swarm is very useful...

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 10:34 am: Edit

As for the concern that a Stasis ship consorted with two other effective ships (folks have been giving examples of drone ships for EW and a nice cruiser) is too powerful.

With respect to the SFB experts out there who may disagree with me. I haven't played SFB seriously in over 20 years, but 3 on 3 when one of the Klingon ships is a SFG ship is DANGEROUS to the opponent.

In a SFB fight an SFG ships effectiveness is VERY dependant upon the size of the fleets. If we assume each side has equal numbers of assets, then plot effectiveness on the vertical and fleet size on the horizontal. I would say starting at x=1 (fleet size of one) the SFG is at a very low effectiveness. This effectiveness increases as X gets larger till about 3 or 4 then begins falling off rather rapidly.

It increases at first because with few ships its hard to both fend off a frozen ships compatriots effectively and also deliver a crunch blow to recently frozen ship. But at about 2-3 ships over the SFG itself this just feels to me to be about the best balance between being able to fend off while still having enough crunch. But after that the opponent with 5 or more ships presents a difficulty. Unless you keep a huge brick on the SFG unit, they can play long range fleet sniping to damage the SFG ship. And ya know a SFG unit with a brick is hard to get in proper position if the opponent is playing keep away. As more and more ships are added to both fleets, then the long range pick on the SFG begins to work even better for the defenders. So therefore as fleet size gets larger I see SFG's getting less effective.. once both sides have 9-10 units the SFG is probably about as usefull as it would be if each side had only 2 ships.

So as I see it ESSC is about the most effective situation an SFG unit can find itself in, although a 4 on 4 battle which won't use ESSC of course could also be quite a Bonanza for the SFG unit too. In all of these 3 ship ESSC SFG groupings.. do folks really think they would't be devestatingly effective?

Remember if your hitting these groupings while they are on the defensive shame on you for not bringing enough EW to emasculate the SFG. If they are hitting you offensively you can either reserve to make it not ESSC or withdraw before combat and let the SFG group eat your most expendable ship.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 10:41 am: Edit

As a caveat to above. Of course this assumes a deep space battle and a floating map(fixed map vrs floating map debate aside.. in open space when the defender has nothing to defend per se.. there is in my opinion no argument that a floating map should be used except scenario balance.. and in converting F&E situations to SFB we are not primarily concerned with balanced (i.e. fun) SFB scenarios). Anything like terrain, or slow units on the non SFG side that must be defended (freighters) or fixed defenses will change things often radically for or against the SFG unit in SFB.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 11:27 am: Edit

MP: That's about right. However, in my experience the balance is over 6 before you see drop off and over 8 before it's rapid. I regularly played 6 ship battles with a SFG and managed to use it successfully. The reason is that electronic warfare can spare a SFG ship from a lot of pain. However, over 8 ships the intensity of firepower can overcome even a moderate shift.

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Friday, July 05, 2019 - 06:47 pm: Edit

I think this one has been accounted for in the new ESSC rules.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 05, 2019 - 07:08 pm: Edit

If so, feel free to delete.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, July 05, 2019 - 08:04 pm: Edit

SFGs have been accounted for under (310.42).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, July 06, 2019 - 05:31 am: Edit

There are issues raised here that need to be REVIEWED for F&E2K20. Please do not delete yet.