Archive through March 10, 2011
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E WARBOOK:
Warbook Update – Basic Set:
F&E 2010 - After Action Reports:
SFGs in ESSC:
Archive through March 10, 2011
So, in the Q&A topic there appears to be some discussion of the possibility of a bonus ESSC rules for use of an SFG. Right now, the stasis'd side gets full defpot, and there's NO offensive advantage to using stasis (only defensive by eliminating the compot of the stasis'd ship). That doesn't seem right given the 1:1 damage ratio you get with a stasis ship - and also that maulers that have a similar effect get an ESSC bonus if consorted.
I'd like to propose the following:
If the stasis succeeds, then the stasis side gets +2 to the ESSC roll (regardless of # of ships frozen).
If the stasis fails, then the opposing side gets +2 to the ESSC roll (regardless of # of failures).
These two bonuses could both apply if a stasis ship tried to get two ships and got one but failed on the other.
If the result is "total disaster!" then all bonuses due to prior successful stasis uses are canceled out. The opposing side still gets +2 to the ESSC roll. In addition, the stasis ship counts neither as offensive nor defensive compot when determining the base modifiers (this will be a real killer for the stasis side).
Furthermore, regardless of success, the side using the stasis ship may NOT use "retreat" to resolve a casualty.
Thoughts?
I'd change the bonuses to +1, not +2.
+2 in ADDITION to the loss of defender compot seems awfully high to me.
I would also suggest that 'total disaster' require the first casualty point to be scored as a cripple result vs the stasis ship to represent it's extreme vulnerability.
Those all could work. +1 is more in line with the mauler bonus anyway, and so it's better.
Thinking on it we'd need a rule saying that the mauler and SFG bonuses are cumulative (if a mauler and an SFG could be consorts for each other in view of a third ship).
I support Ted Fay's proposal above or something similar to give SFGs an offensive advantage in SSC (if successful). An alternative would be to 1/2 any frozen unit's defensive compot for purposes of the (310.12) comparison.
--Furthermore, I propose that 312.45 be eliminated. An SFG ship in single combat is actually quite an advantage, rather than a risk. The only risk is you don't get into range to use it and waste 5 pts power.
--Similarly, a single SFG ship should also not require consorts against two ships with combined compot less than it's own defensive compot. Very little risk there as well since you're a much larger ship than any remaining un-frozen ship. This would allow the C5A some minor business in the raiding pool.
--Regarding SSC in general, I propose removing the limits on offensive and defensive compot, and just leave the SSC requirement at no more than three ships per side. This would make SSC more interesting, deadly, and realistic (no more raiding groups un-touchable in SSC). This might require an expansion of the SSC compot comparison chart.
Maybe this won't be enough but I propose the following.
Keep the rule as is except add a modifier to ESSC.
(+1) Players force uses an SFG capable ship with consorts
So including SFG ship gives you a +1 just like a mauler (Note it is impossible to have both the Mauler and SFG bonus simultaneously as Maulers are specifically prohibited from consorting stasis ships, and even if that were not true a third ship cannot be counted as a consort for both a mauler and an SFG ship). If you choose to freeze stuff, you get the bonus of reducing your opponents O compot.
Its actually kinda sad you cannot consort Stasis and Mauler together.. I think the SFB grouping of D5A MD5 and D5S would be absolutely stunning, and its unfortunate such a grouping would in F&E be of no effect (no consort for either ship). I have played with D5A MD5 D5D before in SFB and it was pretty sick.
How about adding a penalty that if a side with any frozen ships resolves a casualty through retreat, then any frozen ships are automatically destroyed. (You ran away and left them to their fate.)
Also, how about adding that if _all_ units on one side are frozen, then all units on that side are automatically destroyed, with no loss to the SFG owner.
Note that the stasis rules states that a frozen ship does not count for anything other than CR (312.211) - this has to include the DF as a frozen escort doesn't count in carrier group operations! In SSC this should translate to 0AF-0DF per frozen ship...
In the C5A + 2 FD7 vs 3 frozen, there is 14AF vs 1 DF (+5 Klingon) and 1 AF vs 19 DF (-6) plus a -1 for Fast ships plus a -2 for for key matchup (11DF [C5A] vs 0DF [frozen]) giving the frozen side a -9 mod and the Klingons a +5 mod. The frozen side does no damage (12-9=3-no effect) while the Klingons can go from 1 (DR=2) to 9 (DR=11+) casualties. Also note, frozen ships can't retreat...
Stewart, Compot in a "normal" fleet battle is cacluated by adding the offensive compot of each unit involved in combat. Once the amount of damage as been determined it is then applied to the defensive value of the unit or units involved as modified by other rules.
Thus in my opinion frozen ships under SSC still count for defensive compot.
That being said. I can easily see the first two casualties must be resolved on the frozen unit(s) before retreat or any other option.
I think there are two issues here -
1) We need to keep it simple - so Michael P's 5.37 pm comment looks good.
2) We don't want to make SFG ships too powerful in ESSC.
If you say a frozen ship can't retreat/is killed if crippled - whats the chance the Klingons will just make ubber Anti Raid/ESSC forces - which on average, would be unbeatable.
(B10AA and 2 x D5S's for example - That could auto Freeze 3 ships every single time, as no chance* of failure or breakdown).
As it's an unique Klingon rule - it would massively be unbalancing (alteast the Alliance gets late war Maulers and can capture them for example).
* I suppose a ESSC force could have 8 EW...buts thats 'unlikely' (Kzinti could) - and you could replace a D5S with a D6S.
On Defensive Compot for Frozen ships - it has to count - as a Frozen DN is still harder to kill than a Frozen FF.
So my suggestion would be
SFG ship owner can gain X +'s on the ESSC roll.
Annouce how man +'s they want - and they need to roll equal or greater on a Single D6.
For exch 2 points of X - one random enemy ship is fozen.
If roll is LESS than X - for each 2 (or part therefore) of the missed roll - SFG ship takes a loss (first loss has to be crippled).
Chart not in front of me, but larger SFG ships would get a deduction on the roll (natutal 6 is always a failure)
Example
D7A wants +3 - rolls a 2 - so takes two losses - is crippled and retreats - and has no effect on ESSC.
.....
Alas - thats pretty complex - but the best I can think of at the moment!
Quote:Alas - thats pretty complex - but the best I can think of at the moment!
...and it doesn't address several issues that can arise.
I think the stasis rules should be used "as is" in terms of determining stasis. Opposing defpots should remain the same as it's still harder to kill a group. That being said, there is a benefit to freezing more ships as it's easier to setup a kill shot.
Modified Proposal - REV 1
0) The side with a stasis ship announces the use of stasis. In response, the opposing side may designate one of his ships as receiving the protection of the "form" box if he has two or three ships present. This designation has no effect, except that the protected ship may not be a direct target of a stasis attempt. The protected ship *may* be affected by a random stasis determination. Carrier groups receive their normal protections against stasis.
1) Determine success or failure of stasis normally.
2) If the stasis succeeds against one ship and two or three ships are present in the hex, then the stasis side gets +1 to the ESSC roll. Enemy defense potentials are not affected, but the ship affected by stasis cannot contribute offensive potential.
3) If the stasis succeeds against two ships, and three ships are present in the hex, then the stasis side gets +2 to the ESSC roll. Enemy defense potentials are not affected, but the ships affected by stasis cannot contribute offensive potential.
4) If all opposing ships are placed in stasis, regardless of the number of opposing ships in the hex, then the stasis side gets +2 to the ESSC roll. The opposing side may not make an ESSC roll as he has zero effective combat potential. Enemy defense potentials are not affected.
(Note: I'm loathe to go above +2. Even if all three are frozen, you still have to have the firepower to actually blow up the ships).
5)If the stasis fails on any stasis roll, then the opposing side gets +1 to the ESSC roll cumulative per failure. Both sides can end up getting a bonus to the ESSC roll.
6) If the result is "total disaster!" then no opposing ship is placed in stasis regardless of prior stasis rolls. In addition, the stasis side is affected as if it had failed a number of times equal to the number of stasis attempts it made, per above.
7) Regardless of success or failure, the enemy may designate any casualties as being applied to the stasis ship - one casualty to cripple the stasis ship and two casualties to kill the stasis ship. Remaining casualties, if present, are applied by the defending player normally.
8) Stasis may not be used when pursuing and using ESSC combat. Stasis may be used when being pursued, with the procedure shown above, but in addition to whatever other casualties the enemy inflicts, the player with the stasis ship must kill the stasis ship.
More comments?
Ted:
The update assumes you will always be facing three ships. Maybe you should change the language of 0, 2, 3, and 4 to reflect that if *all* ships are affected by stasis, you get the +2 to the roll.
John.
John,
Thanks. I realized that right after I posted. The revision takes this into account. I also found some other problems and corrected them.
If anyone read Rev 1 before 10:15 a.m. CST, then reload this page and then re-read it please.
Actually it might be punishment enough if the side that has one or more frozen ships cannot take a casulty to retreat. Though maybe that should only apply if all ships are frozen?
Robert, I disagree with that restriction. In normal SFG combat you can retreat surviving ships after the combat round even if all ships have been frozen.
I'm trying to keep this as close as possible to existing SFG rules - and put in additions where needed to cover disparities in ESSC and normal combat.
Remember, Ted, that under 310.51 a player can retreat /either/ as a casualty resolution or normally under 302.7. I don't think a restriction against resolving a casualty as a retreat while ships remain in stasis would be too onerous. (Since survivors could always retreat after the round, as they could in normal combat).
With that said, I'm also not sure that using the 'normal' stasis table would be desirable for combats on this small of a scale. The 'random target' result runs into all sorts of oddness with very small group sizes. Using a frozen/no result/defender advantage system as the old single combat rule did may make more sense.
Patrick,
You have a point about random. However, that issue still exists in ESSC as it stands.
Suggestions?
My suggestion would be an adaptation of the previous single combat table, using a variation on your earlier modifiers. Essentially, handle it this way, with this roll applying per stasis attempt:
1-3 Target Ship Frozen. +1 to side using stasis.
4-5 No Effect.
6 Botched Attempt. No ship frozen, +1 to opposing side.
This roll is performed for each stasis attempt, with the modifiers being cumulative (ranging at the extreme from +3 on 'your whole three ship squadron is frozen. Happy dying' to +3 for the other guy on 'you just got stuck in the middle of the still-active enemy formation. The overloads will fire once they stop laughing').
Problem with that is that it doesn't take into account the relative effectiveness of different stasis ships - which the normal table does. Also doesn't take into account the effect where *something* has to be frozen even if you don't know what at first.
Upon further thought, I don't think there are any issues in ESSC. I think it's easy enough to apply 312.233 normally.
Result if there is just one ship and a "random" result is determined: No ships are frozen because "Neither player can select the original target of that attempt or a ship already frozen by another attempt" under 312.233.
Result if there are two ships and a random result determined: The non-targeted ship is frozen automatically for the reason given above.
Result if there are three ships and a random result is determined: Assign 1-3 to the first non-targeted and 4-6 to the second non targeted. Roll to see which is actually frozen.
So, I don't think there are any problems there.
I'd eliminate any defensive bonus from stasis. Seriously, the side using stasis DOESN'T typcially lose fewer ships than they would in a conventional action, they inflict more devastating losses. The effect is offensive not defensive unless the OpFor recognizes your stasis unit and avoids closing with it.
I don't like a separate roll for stasis, much less three rolls. ESS is supposed to be simple and quick.
I'd go with something like: The side not using stasis can "avoid closing", if this is done that side inflicts 0 casualties and the side with stasis rolls normally. If the side without stasis does not "avoid closing" and the side with stasis choses to use it then niether side can resolve a casualty by retreating and the side using stasis MUST resolve at least as many hits on the stais unit as on any other unit, and the side using stasis gets a +1 modifier for determining casualties.
Stasis doesn't require consorts in ESS.
Ted - Where it gets to be complicated is with multiple attempts on a similar number of targets.
For instance, if you're fighting three ships and you declared three attempts. The first rolls 'random target' and thus has to select one of the other ships, and ends up with the target of the second attempt frozen by the first attempt. This means the second attempt cannot take place, and leaves the second roll to take place as the third attempt... and so on.
It's not so much that it doesn't work, as that it creates a whole pile of messy, complicated interaction in the otherwise pretty straightforward ESSC system.
Alternatively, we could just say 'Resolve stasis in ESSC under 312.5' and make everyone unhappy 
At the scale of ESS I don't see there being a huge difference in having a D5A or a C9A. The ship pinned is likely trash and the force using stasis takes minimal damage other than the stasis ship.
Simple is best. Recommend that something simple like forcing the player affected by stasis to take any casualties on the ships put into stasis first. And recommend that the stasis ship owner apply his first casualty to a J ship then all remaining casualties taken to the stasis ship first before any other ships.
Ted,
How about this, which I think is just a simplification of your Rev 1 proposal.
ESSC works as is, Stasis is handled under 312.0
Modifiers to ESSC
Use ONE of the following modifiers (whichever is larger)
If a SFG ship has a total failure +2 to opposing side (of course no o compot for the SFG ship but that is already handled in 312.0)
For each result of 'Nothing Frozen' +1 per to opposing side (max +2)
Use ONE of the following modifiers (whichever is greater)
One enemy ship is frozen +1 to SFG side
Two enemy ships are frozen +2 to SFG side
All enemy ships are frozen +2 to SFG side
this would provide up to +2 to each side depending upon what happens.. and it would be just modifiers to the existing ESSC chart. Very much like the modifier for def pot difference. In fact we could put the "Use one of these modifiers (whichever is smaller)" on the defpot modifier section to end the repeated Q&A about do you check two ships.
Dan, I do see a difference between a D5A and a C9A. The former is much more difficult to cripple, especially in a small scale environment. Also, note that my rev 1 accounts for your idea of applying damage to the stasis ship first (assuming you loaded the edited version). That being said, it need editing again to account for the D6J interaction.
Mike, the problem with the idea you've set forth is that it leaves too many unanswered questions regarding the application of rule 312 to the ESSC situation.
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.
I'm not saying that Rev 1 is *perfect* or even close - just that I don't think we're going to be able to avoid a little bit of complexity translating SFGs to the ESSC if we want to avoid ambiguities in the application of 312.
Note that the SFG rules themselves say that the rule is very complex and might not be desirable for that reason. However, if you're not minding the complexities of SFGs in the first place, then the application to ESSC should deal with those complexities appropriately IMHO.
SFG/ESSC INTERACTION RULE PROPOSAL - REV 2
1) The side with a stasis ship announces the use of stasis. In response, the opposing side may designate one of his ships as receiving the protection of the "form" box if he has two or three ships present. This designation has no effect, except that the protected ship may not be a direct target of a stasis attempt. The protected ship *may* be affected by a random stasis determination. Carrier groups receive their normal protections against stasis. No more than one stasis ship can use stasis in ESSC.
2) Determine success or failure of stasis normally.
3) If the stasis succeeds against one ship and two or three ships are present in the hex, then the stasis side gets +1 to the ESSC roll. Enemy defense potentials are not affected, but the ship affected by stasis cannot contribute offensive potential.
4) If the stasis succeeds against two ships, and three ships are present in the hex, then the stasis side gets +2 to the ESSC roll. Enemy defense potentials are not affected, but the ships affected by stasis cannot contribute offensive potential.
5) If all opposing ships are placed in stasis, regardless of the number of opposing ships in the hex, then the stasis side gets +2 to the ESSC roll. The opposing side may not make an ESSC roll as he has zero effective combat potential. Enemy defense potentials are not affected.
6)If the stasis fails on any stasis roll, then the opposing side gets +1 to the ESSC roll cumulative per failure. Both sides can end up getting a bonus to the ESSC roll.
7) If the result is "total disaster!" then no opposing ship is placed in stasis regardless of prior stasis rolls. In addition, the stasis side is affected as if it had failed a number of times equal to the number of stasis attempts it made, per above.
8) Regardless of success or failure, casualties taken by the stasis side are applied first to the stasis ship before retreat or other units are used to resolve casualties. As an exception, a penal ship may take the first casualty before the stasis ship takes a casualty. This rule can result in the stasis ship forced to be killed.
9) Stasis may not be used when pursuing and using ESSC combat. Stasis may be used when being pursued, with the procedure shown above, but in addition to whatever other casualties the enemy inflicts, the player with the stasis ship must also kill the stasis ship.
More comments?