Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through February 13, 2013	25		02/13 08:41pm
	Archive through February 18, 2013	25		02/20 02:31pm

In this system Thomas, the EWN simply increases the chances for an "interception" or a "target not acquired" result, rather than adding another patrol group. In reality an EWN wouldn't allow more patrols, but would help existing patrols find any enemy.
I would like to move conversation about my proposal to my new thread though so if anyone wants to discuss SB docking during raids they can use this one.

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Some thoughts on how interception could be scaled and integrated into the target acquisition table. The defender would make his three groups of interceptors. They would be assigned numbers one through three. On the low rolls on the target acquisition chart the defender would roll multiple dice, which might result in more groups intercepting the raid. On the high rolls the defender would lose possible slots for intercept groups.

For example
3 on the target acquisition table might be defender rolls 3d6 for intercept groups. If the defender rolled really lucky (1, 2 & 3) the raiders would be intercepted by all three groups (odds of this are 1 in 216). If he rolls a 1, 2 & 5 two groups would intercept the raider. On the other end of the spectrum an 11 on the target acquisition table would only allow an intercept on a 1 on a d6 as only one group would be eligible to intercept.

Another option may be to allow the defender to intercept the raid before execution by giving up one of the groups that intercepted the raid. For example if the defender rolled interception for two groups he could forgo one of them and intercept with one group before the raid is resolved.

Thought process behind the concept is that it would integrate the likely hood of interception with the likely hood of finding the target. If you go after a risky target, you are more likely to get intercepted by a larger force. It would also provide the defender the option to attack the raid before it reaches the target with what forces he could concentrate.

Concept Table

2 (natural roll) – target not acquired, automatic intercept, bonuses for defender
2 (modified roll) - target not acquired, automatic intercept - intercept roll 2d6, 3 groups and then player selects additional group
3 target not acquired - intercept roll 3d6, 3 groups
4 target not acquired - intercept roll 2d6, 3 groups
5 normal
6 normal
7 normal
8 normal
9 normal
10 Target acquired - intercept roll 1d6 two groups
11 Target acquired - intercept roll 1d6, one group
12 (modified roll) – target acquired, no intercept
12 (natural roll) – target acquired, no intercept, bonuses on raid resolution

Normal is 1d6 with 3 groups

Looking for thoughts, should the normal range be condensed to 6 to 8 and other values added on the ends?

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 10:31 pm: Edit

EWNs would continue to add an additional group per the existing rules. This would increase the risk to the raider and would encourage defenders to place their valuable assets in locations with EWNs and to consider developing additional EWNs.

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 10:35 pm: Edit

This thread has two concepts embedded in it. One is the Starbase docking concept, which I am not working on at the moment and the other is the concept for a 2d6 target acquisition table, which continues to be developed. Please feel free to continue providing comments on either one and I will sort through them as I go.

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 02:31 pm: Edit

How about we say a unit at the same location as a starbase (or a base of a specific size or larger) cannot be targeted by a raid? That is fairly simple.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 04:34 pm: Edit

I would assume that units docked inside during the raid cannot do anything like launch drone bombardment into another hex or repair the base or repair something else. Also, some things like FRDs and engineer brigades and logistics task forces and convoys just cannot be inside a starbase. More details need to be considered.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 05:12 pm: Edit

A simpler rule might be to prohibit raids on starbase hexes. I'm just saying.

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 12:05 am: Edit

SVC - Welcome back. Glad to hear that pain is going down.

For starbase docking during the raid phase the following units would be ineligable

FRDs and Battleships - docking cost exceeds bay capacity
Convoys (all types), SAFs, LTFs, engineers - multiple ships/units
Tugs performing missions that require them to be outside (base repair, upgrades, deliveries, etc)

Prohibiting raids on starbase hexes has the advantage of condensing it down to one sentence. The more detailed concepts were being developed as an alternative to address player concerns of to many units being able to shelter at the base. They were also being proposed to reflect that no place is truly invulnerable and if the raider wants to take the risk he may get lucky and kill the elusive target, but more likely he will get hurt for no return.

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 12:45 am: Edit

I moved the concept of target acquisition during special raids to a separate thread titled "Target Acquisition During Special Raids" to make discussion of the separate concepts easier.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 02:22 pm: Edit

In my old age I really like simple such as "no raids on starbase hexes".

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Works for me. I will consider the concept of docking at a starbase during the raid phase as OBE and move on to other topics.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 03:13 pm: Edit

What does my staff think?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Unfortunately history has examples of both successful and unsuccessful raids on "safe places", e.g. Pearl Harbor (Japaneese attack on US), Taranto Harbor (British air attack on Italian Navy), A bridge to far (The British Air Assault on the bridge at Arnhem). I would note that the Japaneese didn't expeect to surpise the defenders of Pearl Harbor like they did. I'm sure others can find other examples both in history and in the SFU of such successful raids/missions. Thus there needs to be that element of risk vs reward for attacking something in a "safe place".

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 05:07 pm: Edit

If the price of keeping drone raids was, no Raids on SB hexes - I probably could go for it.

Simple - Aboslutely
Realistic - SB are pretty powerful - but it is partially countered by historical successes against what was though as of safe locations.

However, I would still prefer SB's to be vunerable to a lucky roll (and Capitals a very luck roll).

SVC - Would a vote help (and only having a single vote)?

1) No SB hex raids
2) Some form of table - with risk/rewards dependent on whats in the target hex
3) Removal of Drone Raids

Once we have a majority direction - we can then debate the prefered solution!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 07:04 pm: Edit

A vote would not help. I'm waiting for the staff to comment. Then I'll make the decision.

For what it's worth, discussions of Pearl Harbor and Port Arthur are irrelevant given changes in sensor technology.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Re Pearl Harbor being "safe".

Somewhere I have a nice naval theory book PUBLISHED well over a year prior to Pearl Harbor stating that for the first time in history ships were LESS safe docked in a friendly port than at sea due to torpedo bombers and submarines.

It was a known problem at the time due to a specific weapon system. Anyone surprised by the Fleet's vulnerability at Pearl wasn't paying attention. Especially as the British had done it to at least two other navy's by the time of Pearl.

SFB includes no weapons as devastating to a ship in a defended location as the torpedo bomber or dive bomber. When SFB adds a unit one thousandth or less the size as a heavy warship with a movement 25 times as fast and able to fly over defenses unintercepted while immune to the main conventional weapons, then THAT weapon can use things like WWII air raids as an excuss to allow raids on defended SB hexes.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Is there something that an enemy might have to overcome to enable raids on starbase hexes?

A minimum force or number of raids?

What if a starbase has no assets to counter raids? Are fighters/gunboats enough?

I know I'm not staff so I'm just asking questions.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 11:07 pm: Edit

The one major point of citing Pearl Harbor is that the Japaneese were detected by Radar about 20 - 30 minutes before the start of the attack if I remember the timing correctly. This information was reported up the chain and dismissed by superior officers who assumed it was a flight of friendly aircraft due in around the same time and would be following roughly the same course as the Japaneese. My specific point is that those officers who have "shore" duty may be quick to dismiss what their subordinates think is a raid or other attack based on other factors that they know of. There were other intelligence failures leading up to the attack, but the specific case of the radar station reporting the Japaneese aircraft and then the report being subsequently dismissed because someone else assumed that it was friendly traffic coming in stand large in my view of how something like a raid on a starbase could happen.

By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Friday, February 22, 2013 - 11:25 am: Edit

The problem with that theory is that the systems are completely different in the two eras. In early WWII operators needed to interpret raw data, and the US still thought that it was a peace. The day after Pearl Harbor, the officers were so jittery that *everything* became a Japanese attack. In the SFU, the sensors' expert systems will be screaming, "DRONE RAID INCOMING! X number of hostile drones incoming at Y speed from Z direction. DRONE RAID!" People will have trained for just this eventuality, and unless this is day 0 of the war will be expecting it.

Pearl Harbor is, if anything, an argument for a scenario special rule regarding, a la "The Surprise Reversed." If an empire knows that it is at war, I would say that the chances that a front line starbase would be caught by surprise by *anything* that isn't a covert operation-in other words, a Prime Team-to be practically nil. Therefore, I'd say that anything parked at a starbase should be completely safe from any non-prime team raids.

By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Friday, February 22, 2013 - 11:30 am: Edit

My quick thoughts are that slow units, and crippled or size class two ships should be invulnerable to drone raids if they're at a starbase. They'd all be hanging out under its guns or docked inside. Size class 3 and below would be patrolling, and so could be a legitimate target for a raid.