It's one of the inherent capabilities of a SB -- that is just another reason to destroy them...

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 06:44 pm: Edit

This is a different concept that provides shelter at the Starbase, but not necessarily being guaranteed by being in the hex. It is more complex and may cause changes to existing rules that may make it undesirable.

Sheltering at the Starbase

I did some quick looking at what a starbase has for defenses/weapons. Between the 12 Phaser IVs, the 24 fighters with at least one PIII each, 12 shuttles with one PIII each, Point blank defense weapons (ADDs, plasma Ds, ESGs, Phaser IIIs), applicable heavy weapons for the race, special sensors and the minefield I don't see any of the special raids being able to do much of anything to any ship or unit that is at the starbase (inside the minefield on a SFB scale). In many ways this transitions the discussion away from are the units docked inside the starbase to are they at the physical starbase (inside the minefield in SFB scale) or just in the same F&E hex.

Aside - If the transition causes to many headaches with existing rules about causing damage to bases via SID steps and other rules that I haven’t thought of off the top of my head, the concept can remain that the ship being targeted is docked inside the base to avoid having to change the other rules. The discussion below about locations remains the same (except for the couple of items that can't dock inside the SB - FRD, BBs, SAFs, convoys).

Regardless of the “protection” coming from sheltering at the starbase or inside the starbase, a number of units in the hex will not be eligible targets for the raids. The question becomes how do those units get picked and who picks them.

There are multiple factors in play in the discussion. A raid occurs somewhere in a 6 month turn. The defender doesn’t know when, where, or even if one is coming to that location as he would ambush it before it ever got close to its target if he had that info. The attacker has a rough idea that the target he wants is in that area (F&E hex), but he commits to the raid days or weeks in advance and hopes the target is still a viable target when he arrives. During that 6 month turn the defenders units are moving around. They are not going to be just sitting at the starbase itself for the entire 6 months. They are going to be patrolling, protecting convoys, etc. so the discussion boils down to what targets are away from the base when the raid arrives. Unclipped ships are the most likely to be away from the base as that is what the local commander would use to patrol the area, crippled units would likely be at the base awaiting repair, unless the attacker managed to catch them before they got back to the base, which would be possible. FRDs are likely going to be one of the toughest targets in this case as if they are in the starbase hex, why would they ever be anywhere but at the starbase inside the minefield. When they are being moved they are usually being moved by a tug or a pair of warships.

Initial thoughts

1) The attacker declares that he is launching a raid against a starbase hex.

2) The defender forms his groups/escorted units/etc within the current rules.

3) Use a random mechanism along the lines of the SFG concept to see if the attacker gets the target he wants. The odds of getting an uncrippled target are decent, a crippled target is harder (as its vulnerability window is smaller), FRD is very hard to impossible as its vulnerability window is nil to nonexistant. Rough concept is to use 2d6 for the roll and populate the numbers with the difficulty of getting what the target is. The attacker fills out the top end of the rolls with limits on how hard the target is to get, the lower end could be modifications to the subsequent intercept roll, some of the middle rolls would be no results. If the defender picks a harder target, he gets to use fewer results of the die roll for success. If he chooses and easier target he gets to use more of the results for success. This roll is the intercept the target roll, the combat results would then be determined via whatever the raid combat table is. Interception of the attacker would be handled via raid rules.

Tradeoffs - this increases realism, but adds complexity where the docking a quantity of units was simple, but beneficial to the defender if he got to make the choice of what units were exempt.

Aside – this would likely change how the Klingon SFG works during raids as the same logic would apply. The unit is only protected if it is at the base.

------

Looking for input if this should be developed any further or go back to working and modifying the original concept.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Paul,

Personally, I love this latest solution. It abstracts everything elegantly and adds very little complexity. Since it's an odds roll, there is little potential for abuse--you could potentially get my FRD at the double SB capital hex.

You did step back and think along fresh lines. So far this is the best solution I have heard. I would like to see larger than 3-ship interception groups or other mechanism to increase potential risk from raids to realistically catastrophic proportions for certain targets but that could be subsumed into the intercept target roll. The key is to make that die roll dynamic enough to portray different situations realistically, and for it to represent what we all want represented.

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 08:26 pm: Edit

The concept could potentially be expanded to include other types of hexes as well. The success chances of intercepting the target would be better in hexes with smaller bases or planets and more or less guaranteed in open space. The ends of the spectrum would be a roll of 12 would always be a successful intercept - able to launch the raid even against a FRD in the capital hex to a roll of 2 which would be a failure of either unable to launch the raid due to target not being present, abort for early detection or intercepted before reaching the target. The ends of the spectrum for target types would be open space on the easy end to a capital hex on the far end. In open space you may get to launch the raid on anything but snake eyes. In the capital hex going for that FRD you may only get to launch the raid on box cars. It may be possible to lump them all into one table with modifiers based on the contents of the target hex. I will need to think on it some more.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 08:41 pm: Edit

This could actually simplify the rules. I was just reading back through another of the proposal threads dealing with this issue and there someone came to the conclusion that "an E&S style table" including at least some chance of intercepting before the raid was the answer. I think that is what you have here, and I like the idea. Simply have modifiers based on the target and location and ships with SFGs or SB with SFGs. Potentially, there could be a chance to find a target other than the intended one as well--defender selects different target of same class/type or something.

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Some concepts towards creating a table

Modified 2 is always disaster (roll of natural 2 is always a failure regardless of modifiers)
Modified 12 is always success (roll of natural 12 is always a success regardless of modifiers)

Categories of modifiers for locations (may need to combine some to make a single table work)

Open space hex with no ship
Open space hex with target ship only
Open space hex contains other ships
Open space hex contains ship with scout functions
Colony
Devastated Planet
Planet
Mobile Base/Colony Base
Battle Station/Sector Base/Base Station
Starbase/Stellar Fortress
Capital Hex (no bases, all planets devastated)
Captital Hex

Other modifiers

Attacker – benefit if target hex is/was your home territory (lost if annexed)
Defender – benefit if target hex is/was your home territory in Y168 (lost if annexed)

Natural roll of 12 could also allow escape with no chance of intercept. Maybe pick target irregardless of original choice (to powerful?)

Natural roll of 2 could always allow intercept before raid is launched without requiring any defensive intercept roll. Maybe pick intercept force or larger intercept force (to powerful?)

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 09:00 pm: Edit

All of the specifics about your categories of modifier are of course debatable.
I was thinking about the range of results and this is all debatable too.

2-5 Raiders acquire intended target, escape interception
6-8 Raiders acquire intended target, intercepted after raid
9-10 Raiders acquire target, intercepted before raid
11-12 Raiders fail to acquire target, intercepted

This could be tweaked in any number of ways of course.

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Concur that the categories and modifiers are debatable, more exploring to concept to see what feedback I get and where it leads. Some of the categories may be lumped together or eliminated as not having enough impact. I deliberately didn't try to create any of the modifiers as I am more looking for feedback on the concept. If the concept is good, the modifiers can be debated later or decided by the powers that be offline.

Other notes

Possible target location modifiers
FRD in hex with planet or base (no mod in open space)
Convoy in hex with planet or base (no mod in open space)
Crippled unit in hex with planet or base (no mod in open space)
Ship/Unit upgrading base, building shipyard/PRD, upgrading planetary defenses or delivering defenses in a hex with a planet or base (no mod in open space or if not performing one of those functions)

Other possible results for natural 2 and natural 12
natural 12 - phenomenal success - surprise attack, increase attack factor (50%?, 100%?)
natural 2 - catastrophic failure - intercepted before reaching target (fight normal combat round - defender may bring full battle line?, abort raid - one ship crippled?)

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 09:25 pm: Edit

10-12 Raiders acquire intended target, escape interception
7-9 Raiders acquire intended target, intercepted after raid
4-6 Raiders acquire target, intercepted before raid
2-3 Raiders fail to acquire target, intercepted

If interception is called for, defender forms 1 group of up to 6 ships, one of up to 5, etc. down to one group of 1 ship and rolls 1d6 (6 being the 6 ship group, etc.). Not enough ships to fill all six is tough luck and defender decides how many ships to put in each group up to the limit and how many to leave unfilled (can leave the "1" slot unfilled for instance). Battle is fought at the variable BIR the attacker selects for his attack--one round--or SSC depending on circumstances and drone raiders have choice to attack at 1/2 compot if intercepted before raid, or full compot (and forego raid) , fighter/PF raiders could make the same choice for fighters/PFs (except Hybrids) for interception combat before a raid or if there is no raid.

-1 any number of SFGs in hex on bases
-1 any number of SB in hex
-1 EWN
-1 target is crippled, or tug setting up or upgrading base or PDUs.
-2 target is FRD
-1 planet or colony with any PDUs, or colony base in target hex
+2 Only one raider in raiding force
+1 Only two raiders in raiding force
+1 All raiders are fast or X
+1 All raiders can cloak
+1 Raiders include at least one scout
+1 No mobile scouts in target hex (OPBs and Aux scouts do count as mobile)
+1 No base in target hex (OPBs don't count as bases)

Table above already gives advantage to raiders.

Apologies, was of course typing while you were posting.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Just looking at it now this system could lead to results such as:
"We took out two intercepting cruisers, then the target."
to
"Our lone drone frigate slipped through at BIR 8 and clobbered their FRD."
to
"Our raiders managed to corner a healthy ship at high BIR and do it in."
to
"No survivors have reported back, but we had calculated the risks beforehand."

Plus it would give some ways to improve odds both for attack and defense.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 08:08 am: Edit

Crippled units not in excess of the repair capacity of the base/FRD/PRD should automatically be at the repair facility(ies). If crippled units exceed the repair capacity in the hex then the defender may choose what units are at the repair facility(ies).

The crippled units chosen here are not required to be repaired on the next repair phase.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, February 15, 2013 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Allowing cripples inside a SB....will just mean two sets of rules (Raids and 'cover') never actually being used.

I think there needs to be 3 things

1 - It needs to be simple
2 - It needs to allow for sucess
3 - It needs to allow for risk

Paul's table is good - but far too complex (too many counting modifiers) -

So how about

Range from Original hex to target hex 1-2 +1
Range from original hex to target hex 5-6 -1
No uncrippled ships in hex +1
Lone Raider +1
Multiple uncrippled ships in hex -1
SB in hex -1
Capital hex -3

Natural or modified 2(or lower) - Failed and found - create normal interception groups (if no defenders - target not found)
Natural or modified 12(or greater) - Raider targets target and escapes

And then we just need to do do the variable table
Example -

3-4 Found and interception group find raider - raid aborted after combat
5-6 - Found and interception done as normal - Raider may continue if not destroyed/crippled
7 - No target found by either side
8-9 - Found after raid - interception done as normal
10-11 Not found and raid is as normal

Seems to cover all 3 points?

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Friday, February 15, 2013 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Paul Howard,

I have no problem with your table. I prefer the extra detail in my own version, but would support either. Mine doesn't need any docking for cripples rule either, as the -1 if target is a cripple is intended to reflect the increased probability that this ship would be docked or the increased danger of seeking it out inside the defenses where it is likely to be found.

One issue I would prefer to see addressed though is why limit to only 3 ship interception groups? I would like to see a risk of raiders running into superior enemy forces if superior forces are present in the target hex.

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Friday, February 15, 2013 - 11:43 pm: Edit

Latest iteration of the concept

Definitions
Target acquired – raid successful finds target and launches attack
Raider intercepted – raiding ships are intercepted (this may occur before or after the raid)
Open Space – F&E hex with no bases, planets, or colonies in the hex

Sequence
1) Phasing player forms raid group and identifies target hex
2) Defending player forms groups and identifies escorted ships/units for that hex per applicable rules. Exempt ships/units are defined in this step (see discussion below about should there be any exempt ship/units)
3) Phasing player identifies specific target of the raid
4) Roll on target acquisition results table
5) Resolve raid (if applicable) (may occur after the intercept)
6) Resolve intercept (if applicable) (may occur before or in place of raid)

Target Acquisition Results Table (roll 2d6 and apply all modifiers)

2 (natural roll) – target not acquired, automatic intercept, bonuses for defender
2 (modified roll) - target not acquired, automatic intercept
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 (modified roll) – target acquired, no intercept
12 (natural roll) – target acquired, no intercept, bonuses on raid resolution

Possible middle results on the table
Target not acquired, roll for intercept
Intercepted, survivors may continue to raid target
Roll for intercept, survivors may raid target even if intercept is successful
Roll for intercept, may not raid target if intercept is successful
Target not acquired, no intercept
Target acquired, roll for intercept after raid resolution
Target acquired, intercepted after raid resolution

Looking for inputs on 1) should any be deleted as unnecessary, 2) are any missing that should be added, 3) thoughts on what order would preserve the table flow from worst to best outcomes (worst to best from raiders perspective) and 4) where the seven possible results should be entered for balance. There are currently seven possible results and nine possible openings, play balance can be addressed by where they are placed in the table as the two empty slots can be used for results more beneficial to the raider or the defender. With the way the odds change on 2d6, moving them totally to one side or the other can make a noticeable difference.

Hex type type (only one modifier applies)
-3 Capitol hex
-2 Starbase
-1 Battle Station/Base Station
+0 Planet with PDU/PGB, or open space with ship with special sensors
+1 Colony/planet no PDU/PGB
+2 Open Space hex, x +1 or more ships in hex
+3 Open Space hex, x or less ships in hex

Looking for input on the x in open space. Initial thought is this should be 3 or 4 as these are numbers for being eligible for SSC.

Target type (only one modifier applies)
-2 FRD in a base/planet hex (mobile base being deployed does not count, planet with no PDU/PGB does not count)
-1 Crippled ship in a base hex (mobile base being deployed does not count, planet with no PDU/PGB does not count)
-1 Fast Ship or X Ship
+1 Crippled ship in an open space hex
+1 Tug (et al) providing supply, setting up a mobile base in open space
+1 Auxiliary in an open space hex
+2 FRD/Convoy? Other? in open space

Raid Group
+1 Ship in raiding force has special sensors
+1 All raiders are fast ships/X-ships
Number of ships – is more worse (easier to detect), better (easier to find the target) or do the two negate each other
+1 for all raiders can cloak?

Territory Ownership
Owner of the territory gets a +1/-1 in their favor (annexed original owned territory provides no benefit

Raid Range
+1 for 1-2 hexes
+0 for 3-4 hexes
-1 for 5-6 hexes

Statis Field Generator equipped starbases. Allow the owner to pick x ships or units per base mounted SFG in the group formation phase that are exempted from being targets?
Leave them out to eliminate the invulnerable raid target? As an alternative to SFGs protecting (i.e. exempting) ships/units any FRDs, cripples in the hex would gain an additional +1 if they were the target of the raid.

Cripples in base hex – Should defender be able to exempt any ships in the hex? up to the repair value? Docking value? Should exemption of cripples be ignored and just give all cripples in a base hex the +1

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 07:19 am: Edit

Some thoughts to Paul's latest proposal.

SFGs should continue to provide full and automatic protection to Auxiliaries and FRDs unless a natural 12 is rolled. If you get surprised there needs to be a consequence at a SFG equipped starbase just like anywhere else.

EWNs (537.3) should provide the effect of a EW shift under (313.21) but modified as follows: each separate location only provides 1 point of EW. Thus a capital system would have 1 EW point per planet and 1 EW point per base. Note that FDUs would have the same effect as a planet as you can create the EWN with them.

Territory Ownership. Annexed territory (448.2) should give the new owner the benefit of the modifier. Territory under the terms of Long Term Capture (438.0) do not give a benefit to either side.

Perhaps his ideas on the intercept table might be better considered for the Special Raid rules fix. If so then my comments on EWNs and Territory Ownerships belong there as well.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 08:09 am: Edit

Paul E
My 2p - I agree, no hiding of cripples in SB's etc is required if the raid rules work correctly

Paul P
Far too many mondifiers to be simple I think.

Also, the rarget of the raid shouldn't make a difference on the chance of the raid being found.

Other than reducing the chance of a raid getting through undetected - bases should not protect cripples (SFG on a base being the single exception, seems fair - although a natural 12 roll does seem to be a good idea, in that the SFG is ignored)

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 08:09 am: Edit

Paul E
My 2p - I agree, no hiding of cripples in SB's etc is required if the raid rules work correctly

Paul P
Far too many mondifiers to be simple I think.

Also, the rarget of the raid shouldn't make a difference on the chance of the raid being found.

Other than reducing the chance of a raid getting through undetected - bases should not protect cripples (SFG on a base being the single exception, seems fair - although a natural 12 roll does seem to be a good idea, in that the SFG is ignored)

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Paul H.,

Several posts back Paul P. had what I consider a great idea to handle raids. Rather than automatically being able to hide cripples in a SB, he suggested that raids occur over a 6 month period, and that what we needed was a table to represent the chances the raiders could catch any given target in a vulnerable situation suitable for the raid during those 6 months. I consider this the most elegant solution I have heard so far.

Cripples, are more likely to spend much of that 6 months time inside the minefield, or at least in a protected situation, and the same applies to FRDs. You might still catch that FRD alone in transit, but you might also wait for it to leave the minefield in vain for six months only to instead be discovered by a patrol as you impatiently sneak closer.

For this reason, I respectfully submit that the modifiers based on the target are key to this system. Again, we're representing the chances to find a given target in suitable conditions sometime during a six-month period (including immediately after the preceding turn's battles) and those chances should be different for a frigate constantly on lonely patrols or an FRD nestled next to a SB repairing a long line of cripples.

Personally, I would prefer it if both the raiding and defending players had some measures they could take to slightly influence raid chances. I also want the raid fix to at least allow for a chance of total disaster for either side, which is why I added the six interception groups idea.

This system doesn't seem too complicated to me. Essentially, my post above can replace (320.34)-(320.355) with a little fleshing out. A few modifiers and the system as a whole do represent a lot of complex components (minefields, patrol doctrine, base defenses, functions of different units, advantages of cloak, speed, or smaller raiding forces, police/national guard presence, etc.), without complicated rules. The system helps the Alliance by giving some advantages to smaller raids and some protection for LADs, LASs, and the like, and helps the Coalition by providing at least some measures for helping protect FRDs and cripples from raids. The system would add a raid sub-game to the entire war with exciting ups and downs for both sides and different doctrinal choices about how to play the raid game. Raiders can choose to invest their best ships in raids and go for the big targets, or perform small, stealthier attacks. Defenders can choose to leave the 1 ship and 2 ship interception groups empty, giving the defenders more chances to escape interception, or risk the small groups in the hopes of at least aborting the raid.

Others may disagree of course. I want to hear why, and am open to correction if I am mistaken.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Thomas I completely agree.

SFGs can still be almost always full protection. Also, I like the EW suggestion, and a modifier for owned or annexed territory would represent the presence of police/national guard assets, accidental spotting of raiders by civilian traffic, etc..

One problem with handling SFGs in that way is that few players would take the chance of wasting a raid against a target protected by an SFG on a base. Maybe if they could get good modifiers and the SFG fails to protect on a 11-12 or something?

This is a minor quibble for me though. Either way is fine. With choice of attacking BIR the Kzinti could target a healthy F5L instead of the cripple or FRD protected by the SFG.

I am anxious to hear the opinions of the larger community for better or for worse. I suppose my main motivation is I would prefer to see a special raid fix sooner rather than later. Special raids have such potential to be fun I want them to be fixed.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Paul, I see your point about raids against SFG equipped SBs and STBs. I don't want to deliberately screw the Klingons out of their one big advantage against raids. At the same time there needs to be that element of risk that they are unable to use it to protect a given target.

EWNs typically exist only in the capital hexes of the various empires. However, the rules allow you to create EWNs in other hexes. The above modification I suggested to Paul Pease's proposal could force a given player to create EWNs in various strategic hexes costing them money. That money to some extent would be offset by a colony established in that hex (if valid under the colony rules) and force a player to deliberately not co-locate the base and the colony.

Building Colonies, in hexes with bases is usually something most players do anyways. Now the choice of co-locating or not would have more importantance here.

I'm not convinced Paul Pease's latest proposal is the cure all fix for special raids, but it does seem to be much more balanced than the initial proposal where you could X number of ships which in my opinion would break raids on the side of the defender, thus going from one extreme to the other.

I would think that under Paul's 2 - 12 table that 6 - 8 and possibly 5 - 9 result in the raid being conducted normally. Perhaps an unmodified roll of 2 results in the defender's interecption force being a full battle force from all available units in the hex. This gives real teeth to an ambush. While a 12 results in changing from Small Scale Combat to a BIR of 10 with the appropriate compot of the raiding force or perhaps the compot is doubled. In my opinion both unmodifed rolls of 2 and 12 need to spell major disaster or major success for the raiding player.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 08:43 pm: Edit

OK, looking at the SFB rules (G16), it just takes power and can be reserve power to activate SFGs. A totally surprise SB still has 44 batteries (min) to work with and activating two SFG fields (if it has 2 SFGs) cost only 10 points of reserve power. The drawback is that every turn under the SFG, the power cost goes up by 5. SFG recycle time is 4 turns.

For one SFG to protect two objects is 12 power the first turn and 22 the second (D16.211).

So any base with an SFG can protect one object per SFG, easily, without much preperation. How long the raid lasts (in SFB terms) and whether the base can keep the SFG running that long is another question.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 09:21 pm: Edit

Stewart, there is the practical event of some of the batteries being empty of power for the purpose of lont term preventative manintenance.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 10:03 pm: Edit

The idea of my table, now in a different thread, is to allow for the possibility the FRD is caught away from the SBA for whatever reason, without having to (or being able to) declare that it was absolutely there all the time or having to know the reason it wasn't.

By Paul Pease (Theghost) on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 12:21 am: Edit

Paul E captured the reason I include the target of the raid in the modifiers. Its all about location, timeframe and timing. There is a small chance you might find the FRD or the cripple away from the base or catch it by surprise, but the odds are low and the risks of getting that close and hanging around looking for you chance increase the risk more than they would for just raiding a frigate somewhere in the hex.

Turtle - are you looking for the EWN to modify the chance of intercept table or are you only looking for it to modify the actual combats?

Latest iteration

Definitions
Target acquired – raid successful finds target and launches attack
Raider intercepted – raiding ships are intercepted (this may occur before or after the raid)
Open Space – F&E hex with no bases, planets, or colonies in the hex

Sequence
1) Phasing player forms raid group and identifies target hex
2) Defending player forms groups and identifies escorted ships/units for that hex per applicable rules. Exempt ships/units are defined in this step (SFGs on a starbase/stellar fortress allow the defending player to exempt x units per SFG from raid consideration)
3) Phasing player identifies specific target of the raid
4) Roll on target acquisition results table
5) Resolve raid (if applicable) (may occur after the intercept)
6) Resolve intercept (if applicable) (may occur before or in place of raid)

Target Acquisition Results Table (roll 2d6 and apply all modifiers)

2 (natural roll) – target not acquired, automatic intercept, defender may chose any flagship and any number of ships that it can command to conduct the intercept. Defender chooses both BIR.
2 (modified roll) - target not acquired, automatic intercept
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 (modified roll) – target acquired, no intercept
12 (natural roll) – target acquired, no intercept, no units are exempt from raid, defender attacks with double compot and/or defender attacks using normal combat and can select both BIRs

resolution

Possible middle results on the table
Target not acquired, roll for intercept
Intercepted, survivors may continue to raid target
Roll for intercept, survivors may raid target even if intercept is successful
Roll for intercept, may not raid target if intercept is successful
Target not acquired, no intercept
Target acquired, roll for intercept after raid resolution
Target acquired, intercepted after raid resolution

Looking for inputs on 1) should any be deleted as unnecessary, 2) are any missing that should be added, 3) thoughts on what order would preserve the table flow from worst to best outcomes (worst to best from raiders perspective) and 4) where the seven possible results should be entered for balance. There are currently seven possible results and nine possible openings, play balance can be addressed by where they are placed in the table as the two empty slots can be used for results more beneficial to the raider or the defender. With the way the odds change on 2d6, moving them totally to one side or the other can make a noticeable difference.

Hex type type (only one modifier applies)
-3 Capitol hex
-2 Starbase
-1 Battle Station/Base Station
+0 Planet with PDU/PGB, or open space with ship with special sensors
+1 Colony/planet no PDU/PGB
+2 Open Space hex, x +1 or more ships in hex
+3 Open Space hex, x or less ships in hex

Looking for input on the x in open space. Initial thought is this should be 3 or 4 as these are numbers for being eligible for SSC.

Target type (only one modifier applies)
-2 FRD in a base/planet hex (mobile base being deployed does not count, planet with no PDU/PGB does not count)
-1 Crippled ship in a base hex (mobile base being deployed does not count, planet with no PDU/PGB does not count)
-1 Fast Ship or X Ship
+1 Crippled ship in an open space hex
+1 Tug (et al) providing supply, setting up a mobile base in open space
+1 Auxiliary in an open space hex
+2 FRD/Convoy? Other? in open space

Raid Group
+1 Ship in raiding force has special sensors
+1 All raiders are fast ships/X-ships
Number of ships – is more worse (easier to detect), better (easier to find the target) or do the two negate each other
+1 for all raiders can cloak?

Territory Ownership
+1/-1 bonus for ownership of territory (annexed territory counts, long term capture does not).

Other Considerations
EWNs (537.3) should provide the effect of a EW shift under (313.21) but modified as follows: each separate location only provides 1 point of EW. Thus a capital system would have 1 EW point per planet and 1 EW point per base. Note that FDUs would have the same effect as a planet as you can create the EWN with them.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 07:06 am: Edit

Paul, sorry I wasn't very clear.

EWNs provide +1 EW point to the defender when in any hex that so qualifies under (537.35). As such EWN's should continue provide one additional group for interception as stated under (537.32).

They should only provide the additional point of EW if the target of such a raid is a fixed defense unit such as a base or PDU under (537.35). Both effects of (537.32) and (537.35) may occur in any EWN hex.