I checked Carrier War. The text was the same as it is now. I had wondered if there had been a hidden change, but no, it's always been that way.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 11:16 am: Edit

Thanks Kevin.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 12:33 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(515.332) The following types of units, if used as escorts, lose their special abilities: SFG‡ units, scouts, maulers, ground combat ships‡, and drone ships. These are treated under (515.34) and lose one-half of their offensive value.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 12:40 pm: Edit

My opinion:

Losing 43% does not qualify as losing one half (ie 50%) of their offensive value.

Losing 57% does qualify.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 12:49 pm: Edit

This whole issue strikes me as pretty cut and dry (in terms of what is on the page; I have no idea what the original intent was meant to be):

(515.34) "...but their offensive value is reduced to one-half of the printed factor (round fractions down), or by 3..."

If you are a 7, and you reduce your offensive value to one-half of the printed factor, your offensive value is now 3.5. And then you round fractions down.

All indications are that ad-hoc 7 point CW escorts have 3 offensive compot.

I mean, it is certainly possible that long ago, the intent was that they get the extra point stuck on (so they'd be 4 instead of 3), but the current wording of the rule is pretty clear that they lose the extra point.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Funny how one group of players play one way...and yet another play differently based on interpretation. Both sides play it that way for years and then discover another P.O.V. throwing the whole concept into question.

Pete, Todd and I played in a vacuum for years thinking that we were playing correctly the way WE read it. We laughed our butts off on some of the stuff we played incorrectly.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 01:54 pm: Edit

It's not a matter of interpretation of English in this case.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 02:12 pm: Edit

I can totally see how someone would read (515.34) quickly and interpret it as "reduce by half, rounded down" (i.e. 7 goes to 4 instead of 3) and then play that way forever and never think about it again. But I think in light of what the rule actually says, yeah, it is 7 goes to 3.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 02:54 pm: Edit

I played it wrongly for a long time.. I just never thoroughly read the rule.

What really made it stick that an ad-hoc CW should be 3 was the.. Reduced TO one half (round down) or by 3 whichever is worse.

Whoever worded the rule it seems to me knows the difference in meaning between to and by. Once Richard pointed that out to me I blinked a few times (yep I really did) and it was like a cloud clearing and the sun coming out to dry the wetness short circuiting that part of my brain responsible for reading!

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 03:06 pm: Edit

I think we are talking about two different things. I'm not at all concerned about whether the rules says that the CW rounds down to 3. It does say that.

All I am asking is whether it's supposed to say that. Hence, I leave it to Chuck and Mike.

Not a big issue either way. Maybe next errata can simply list a CW example to make it clear to those of us who can't read. Or maybe the wording should be changed so that a CW would round to 4. The only reason I'm bringing it up is because I have this sense that it was intended to be rounded to 4. Why I have this vague feeling probably has something to do with conversations when I was on staff or something. But there are many filled rooms in the attic that is my mind, so I might just be brushing aside cobwebs.

But it's clear that the wording does lead to 3, not 4. I just want to know from Chuck and Mike if the wording should be changed, and if not, let's put the CW example in there.

So, really, no controversy here.

Of course, I could give another explanation for why some of us have had this misundertanding. It maybe be correct English, but it's incorrect Math. .5 rounds up, not down. So, I would just say to Chuck and Mike that in my view it should be changed to 4 to have it make mathematical sense and not be counterintuitive. But no sleep will be lost if not. My guess now that I'm thinking it through out loud is that the incorrect math is a stumbling block.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Rich the other part of the joke between Todd and I was that HE was notorious for reading the rule until it said what he wanted it to say (or what he thought it should say) and then stop right there...more than a few times we laughed as I said "What does the rest of the rule say?". (I would never do such a thing.) Not implying in any way that this is happening here...just sharing funny idiosyncrasies of the past...or maybe that is idiot-syncraZies.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 03:19 pm: Edit

...

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Not an official ruling (yet)...but unless Mike or ADB sees something I don't see in the rules then I'm inclined rule like this:

Offensive Value	Ad Hoc Value
1	0
2	0
3	0
4	1
5	2
6	3
7	3
8	4
9	4
10	5
11	5
12	6

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Pete wrote:
>>Of course, I could give another explanation for why some of us have had this misundertanding. It maybe be correct English, but it's incorrect Math. .5 rounds up, not down.>>

Oh, sure. Except that it specifically says "round fractions down", so the .5 is rounded down.

Again, I have no insight at all to the designer's intent here. But I suspect that the wording (which reasonably clearly indicates that 7 drops to 3) matches with what is *probably* the intent of the ad-hoc rule: that ad-hoc escorts are never as good as actual escorts.

As noted previously (by you, IIRC :-). the Fed NEC (4-7) is *really* bad if an ad-hoc NCL escort is also a 4-7; at least if it default ends up as a 3-7 by being ad-hoc, the NEC isn't *that* horrible. If CWs end up as 3-7s as ad-hoc escorts, they aren't particularly attractive and end up being an act of desperation, rather than a standard operating procedure. Which is I suspect what the rule was designed to do.

I mean, yeah, 1-4 FF ad-hocs instead of 2-4 escort FFs are certainly a better deal and thus become standard operating procedure (in the name of scale of economy), especially if 3x ad-hoc Kzinti FFs get a +1 leader bonus, but for the larger escorts, the 3 attack factor is likely a built in dis-incentive. But again, I have no actual insight into the origins of the design.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 04:49 pm: Edit

I'd kinda like to see this readdressed for reasons like this:

SKE, In Group: 5 AF
SKA, In Group: 2 AF

SKA, out of group: 5 AF
SKE, out of Group: 4 AF

SKE has 2 PLaD replacing 4 Batteries, aside from that and aegis the ships are identical. I guess aegis alone is worth 2-3 AF somehow. This is just 1 example.

I know why the ad-hoc rule exists and am sure I'm just being overly detail oriented when the game is trying to be simple in this case, just wanted to point out some ships really don't seem to work quite right "ad-hoc", while others (kzinti FF vs EFF) do.


There are numerous ships that fall into that Kevin. Take the Fed FFE vs a FFG. The only difference is the 2 photons replaced with drones, which based on all sorts of other ships doesn't reduce AF. Then, replace 2 Ph3s with PhGs, add Aegis, and IMO the Fed FFE should be the same AF as a regular FF, if not maybe even a point higher, but surely not 1 point less.

But the Kzinti EFF vs FF is a major change, drop a disruptor and 2 drone racks for offensively useless ADDs, which should reduce the AF by 2 or so... or should those ADDs increase AF when in a group more as that is their purpose?

I am quite positive nobody wants to revisit factors on printed counters, nor create ad-hoc AF's for all ships, but I would love to revisit some of these factors when playing online games where physical counters aren't an issue to make them match SFB a bit more, and perhaps many tiny things like this that are WAY too huge to modify in the printed game, could be used in digital versions relatively easily. Plus, perhaps a formula could be created to determine factors in a programatic way so people wouldn't have to guess for future units.

Course looking at any changes for a digital version would then see 2 games, with some potentially drastic balance changes, which is probably a bad thing too

I don't buy the doctrine thing Chuck, doctrine doesn't make a plasma/phaser/drone hit any less painful. Doctrine is a way how to use something, not its capabilities. Since I know you were Air Force and associated with AWACS, is an escorting F15 with the same weapons as a CAP version any less effective when they go out and attack something?

But I do accept the whole game balance/not a direct SFB conversion thing. I just like to know my little SKE on the F&E board, is the same as the SKE on the SFB board, and they really aren't and I have to forget that

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Actually, the SKE/SKA example brings up another point. The SKE has the same weapons array as the SKE, plus adds 2 PlaD. So why does the SKE lose a point of firepower when away from the carrier. It could simply ignore the PlaD and act as a standard SKA.

But I guess that brings up the whole "Fed DE is a better warship that a standard DD" thing, so please ignore this post.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Doctrine.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Peter,

I'm just looking for an explanation as to why some of us thought it was 4. I get that rules specifically says that. I've already said that. Sometimes we might read and not really understand because our preconceptions get in the way. I offered it as a possible explanation.

Or it could be at some point in the staff work we did, the conversation came up, or it could have been in a Q&A years ago, or it could be a feverish nightmare that Joe and I had that you and Richard obviously didn't have. Whaddya gonna do?

And yes, NECs still are terrible, even with 3 being the ComPot for the ad-hoc. Why would the Feds bother when they can build FFEs which have just as good an attack factor? Yes, I know the defensive value is higher but not a big issue. For that matter, just Ad-Hoc CLs it has the same combat factor as the NEC and doesn't use up an NCL hull.

For that matter, I'm working on my Romulan production (yes, I know that turn 10 a a long ways off, but a man can dream, can't he?) I already came to the conclusion that I would rather do Snipe escorts than ad-hoc an SP. Now that I know for sure that the Snipe actually has the higher combat value, there will be no ad-hoc SPs in my Romulan Navy!

But I digress.

And to beat a beaten horse, with CEDs gone, the marginal escorts really are questionable. You've got a whole bunch of ships now that are difficult to justify economically (Kzinti EFF, CLE, Federation NEC, ECL, Klingon E4A,). Sorry, off topic. I'll go and try to do something productive now.

Anyway, representing the English challenged, I'll ask Chuck to just put: for example a 7 would drop to a 4 in the rule, since he's good with a 3.

Now, how will I make up all that extra damage I scored with the Lyran CL Ad-Hoc??

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 05:45 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Now, how will I make up all that extra damage I scored with the Lyran CL Ad-Hoc??

---

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 05:46 pm: Edit

In regards to the CWL/DWL ruling...

I think I am missing something, because if you had a 7 AF CW, made it a 3 AF ad-hoc, why does it matter where the leader is? In the group they'd be +.5 AF as its halved (but increases an ad-hoc to 4 AF only), outside they'd be +1 AF as it isn't halved. Either way the fleet is +1 AF. As it doesn't modify the DF, I just can't see any reason either way this matters.

Though I guess it would if the leader counters ever come out, and this would be very applicable then. Just felt like I missed something somehow.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Yep I don't think it matters... but there I go thinking again.

If you have 3xCW on the line being regular you get +1 O compot with the leader rule. If you put one of them as an ad-hoc you still get +1 O compot with the leader rule you just get the +1 through a weird round off thing.. but the net effect is the same.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Pete wrote:
>>I'm just looking for an explanation as to why some of us thought it was 4. I get that rules specifically says that. I've already said that. Sometimes we might read and not really understand because our preconceptions get in the way. I offered it as a possible explanation.>>

Heh--oh sure, I'm not, like, actually debating anything here. It seems likely that at some point, someone interpreted the rule as ending up at a 4 instead of a 3, and it spread around and stuck. I didn't actually know the exact wording till this discussion came up (and likely use ad-hoc D5s as 4's last time I played).

>>And to beat a beaten horse, with CEDs gone, the marginal escorts really are questionable. You've got a whole bunch of ships now that are difficult to justify economically (Kzinti EFF, CLE, Federation NEC, ECL, Klingon E4A,). Sorry, off topic. I'll go and try to do something productive now.>>

Sadly, my suggestion to change the escort costs was shot down in no uncertain terms. Oh well.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 06:40 pm: Edit

BLAM!

Just making sure it stays shot down. :p

With the new ruling on adhoc escorts and leaders, would it be a problem that a battleforce with one Kzinti ad hoc escort FF and two FFs that are not ad hoc escorts would allow one of the non ad hoc escorts to have the leader bonus?

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Ya know... thinking about the leader rule. If there are 3 or more CW's in a battleline, and the fleet commander is going to assign one of them to ad-hoc escort duty.. he is very unlikely to assign the leader variant to that role. I mean the leader variant we see as just extra o compot, but it also has alot of command and control systems that the commander of the fleet probably sees as having value we just plain don't. While the mathematics show it doesn't matter, I think doctrinally one would very rarely if ever see the leader variant of any of these hulls actually being assigned to a carrier group.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 07:49 pm: Edit

And yet the rules don't indicate they can't be escorts (much like the rules don't indicate that Maulers can't be escorts either...). So best not to worry about it.