Yeah, the rules as written seem pretty clear--you drive opponents out of the hex, you devastate all the planets, the hex is captured. There is no mention at all of sequence or timing.

This being said, there might be a ruling/clarification somewhere that impacts this.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 11:41 am: Edit

Would such a ruling even be in force though? F&E2010 supercedes any old version of the rules I would think.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 11:49 am: Edit

In reference to the capital splits issue.

First I will quote the relevant section of the rules. We are referring to the actual split of defending forces once one designes the defense limited units and fast ships.

---

Quote:

(511.53)Step 3: The Defending player divides his remaining ships in half. This is done on a type-by-type basis (one FF to each half, one CVS to each half, etc.) and must be divided as evenly as possible based on number of ships (first) and combat strength (second).
(515.531) The combat values of the two groups must be as equal as possible. Any odd ship or points can be distributed by the Defender.

---

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 12:06 pm: Edit

One other thing I will add.

Finding the minimum differential for something like this is not a easy proposition in the general case even if you restrict it to being just attack factors.

In many cases especially with low total # of units it is easy, but when there are lots of ships and especially lots of different types of ships it becomes increasingly more difficult to know if your split truly did find the minimum differential.

The problem is basically if you have lots of different types of ships with odd numbered totals. If you have even totals there is no problem the split of types makes you put equal amounts in both mobile and static. Its only odd totals where you have a 'decision' to make.

For each type of ship with an odd count you have to decide to put the ship in either mobile or static. if there are n types with an odd count this gives you 2^n different possibilities. Or ways to make the split that you have to examine and then of those possibilites find the one(s) that have the smallest possible differential in attack factors. This is not trivial at all. I have been faced in capital splits before with 8 different odd groups (mainly because we often have singletons of some ships). this is 256 possibilities. Now this 256 is greatly reduced because there are alot of combinations that are obviously not good... you cannot hope to minimize if you put everything on one side.. you know the solution is most likely when you split things up.

This is the situation as it exists now.. it can be pretty hard to do (Hydran capital on T6 comes to mind). But one can usually get pretty close with some work.

IF however you make the defender minimize both attack and defense it becomes much harder notwithstanding that you ignore the whole issue of what it means to minimize two numbers simultaneously. It just adds more possible cases to check to see if you really are at a minimum.

Its unfortunate we cannot use calculus in this situation as then extrema like a minimum is just solving a derivative set = to zero. But since this is a discrete case, there are no really good methods for this.. they are generally messy and numerical approximation methods. (look up Diaphantine equations)

This is another reason I oppose the idea of adding defense to this balancing act.. its just too darn hard to do in many F&E capital assault situations. If your balancing only one thing, usually inspection will get you the answer without too much work, and the rest of the time you just have to gut it out and work. If you add another factor it just makes it harder without much real reason

By Chris Upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 12:11 pm: Edit

defender splits attacker chooses. why in the world have one player decide by decree what's fair?

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Chris,

Indeed that would be an excellent way to do it... defender splits however he wants into two piles... attacker chooses which pile is mobile which is static!

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Yes, but that would be a total rules change. I've never had a problem doing the split just using offensive combat values.

By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 12:47 pm: Edit

I know it's the rules.
Other than that, what justification is there at all for requiring the defender to assign ships to systems at all?
And, does the extra effort and splitting really change anything?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Loss of flexibility makes a difference. As the fleet size gets very high it make little difference.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 07:48 am: Edit

Gary wrote:
>>Other than that, what justification is there at all for requiring the defender to assign ships to systems at all? >>

In what sense do you want a justification?

In terms of playing the game, it gives the defender in a Capital system less flexibility. It is certainly debatable if this is strictly *necessary* for game balance, but it does provide a dynamic that can be exploited by the attacker.

Like, I don't know that the rule does anything other than make early game assaults on Alliance capitals more difficult for the Alliance, which I don't necessarily think is a good thing. But it is certainly an intentional dynamic.

>>And, does the extra effort and splitting really change anything?>>

Oh, Absolutely. Having just suffered through a few Capital assaults as the Alliance, the split and planting of ships hosed me in one fight (the Hydrans were convinced that the Coalition was just coming to raid the Capital and strip PDUs, so they planted ships somewhere other than the Homeworld, which came back to haunt them when it became apparent that the Coalition wasn't leaving) while not really making a difference in the other.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 01:33 pm: Edit

From Peter Bakija:

Ships in a partial supply grid with a base question:

An empire's territory is partitioned by enemy action, creating a partial supply grid. There are ships on a base in the partial supply grid. It is very clear that ships sitting on that base are in supply, via (410.25) and (410.4). What happens when the ships move *off* the base? If they have an open supply path to the base at the start of the combat phase (assuming they leave the base and get in a fight somewhere), do they count as being in supply at the start of combat, allowing them to retrograde back to the base later in the turn?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 01:37 pm: Edit

So, like, I have been playing this game for 20 years now, and have always assumed that if you start the turn on a base/planet in a partial supply grid, and then can trace supply back to that base/planet in the partial supply grid, you are still in supply (and thus can retrograde, etc). Now that I'm re-reading everything, I'm not necessarily convinced that this is the case.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 01:47 pm: Edit

My understanding is that in this case, you cannot trace supply to the base if you are not in it's hex, unless you paid to supply those units during the eco phase.

So without paying that cost, you would not be in supply at the start of combat and would not be able to retrograde after combat unless you were at that point in supply due to whatever.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Of course, if you can trace supply to the main supply source (perhaps because battle hexes opened supply during your turn) then it is all a moot point.

For example, hypothetically speaking, if in our current game you created a battle hex in 0117, then there would be a supply path through it, potentially to the 2nd SB and potentially to whatever units you had moved off the 2nd SB during your turn.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>My understanding is that in this case, you cannot trace supply to the base if you are not in it's hex, unless you paid to supply those units during the eco phase.>>

Yeah, see, this is what I've been concerned is the case. But the rules are, unsurprisingly, vague on this point.

(410.1) says a unit is in supply if it has a "supply route" to a "supply point" in the "supply grid".

Which, is something that can easily be the case with a fleet at a base in a partial grid--start in supply on the base, move off the base into combat, at the end of combat, trace a supply route to the base (point) in the (partial) supply grid.

>>Of course, if you can trace supply to the main supply source (perhaps because battle hexes opened supply during your turn) then it is all a moot point.>>

Oh, sure. But that isn't really what I'm trying to figure out.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Perhaps you are correct. Now I don't know.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Yeah, see, I don't either :-)

Like, I have always assumed (and played) that if you got the base/planet, you are essentially in supply, even in a partial grid. And that the "1 EP supplies 5 ships and 12 fighters" rule really only came up in very obscure circumstances (the only ones I can think of, assuming my reading of the rule is correct, which remains to be seen, are an occupying force holding a hostile planet and getting cut off into a partial supply grid and a fleet of ships cut off in open space and needing money smuggled to them by Orions)

But when closely reading the rules recently, it suddenly all becomes vague and unclear. Ships stacked on friendly bases/planets are clearly in supply. If they move off the base, it is unclear.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Per 410.24, a unit must have been in supply either at the actual instant of combat or at the start of the retrograde phase in order to be eligible for retrograde movement. 410.4 provides that units stacked with a base are in supply. In the situation under discussion, all of the following are, if I understand correctly, true both at the moment of combat and at the start of the retrograde phase:

1. The forces are not stacked with a friendly base / planet (therefore not in supply by 410.4)
2. The forces do not have a legal supply paths to a capital or off-map supply grid, and are thus not supplied under the normal rules.
3. Money was not paid from the partial grid to support the units in question during the production phase.

It seems, therefore, that under 410.24 the units in question are not able to retrograde.

By analogy, if a force which started in supply from the main supply grid moved to attack a distant target and, by some combination of sloppy movement of friendly forces and enemy reaction movement, came to not have a legal supply path at the moment of combat _and_ still didn't have a legitimate supply path at the start of the retrograde movement phase, it would not be able to retrograde. The fact that the force was in supply at the start of movement has no bearing on the normal situation, so I don't see why it would be significant in the partial grid case.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 03:04 pm: Edit

My understanding:

You have 30 ships sitting on a base in a partial grid which has 1 ep available to it.

First supply check is at the beginning of movement. You're on a base, so you're in supply. You may move your full allotment, all 30 ships, into combat six hexes away.

Second supply check is at the beginning of combat. You are considered in supply for combat *if* you were either in supply at the beginning of movement (you were), or the beginning of combat (you're not), and since you qualify for one of the two, you're considered in supply.

Third supply check is at the beginning of retrograde. You're in supply for retrograde movement *if* you were in suppply at the beginning of combat (you were not), or the beginning of retrograde (you're not either). You are screwed. Spend 1 ep and decide which 12 of your 30 ships can jet back to base, the other 18 are on their own, and must spend the next two turns limping back at 3 hexes per turn move rate.

Of course, if you had taken some losses, say a CA destroyed for 2 ep salvage... you're still screwed, since salvage is only collected if pass the combat-supply check, which you did not. Unless you spent the 1 ep to supply 12 ships at the moment of combat to put them in supply... so does the CA have to be one of the 12 ships in supply, or.... ?

So that's how I've always understood it.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 03:50 pm: Edit

You have to spend that EP during the eco phase, you cannot spend it during or after the combat phase. You have to plan ahead, if I have it right.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Ah, yeah you're right. So you're in supply, but you have to pay to remain in supply. And move only those ships, or risk leaving them out of supply away from the base.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 09:04 pm: Edit

While reading the "Do not start what you cannot finish" thread, I became interested in the question raised on whether or not you could capture a hex and destroy the shipyard in a capital assault if you choose to retreat from the hex.

While knocking off 25 years of rust I was reading the capital assault procedure (511.5) and became confused.

Clearly (511.5) is meant to modify (302), but it is not clear to me when I start using each of steps 1-7 in (302) and steps 1-8 in (511.5).

My best guess for resolving a capital hex is executing as follows:

(302.1) step 1 - withdrawal before combat
(511.51) step 1 / (302.2) step 2 - offer approach battle for whole hex (with resolution of steps 3-7 normally or skip) THEN..
(511.52-.56) steps 2-6
(511.57) step 7 resolve each system as a battle hex by *only* executing steps (302.3X) BIR through step 6 damage allocation for each battle THEN..
(302.7) step 7 retreat - execute a modified retreat after all battles where defender can retreat some of his forces but the attacker must retreat all of his forces THEN..
(511.58) step 8 reorganize...

My beefs are as follows:

Where is it explicitly said that a withdrawal before combat is allowed? OR does each "combat hex" allow all the steps, including withdrawal? - that makes no logical sense to me.

Presuming resolution of each system battle uses (302), it doesn't say which step to start at or stop at? But it makes logical sense that all of the steps are used.

By the same logic, you really can't have an attacker retreat choice for each system battle either. But it doesn't make that explicit.

Am I missing something that makes this all explicit and the procedure completely unambiguous? Or do I have to read between the lines like this to make it work?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 09:41 pm: Edit

My understanding is that Rule 511 does not replace rule 302 in it's entirety, but only those parts (unless said otherwise) that need to be handled multiple times, ie you have multiple battles per combat round (at most, one per system).

The Sequence of Play has little to say but does refer to capital assaults in step B-2B2 (under base battle).

The way I've handled it (and I don't see any other way that really makes sense) is

A) Attacker does approach (optional after first round). If not declined, do it the same as a non capital battle and then go to D

B) If approach was offered and attacker is not retreating, divvy up defending units as per the rules.

C) Do everything in 511.5

D) Do everything in 302 from defender having first option to retreat and onwards. (In this case being a capital system battle, the defender can do partial retreats and can pursue). I may miss details, but basically that.

I don't know of any explicit rule that says all this, but I don't know of any explicit rule that says differently.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, May 27, 2013 - 09:35 am: Edit

Stewart wrote:
>>Pete, no, you can't have fewer SEs in the hex then your opponent (though you could move a crippled ship [0.5 SE] out)...>>

(Original Question: I have 9 SEQ in a hex, my opponent has 8.5 SEQ in the hex, can I move a full SEQ out of the hex, i.e. does .5 SEQ pin a full SEQ?)

Huh. That seems to be the generally accepted case. Which means that .5 SEQ pins a full SEQ. Although the pinning rules don't actually say this. They say specifically "a cripple can pin a cripple, two cripples can pin a ship" (where "cripple" stands in for "half a ship equivalent"), but don't specifically say "a cripple can pin a ship". The pinning rules are ambiguous on this point (i.e. does a .5 SEQ hold down a full SEQ or not).

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, May 27, 2013 - 10:28 am: Edit

Huh, yeah I would think just the opposite. He has 8.5 pin factor, you have 9, so he's only able to pin 8 of yours.

Now if you had gone there to pin him, you have needed 9 pin factor to pin them all (or at least 8.5 pin factor). Otherwise he'd be able to react with a half a squadron of fighters elsewhere or something. But he's trying to stop you, and he didn't bring enough to the party. You are able to move one pin factor if you wish.

At least that's how I see it.