Archive through July 09, 2013

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E PRODUCTS: F&E Future Products (Near Term): F&E WARBOOK: Warbook Update – Fighter Operations (FO) : FO - Section 600 Reports – Scenarios and Options : (607.0) Four Powers War - Scenario Reports: Archive through July 09, 2013
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 04, 2013 - 03:45 pm: Edit

For now count them as .1 VP.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 04, 2013 - 08:16 pm: Edit

That's what I figured. Thanks!

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, July 07, 2013 - 09:35 am: Edit

607.421) The Lyrans have no theatre transports in their starting order of battle. The other three empires involved do. The Lyran FFT has a YIS of 140.

I suggest two Lyran FFTs are added to their Home Fleet.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, July 07, 2013 - 06:33 pm: Edit

What does the L-FFT history say?

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, July 07, 2013 - 06:47 pm: Edit

The SFB MSC gives a Y166 YIS date for the Lyran FFT, meaning it was not in general service at the time of the Four Powers War.

R11.94 states:
"The Lyrans came late to the mini-tug concept. Their pallets... could not be carried on anything smaller than a light cruiser hull prior to Y165."

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, July 07, 2013 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Ah, my error. I checked the Lyran master SIT and it says Y140. Forgot to check the SFB history.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, July 07, 2013 - 08:38 pm: Edit

FYI. The discrepancy does not necessarily mean that the SIT and the MSC are in conflict. Generally speaking, and with LOTS of exceptions and caveats, the MSC dates are when a class actually _did_ enter service, while the SIT dates are when a class first _could_ have entered service. This sort of discrepancy shows up a lot with the NCA variants. Thus, it _might_ be possible that the Lyrans can build FFTs during the 4PW scenario. Determining that would require a ruling from higher authority though.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, July 07, 2013 - 08:50 pm: Edit

G3 gives the Lyran FFT a YIS date of Y166. However as Jason states a Prototype could have been available as early as Y140 to match other empires in F&E Terms.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 08, 2013 - 08:45 pm: Edit

So now that I have been convinced that no one other than me (and Doug Lampert :-) is a fan of not having Advanced EW in the 4PW (in the name of making the GW established history of the Hydran and Kzinti scout situation at the start of the GW make sense), I'm going to advocate for something Chuck suggested as a possibility early in the going:

During the 4PW, scouts generate half EW (round up).

(so 1 point SCs still generate 1; 2 point SCs generate 1; 3-4 point SCs generate 2; bases cut their EW in half, round up, including PDUs in total)

This still allows for Advanced EW to have a significant effect (and an interesting dynamic). The Hydrans will still be at a minor EW advantage due to a lack of solid scouts. You could still generate a -2 shift over a SB if you wanted. It would explain why the Kzinti and Hydrans kept the 1 point FF SCs around at the start of the GW (as they weren't any worse than most other scouts of the time); the Klingons (and Kzinti) still get an advantage with the D6Ds/CDs as you put them on the line for solid compot *and* some EW (where when the Hydrans put 3xSC on the line, they are taking a significant compot hit). It would explain why the Kzinti don't have a *ton* of drone cruisers as the start of the GW (as they are still good combat units, but as they only produced 1EW in the 4PW, they aren't overwhelmingly good, considering their expense).

The Klingons and Lyrans still get an EW edge from their CLS and D6S ships over the Hydrans and Kzinti (as well as the Klingon Drone Pod matched with a BP for a 12 point, CR10 ship that generates 1EW). Enough is there to justify the established history at the start of the GW.

It could easily be explained away as the result of (unseen in SFB) technological limits (of which the 4PW F+E scenario has a bunch already) and/or command and control issues that hadn't been figured out yet.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, July 08, 2013 - 08:57 pm: Edit


Quote:

So now that I have been convinced that no one other than me (and Doug Lampert :-) is a fan of not having Advanced EW in the 4PW (in the name of making the GW established history of the Hydran and Kzinti scout situation at the start of the GW make sense)




In fairness, I suppose I did say what (little) my also agreeing with you was worth...

(But if your alternate proposal is accepted, and leads to the same end, well and good.)

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 09:58 am: Edit

This is true. I mentioned Doug, as I'm pretty sure his was the original "Just use basic EW by design" idea :-)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 11:28 am: Edit

I really have a problem with using the basic game rule in pre-GW where all scouts are equal. Why would one ever build a D6S for 12 EP when one can buy mission effective 3xE4S for 10.5 EP? Then at some magical date they discover that more channels and power on their D6Ss are more effective. I cannot recommend this course of action.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 12:14 pm: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>I really have a problem with using the basic game rule in pre-GW where all scouts are equal. Why would one ever build a D6S for 12 EP when one can buy mission effective 3xE4S for 10.5 EP? Then at some magical date they discover that more channels and power on their D6Ss are more effective. I cannot recommend this course of action.>>

Yeah. We are on the same page. I gave up on that argument (using the basic game rule for EW as a default). I'm not longer suggesting that the 4PW use only basic EW as a default (I mean, like, yeah, if someone is playing just using the basic rules, which I think is something that people should be able to do, as the 4PW is a vastly better way to learn how to play F+E than the GW is, but still).

I'm currently suggesting something that you suggested earlier on in the discussion--during the 4PW, scouts produce 1/2 EW, round up.

You could either just have all scouts individually produce 1/2 EW (rounded up), or have a rule that is "figure out the total EW in a given battle line, then divide in half, round up".

In the first case, most scouts produce 1EW, the heavier ones produce 2EW, but a line of 4xKzinti SF makes 4EW and a line of 4xD6Ds makes 4EW.

In the second case, most scouts produce 1EW individually, but in groups, they produce less--a line of 4xKzinti SF makes 2EW where a line of D6Ds would still make 4EW.

It makes a whole lot of things about the established history of the game come closer to making more sense.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 12:25 pm: Edit

I think 4PW will work well enough with just the basic rules. I could be wrong.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 01:01 pm: Edit

RBE:

My recommendation to ADB will NOT include a suggestion to play 4PW using the basic F&E EW rules (unless, of course, one is playing with JUST basic F&E).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 01:08 pm: Edit

What I meant was that if one was playing only by basic rules, that 4PW would work well enough.

I was definitely NOT suggesting to include a suggestion to play 4PW using the basic F&E EW rules.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Some thoughts on EW in the Four Powers War.

I’ve been thinking about this since Origins. One thing I heard more than once was how important EW was. This seems obvious to us as experienced players of General War scenarios, but the alliance powers were supposedly caught off guard by the dramatic improvements in EW that the Coalition had developed prior to the General War. That implies that EW wasn’t that important during the Four Powers War. And yet, players immediately see the advantage of winning the EW war as early as possible and plan for it. That makes the scenario harder to balance without the war cruiser scouts of the General War. So here are some ideas for scenario specific restriction on the Four Powers War for EW.

Change the EW limit on planetary bases (both PGB and PDU) to a max of 1 EW per 2 ground bases (round down) during this scenario (set a year date for an increase to the traditional 1 ground base for 1 EW limit of the General War). This lets you keep the overall limit of 4 EW per planet maximum, but require twice as many ground bases to get it (and effectively limits minor planets to 3 EW). It highlights the limits on special sensor production during the middle years, and gives players a reason to actually build PGBs if they want to defend their space effectively. Planetary EW doesn’t reduce your fleet compot like putting a couple of scouts on the line does.

Another scenario limit that would show that less emphasis was placed on EW during this earlier war would be to limit scout production to one substitution per year (as opposed to turn) and add a limit of one conversion per turn to scouts for this scenario. To prevent the Klingons from swamping the scenario with their larger D6S scout, limit them to one D6S every even numbered year. Otherwise the Klingons will too quickly outstrip other empires in EW and unbalance the scenario.

These changes will show that EW was not considered as important during the 4PW without having to monkey with the main rules or alter any ship's EW capability for the scenario. Players will still be able to build impressive EW capable fleets if they want, but only at the cost of leaving other fleets EW deficient. That will push players away from the direction of relying heavily on EW during this scenario without taking away any of the EW toys. Just limiting their availability in a manner more appropriate to the Four Powers timeframe.

Edit: I would recommend placing the same limit on the Lyran CLS and the Klingon D6S. One every other year.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 02:32 pm: Edit

And now a question on the Lyran CLS. The provisional sit shows an EW rating of 3. Does the SSD in SFB have at least 3 sensors on it? Standard practice for most fleets is to replace the each heavy weapon with one special sensors and the CL only has two disruptors, but the Lyran destroyer based SC has four sensors replacing two disruptors IIRC(which makes in an unusual conversion). I do not know, as I don't have the CLS SSD. Does it have the same two sensors replacing each disruptor? That would make the EW rating of 3 correct, but I just want to make sure.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 02:38 pm: Edit

The Lyran CLS has four Special Sensors, and two ph-1s on the front end.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Thanks Adm. I thought it probably would, but don't have the SSD handy.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 03:00 pm: Edit

I *am* in favor of using just the basic rules for EW in the four powers war. The why behind it... I dunno. But the results make perfect sense.

Small scouts would be preferable. Big scouts can still be built, but only rarely would. The alliance would still be in a position to be caught off guard in the GW like they were.

And as for Chuck's question:
Why would one ever build a D6S for 12 EP when one can buy mission effective 3xE4S for 10.5 EP? Then at some magical date they discover that more channels and power on their D6Ss are more effective.

That one's easy! The D6S survives better. In the rare situation where you need to put a scout in the fight and not have it directed out of existance, a D6S would be far more likely to survive than an F5S.

Of course these situations would be rare, and so the need for such a ship would be equally rare... say enough to justify a D6S in the Northern Reserve Fleet, and another in the Souther Reserve Fleet. Those two ships might be veterans of the 4PW, still in service by the start of the GW. Only then would it be known just how important they would really become.

*~*~*

Overall, the number and type of scouts at the historical start of the GW would imply that empires (players) were using the basic rules prior to the GW. The technobabble of why EW changed in that narror period of time? I dunno. Make something up. That's why we call it technobabble.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 03:10 pm: Edit

I don't want the scenario to just use the basic rules for EW unless you are just playing with the basic 2010 ruleset without expansions.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 04:11 pm: Edit

I have already evaluated and removed the idea of using basic F&E scout rules (other than when basic F&E is used exclusively) from this debate and I will not be recommending their use in my final recommendation to ADB. I will ask please that this issue not be raised again in this topic.

Those who disagree are free to send their own update of the 4PW scenario to ADB for their consideration. Thank you.

FEDS

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 04:53 pm: Edit

I'm with Richard. I wouldn't use just the basic EW rules when using all the other advanced rules (and I never use just the basic rules). That doesn't make sense to me. I want the toys to have their flavor. That's why I went looking for a solution that doesn't just cut out one part of the rules as a quick fix. The best solution is finding the right fix for the scenario, not cutting out a rule for just one scenario.

Edit: And now I see that Chuck posted while I stepped out. Must refresh browser when I get back to the keyboard.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>I have already evaluated and removed the idea of using basic F&E scout rules (other than when basic F&E is used exclusively) from this debate and I will not be recommending their use in my final recommendation to ADB. I will ask please that this issue not be raised again in this topic.>>

Yes. Good. That is thrown out the window and no longer an issue to be suggested.

How about the 1/2 EW idea?

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation