Archive through August 08, 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 August 08, 2013
By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>Know that while I proposed the scout pod rule, the headline color text was written by ADB.>>

Ah, ok. Fair enough :-)

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Kzinti:
At Start: 4xCD, 5xCLD, 5xSF, 2xSAS
Maximum Build: CD on 2, 4, 6, 8, 10=+5xCD; SF on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11=+10xSF, +5 max AUX total.

Kzinti Max Scouts by end of War: 9xCD, 5xCLD, 15xSF, 5xAuxS

Hydran:
At Start: 5xSC, 2xSAS
Maximum Build: SRV or PGS on 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11=+6 SRV/PGS; SC on each of 11 turns=+11xSC, +5 max AUX total.

Hydran Max Scouts by end of War: 6xSRV/PGS, 16xSC, 5xAuxS

Lyran:
At Start: 6xSC
Maximum Build: CLS on 4, 6, 8, 10=+4 CLS, SC on 2-11=+10 SC, +3 AuxS max.
FEDS: Plus one SC on turn #2 for "one scout of any size".

Lyran Max Scouts by end of War: 4xCLS, 17xSC, 3xAuxS

Klingon
At Start: 6xD6D, 7xF5S, 2xE4S
Maximum Build: D6D on 2; D6S on 4, 6, 8, 10; F5S/E4S on each of 2-11=+10 F5S/E4S. +3 AuxS

Klingon Max Scouts by end of War: 7xD6D, 4xD6S, 19xF5S/E4S, 3xAuxS

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 02:54 pm: Edit

4PW EW End of Game Summary
At-Start plus Builds/No Losses
Based Upon 4PW EW Proposal #5

KzintiNumberEWTotal EW
CD9218
CL5210
SF15115
Z-Total2943
.
Hydran
SRV/PGS6212
SC16116
H-Total2228
.
Alliance Total5171
.
.
Lyran
CLS4312
SC17234
L-Total2146
.
Klingon
D6S4416
D6D7214
F5S/E4S19119
K-Total3049
.
Coalition Total5195

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>FEDS: Plus one SC on turn #2 for "one scout of any size". >>

Ah, yes, correct. Forgot that one. So they can build 2xSC on T2 if they are so inclined.

It also might be worth noting that assuming that the Alliance don't ever intentionally activate inactive Coalition forces (Klingon Home and East fleet, plus IWR; Lyran Far Stars), the following ships never are active during the 4PW:

-Klingon: 2xD6D, 4xF5S, 3xE4S (from the IWR which I missed above)
-Lyran: 1xSC

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Fifty-one scouts per side seems like a fairly large number, but with these production limits scouts are going to be high priority targets when on the battle line. I'll have to play around some and see, but I think this should work.

My only offhand comment is still that this eliminates D6D and CLD production after the first D6D built, but maybe that isn't a bad thing. Drone bombardment was not terribly affective at the time due to the slow or fixed target requirement of using slow drones; so the existing D6Ds would be enough for the Klingon and the Kzinti still get CD production and DF production. There are plenty of drone platforms for expected missions.

I'll bang my head on this some more. The only additional production restriction we could possibly make to further limit scout capability would be one scout per turn by any means with no more than one size class 3 scout per year. That would remove 5 frigate scouts per empire (6 for the Hydran). That just seems too strict though so I'm all for giving this a whirl.

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 03:52 pm: Edit

"...the following ships never are active during the 4PW:..."

Good catch Peter. Had not thought about that, but as it is unchanged from previous revisions, I do not think that it drastically changes game ballance for this scenario, does it? The Alliance would have a slight EW advantage throughout but the Coalition have bigger EW capability on their heavy scout ships either way.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Daniel wrote:
>>My only offhand comment is still that this eliminates D6D and CLD production after the first D6D built, but maybe that isn't a bad thing.>>

It really isn't.

The Kzinti CLD, in SFB, is, at best, a fairly marginal unit. I mean, yeah, it is probably better than the basic CL (in that it trades 4 disruptors for 2x special sensors and gains 2 drone racks), but it doesn't have much power, and is fairly fragile. In the 4PW in F+E so far that I'm playing, the CLD is the star of the Kzinti fleet, showing up in large numbers all the time. By the time of the GW, the Kzinti have zero CLDs in their fleet. Which, given that they will likely produce few to none during the 4PW with the current Scout production suggestion, makes sense.

As for the D6Ds, the Klingons start the GW with 1 per fleet. They could produce a few during the 4PW (under the current suggestion), and could produce a few more if they wanted to give up the D6S slots (which is unlikely, but not impossible). Which, again, seems reasonable--during the 4PW, drones are slow and not super effective. Having D6Ds (much like CLDs) as some of the most effective ships in the war seems not that realistic. So having them production limited seems reasonable.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Daniel wrote:
>>I do not think that it drastically changes game ballance for this scenario, does it?>>

I can't imagine that it would. The Coalition have *better* scouts (the Lyran default SC4 scout is a 2 point SC and then get the CLS; the Klingons get the D6S), and as such, will always have an edge. Especially vs the Hydrans.

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Then is sounds like we're making progress. I just need to find somebody who will host a full test game. Maybe a demo game. Hrmmmm...

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Peter:

Minor quibble: The CLD is arguably quite a bit better than the CL in the 4PW era, since the fleet refits haven't come into play yet. You're trading up from 2xDSR, 2xDRONE to 2xSENSOR, 6xDRONE. Yeah, they're slow drones, but you're dealing with a heck of a lot of them.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, July 18, 2013 - 12:02 pm: Edit

Doesn't the history say that there were no CLD left at the end of the war?

5 total, no new ones built, and they get directed on the line sounds like its perfectly in line with the history.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, July 18, 2013 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Yep. From CL20 (p43)

"Most of these ships were destroyed in the Four Powers War, and the Kzinti... let the SDF (accompanied by DFs) take over most of these duties. None of the CLDs survived into the General War..."

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, July 18, 2013 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Yep, that's part of the reason we're addressing scout issues.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, July 19, 2013 - 05:04 pm: Edit

(607.53) As written, a force of 2 Klingon ships and 2 Lyran ships cannot combine at all. Perhaps an addition to the rule specifying that it is always legal to have one ship not of the flagship's empire in a battle force, so that you could have 2 Klingons and 1 Lyran (or 1 of each).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, July 19, 2013 - 05:15 pm: Edit

(607.561) Last sentence: "Once the stockpile or free, base fighters is depleted, ..." should probably be "Once the stockpile of free, base fighters is depleted, ...".

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 19, 2013 - 05:34 pm: Edit

FEDS: Change to read:

(607.573) Flagships: Technological limitations impacted the use of flagships. Formation and scout formation positions can only be used only by units under the same empire as the flagship. In addition, the empire supplying the flagship must make up at least 75% or more of the battle force ships or units used. As an exception, any mixed battle force is permitted to have any one foreign unit attached to the battle force but not in the free scout formation position.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 07:29 pm: Edit

(607.441) Marquis deployment info, last sentence: "The entire fleet is released if any Coalition unit enters either of those provinces or the capital. "

I think this should be changed to: "The entire fleet is released if any Coalition unit enters the Marquis Fleet deployment area or the capital."

This would be similar in language to the the Klingon East Fleet deployment area and release conditions.

Without this change, currently the Kzinti can destroy the base in 1707 without releasing the Klingon East Fleet, but the Klingons cannot reply in kind.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Well, to be fair, all that happens if you enter the Marquis provinces is you release a CC and 5xFF (and open up 3 more BATS and a minor planet to kill for VPs...)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 07:44 pm: Edit

For conversions in progress on Turn 11, do they count towards victory conditions?

The ones done by the coalition could theoretically be stopped by alliance action on the alliance half of turn 11, but if not should probably count towards victory calculations.

The ones done by alliance probably could not be - I don't know if these should count.

Currently, I don't think they'd count as they'd not be completed until a theoretical turn 12.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 08:27 pm: Edit

I'd think they don't count--if the Alliance wants to get BS>BATS upgrade points, they need to be done by AT11, I'd imagine.

I suspect that the Alliance already has a significant VP advantage by virtue of going last--they get to grab provinces and planets and score points for holding those at the end of the scenario and the Coalition can't retaliate. Allowing them to get VPs for BS>BATS conversions that the Coalition can't stop seems excessive.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Though honestly, it may not matter that much as the coalition has many bases that the alliance won't be able to reach, while the reverse is not true - as the alliance can just convert whatever bases remain well before turn eleven with little trouble.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 02:18 am: Edit

In progress = not completed in time to be counted.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Are MMGs and ADMs supposed to be used? I was looking at the Kzinti SIT and note that they have a YIS of 168.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, August 02, 2013 - 05:02 am: Edit

No MMGs in this period; rules allow for one ADM per empire.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 08, 2013 - 10:54 am: Edit

Ok, so Richard and I are in the last turn of the Scenario (i.e. Alliance T11), so I figure I'll start discussing things about it in a general sense:

1) It works pretty well, if not very well, as a reasonably balanced scenario [*]. Neither side seems to have a total walk over of the other. There is a lot of back and forth, which is nice. In our game, only 3 Starbases got killed (the southern Lyran SB, the Kzinti Duke's SB, the Hydran's easternmost SB) and the Hydran one was rebuilt by the end of the game. It is possible that one or two other SBs could have been killed with a concerted effort, but that probably would have resulted in a chain reaction of dead SBs on both sides (i.e. Coalition take a lot of damage killing a Kzinti SB; Kzinti seize upon the weakness to kill a Coalition SB, etc.). The only Capital assault that happened was the Hydrans getting into the Lyran Capital once with about 15 ships, managing to devastate a single Lyran Minor Capital planet. The Klingons almost got a couple ships into the Kzinti Capital once.

2) From [*] above--the Alliance probably have an edge, balance wise at this point. Not a huge one, but one that it is probably more likely that the Alliance will win most of the time. The Hydrans are kind of insanely effective in this time frame, but are held back by virtue of a lack of realistic targets after a certain point. The Kzinti are vulnerable to getting gangpiled on, but seem to have enough ships in this version to avoid certain death, and the Lyrans need to be a lot more careful in this version of the game, as the Hydrans can attack their Capital. The Alliance have, probably (I haven't counted yet) more good targets to hit, and the Coalition have a lot more bases that need upgrading. I think that (with the current version of the scenario), for the Coalition to do well, they need to really pound on the Kzinti.

3) Now that we are at the end of the war, and looking at the VP system, it could probably use a bit of tweaking:

A) The points scored for holding or contesting provinces at the end of the war seem wildly out of proportion, and lead to not really logical actions--this last turn on both sides is just an orgy of sending little groups of FFs onto out of supply suicide missions to contest or capture provinces that, if the war continued for another turn, they would have no hope of keeping or benefiting from, and most of those ships are going to die for nothing. But 'cause a captured and held province scores 4 points (i.e. half what you get for killing a SB...), there is a lot of incentive to go and do that.

B) The points scored for un-upgraded or un-replaced bases seems like it will probably hurt the Coalition significantly--the Alliance will probably get dinged for all the un-replaced border stations, but there are very few Alliance Base Stations that will both not get killed and not get upgraded (at the end of this current scenario, the Kzinti have zero un-upgraded BS; the Hydrans have 1; they both have a bunch of dead, un-replaced bases); conversely, the Klingons will have a lot of un-upgraded BS (I think the Klingons will have 5 un-upgraded BS at the end of the war, and they have been upgrading pretty consistently). I think the idea is sound, but I think it probably punishes the Coalition a bit more than it needs to be punished, VP wise.

Just an initial view. More will follow as we finish up and calculate end VPs.

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