Archive through October 19, 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 October 19, 2013
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 12:23 pm: Edit

On a different note, the use of drone ships as standard warships with bonus EW has been a problem in the 4PW leading to possibly unhistorical ship production.

It does occur to me that a drone ship armed with slow drones is really not that good of a warship. I suggest that the compot of drone ships in this time period be reduced by two. Drone bombardment factors remain the same, as they are only usable against slow or stationary targets as previously noted in the rules.

This would possibly reduce the use of these units as standard warships, or at least reduce their effectiveness in battle.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 12:29 pm: Edit

The drone speeds in this era may be speed-12 (moderate) but I don't have my SFB rules handy.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 12:58 pm: Edit

I suspect the significant limit on production that comes from the (to be implemented?) blanket Scout limit (1x SC4 Scout per year, and 1x SC3 scout per turn) will vastly limit the use of drone ships in combat--with the production of 1xCD and 1xD6D per year, they will probably be killed with extreme prejudice (and if you can only produce 1x Drone-Scout ship per year, the CLD will never be produced at all). Such that it probably isn't necessary to limit them in other ways. As there will be very few of them in circulation.

And yeah, in this time frame, Speed 12 drones are general use (they were introduced in y77).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Yes, I meant slow or moderate speed drones, not just slow. My apologies.


(FD10.65) DRONE SPEEDS: Medium speed drones are Limited in Y165, Restricted in Y166, General in Y167. Fast drones are Limited in Y178, Restricted in Y179, General in Y180.

Moderate speed drones were invented in Y77 and were Limited Availability until Y100, then became Restricted Availability. They became General Availability items in Y120.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 01:23 pm: Edit

On the AAS issue, I'd be inclined to just leave things as they are. I mean, yeah, a squadron of AAS with speed 12 drones is hardly a withering space menace, but they are pretty much always defending a fixed point (i.e. the Kzinti don't get carriers, just base and planet fighters) where the slow drones are actually useful, and really, by the time the fighters show up, they are generally not going to be much of an issue anyway (if the Coalition are going to be raiding the Kzinti Capital, they should be doing it before they get fighters).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 01:26 pm: Edit

So I'd like to suggest that the existing scenario get updated with the following two changes (for out next game run through):

1) (607.583) Scout Limitations: During this period, one scout of any size may be produced once per year by any means at the capital shipyard. In addition, one size class 4 scout may be produced at rate of one per TURN by any means plus any one auxiliary scout per YEAR. Other empire specific production restrictions still apply.

2) Victory Points for end of game captured and disrupted provinces only count if the capturing or disrupting ship is in supply.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 03:02 pm: Edit

I think that the victory point awards for provinces at game end are too high. It's worth more to capture a province than a minor planet!

I suggest changing the reward to 1 point for a disrupted province and 2 points for a captured province.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 03:59 pm: Edit

What about the penalties for NOT having or upgraded BATS in place?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 04:14 pm: Edit

1 point penalty per Base Station not upgraded to a BATS applies to original locations only, but does include bases built as replacements.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 04:43 pm: Edit

I don't know if those have to be changed Chuck. I didn't feel like the penalty was overly harsh, but maybe it is?

I mean, what's more important, keeping a province or replacing/upgrading bases?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Currently, you get 2 points for each BS not upgraded to a BATS *or* each BS/BATS that hasn't been replaced at the end of the game. I have no problem with these points, as they give you incentive to spend money to upgrade and replace bases. I like the dynamic that is trying to upgrade and rebuild bases, and having something for TGs to do other than fight and act as supply points.

I agree with Richard that the VPs for disrupting ot holding provinces at the end of the game are probably too high--you get 4VPs for holding a province, which is incredibly trivial for the Alliance to pull off as they go last; conversely, you only get 3VPs for holding a minor planet, which is harder to pull off. And 8VPs for killing a SB, which is really hard to do in most instances here.

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Richard,

Sorry for a late reply as I was out over the last week. The Fed DN to DN+ to DNG may seem like an anomaly to the no refit rule but reviewing the F&E rules shows that it is not. The DN+ and DNG are not refits. They are conversions. Each hull is its own base class. We may think of the DN+ as simply a refit of the DN but it is much more extensive than a simple refit. The Saucer section is completely rebuilt to allow for 6 photons. Then on the DNG the entire aft hull is replaced with a larger hull section. This is way more extensive than the traditional refit of weapons or addition of point defense systems.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, September 08, 2013 - 09:43 am: Edit

Any updates for the playtest scenario happening any time soon?

I'd like to reiterate my support for the following easy to implement updates happening before Richard and I start a second run through:

So I'd like to suggest that the existing scenario get updated with the following two changes (for out next game run through):

1) (607.583) Scout Limitations: During this period, one scout of any size may be produced once per year by any means at the capital shipyard. In addition, one size class 4 scout may be produced at rate of one per TURN by any means plus any one auxiliary scout per YEAR. Other empire specific production restrictions still apply.

2) Victory Points for end of game captured and disrupted provinces only count if the capturing or disrupting ship is in supply.

3) Victory Points for end of game captured and disrupted provinces should be reduced (i.e. something along the lines of 2 points for captured and 1 point for disrupted).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 11:51 am: Edit

Peter & Richard:

The above looks good -- go with that.

On item 3, I'm open to adjusting the victory points so if anyone can suggest an adjustment to the awarding of points, then hash it out in this topic and make a recommendation. Please note that I'm not open to coming up with a whole new scoring system so please stay inside these lines. Thanks for your efforts to test this revision -- you guys help make this a better scenario and game system!

Cheers

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 11:25 am: Edit

We'll monkey around with ideas for VP adjustments--nothing super drastic, just tweaking points here and there.

Richard and I are going to start a second game in the near future (we plan on finishing the current turn of the GW war we are currently playing first, so in the next few weeks). I think the plan is to use all the advanced rules that come in the Fighter Ops rules set (which would make sense, if you had 2K10 and Fighter Ops, you'd probably be using that rules set). And maybe Tactical Ops as well.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Thanks but there is no TO at this time so I am a bit confused by this statement.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 10:19 pm: Edit

I think he means CO.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 07:38 am: Edit

Yeah, I meant Combined Ops (which combined the ground combat module and the tactical something module). Sorry about the confusion

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 08:19 am: Edit

CO combined marine assault and special ops if I recall correctly.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Ah, yeah. It was originally Special Ops. Combine that with Marine Assault, and you get Combined Ops. Which is what I meant. So what is "Tactical Ops"?

In any case, we'll be using Combined Ops and Fighter Ops.

By Keith Plymale (Zaarin7) on Friday, October 18, 2013 - 11:54 am: Edit

The suggestions by Peter B above look good. Would like to suggest the following language..."one size class 4 scout may be produced at rate of one per TURN"... be changed to...'one size class 4 scout may be produced at the rate of one per TURN'...for a cleaner flow and read.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, October 19, 2013 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Can someone verify if Combined Ops added a DDG to the Lyran Home Fleet, please?

By Keith Plymale (Zaarin7) on Saturday, October 19, 2013 - 05:43 pm: Edit

According to the 2009 OOB yes.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, October 19, 2013 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Keith, the 2009 OOB is for the General War, not the Four Powers War which takes place earlier in the time line.

ISC War has a OOB all for itself.

The updated Hurricane scenario, Gale Force (soon to be updated), Maelstrom and Winds of Fire all have OOBs for them that start with the Jun 2009 OOB but include new construction, conversions and combat losses.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, October 19, 2013 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Right that is why I wanted the CO rules checked. I do have Marine Assault which does indeed say:
Lyran Home 1xFTL, 2xFTS, 1xSAF, 1xDDG.
I cannot find my copy of the Annex Updates for CO.

In the 4PW we do not list 1xDDG but rather a 1xCLG. I am aware this is a recent ship design and I am trying to find out if we should add both, leave the DDG, or go with the CLG.

BTW Not sure if this was mentioned in the updated 4PW scenario rules but the SA factors were introduced as rule (616.33) in Marine Assault previously in the (616.0) Late Kingdom Scenario (no counter though). The factors given there concur with the factors listed in this scenario.

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