Archive through November 28, 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 November 28, 2013
By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 25, 2013 - 11:08 pm: Edit

32 cripples (8 per fleet, 4 fleets). I lost 10. Which is about twice expected. Which was significantly unlucky. I mean, like, it isn't ending the game or anything, but it seems like a not minor balance issue determined by pure randomosity.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 09:26 am: Edit

The DDG has 3 offensive combat factors, but the CLG has only 2. Is this correct? The CLG is more heavily armed than the DDG, having 4 phaser ones and 2 ESGs compared to 4 phaser twos and 1 ESG.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Ryan/Lar/Jason:

We need to evaluate this possible issue to make sure we get it right.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 07:29 pm: Edit

My friend and I are about to start a 4PW scenario. We are experimenting with a set of tweaks, including changes to OOB, Production Schedules and cutting economics way back.

We will give a full report on what was changed, the rationales and how things turned out.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Before you start, might you propose your changes here so people can give input?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 11:03 pm: Edit

RBE, don't forget about the phaaser refit, the DDGp has 6 phaser-2s, vs 4 phaser-1s on the CLG. Plus the ESG is more defensive than offensive...

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 01:30 am: Edit

I was thinking that there was no refit during this time period... but perhaps that's not relevant. In any case with the refit they both have the same number of phasers, but the CL still has better ones imo.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 07:35 pm: Edit

RBE, don't forget that it's the GW values used, which means all refits (usually) since that doesn't require recalculating the AFs...

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Yes, I see that now. Still, the CLG is more heavily armed than the DDG, even so.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 06:08 am: Edit

Richard: We are compiling the document, and should have it ready tomorrow. Posting it here could prove problematic because of formatting, but I will gladly email it to any who ask. (I know that posting it to a cloud site is a BIG no-no, and land me in hot water with the Steves...)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 10:57 am: Edit

Oh never mind then.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 01:08 pm: Edit

F&E STAFF:

So is there an issue with the Lyran DDG/CLG offensive factors that needs to be addressed?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 03:10 pm: Edit

After checking the Lyran DDG it is noted as never receiveing improved phasers, so it is in fact much weaker firepower wise than the CLG. (R11.55 in module M).

Offense of 3: DDG: 4P2 4P3 1ESG
Offense of 2: CLG: 4P1 4P3 2ESG

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 07:24 pm: Edit

If using the 'historical' DDG (no p refit) then the DDG should be 2 AF...

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 08:24 pm: Edit

All DDGs (and CLGs for that matter) have the same weapons, refit or not. As the DDG's offensive factor is 3 in F&E 2010, my belief is that this should not be changed.

It is my belief that the CLG should be changed to at least 3.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Friday, November 22, 2013 - 12:14 am: Edit

Attempting to post the document here...

(607.0) THE FOUR POWERS WAR

FEDS: THIS IS NOT THE TOPIC TO POST PERSONAL VARIANTS OF AN OFFICIAL PLAYTEST SCENARIO.

Mike: You are free to make suggestions on how to improve the updated scenario but you cannot post in this topic your personal, whole-cloth rewrite as it will confuse the players as to which is the official update effort.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, November 22, 2013 - 12:34 am: Edit

Is this based on the updated 4PW or the old 4PW from the old FO?

My guess is the latter. If so, you may want to toss all your changes, and work with the existing updated 4PW playtest and base changes on that.

Also, I can't really at a glance see what was changed - it might be more helpful to have a list of changes instead of the whole document.

Why are you going with your own version instead of playtesting the existing playtest version?

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Friday, November 22, 2013 - 01:35 am: Edit

This was based on the updated 4PW here, at the beginning of this thread.

Primary changes here are:

The reduction in the numbers of HB armed ships, since the Hydrans had only started deploying them a few short years earlier then the war.

A reduced economy, since we were looking at some emnpires having build schedules costing 47 or less vs an income of over 100.

No Aux ships in the initial OBs to reflect that the concept of high-intensity warfare, such as what would occur a decade later, was not yet conceived of.

The small reduction of ships in the Hydran OB to address the concerns of some players that the Hydrans tended to overwhelm their opponents.

Finally, we decided to take a good look at what was reported by other players and attempted to logically dissect what the probable causes were. From that dissection was this document, which we are about to start playtesting. We were perfectly willing to do the playtest first, then post the scenario, but you requested that it be posted.

Richard, give us a chance to try it out before you start trying to pass judgement on what we are doing, OK?

Thanks.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, November 22, 2013 - 05:01 am: Edit

It just seems a pretty radical change over the existing playtest scenario.

For example, the proposed incomes seem incredibly low for the alliance, only 51 for the Kzinti and an insanely low 30 for the Hydrans! That's just not going to work.

While all the changes are incremental or just delete something, taken as a whole they seem to me to be too much of a change to really give useful info (if playtested) on how to balance the existing playtest scenario.

Another problem I have noticed in your version is that it seems you are not using the playtest version of some of the new ships or in some cases their factors. I have not gone over your scenario with a fine toothed comb, but I did notice that there was (for example) no PGZ and that your early DNs do not have the factors that were hashed out in discussion earlier in this thread.

I suggest that you should use the existing units and factors in the current playtest version.


Another suggestion, is that instead of just going ahead with this playtest, first itemize all the changes you want to do, with a reason for why, and invite discussion here before you begin playtest.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, November 22, 2013 - 06:39 am: Edit

Note to players:

Please remember that this topic is for updating the existing 4PW scenario; your suggestions are welcome. Please also note that suggestions based upon playtest results of the rewritten scenario will be weighted accordingly -- same goes for suggestions based on personal preference and opinion but to a far lesser degree. Factual error corrections are especially welcome.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 28, 2013 - 09:36 am: Edit

So so far, with the changes from last time:

-The Hydrans seem downright terrifying. In the previous game, the Lyrans had an Admiral to defend the EB SB on T1 where the Hydrans didn't have an Admiral to attack it with (due to where the Admirals were set up), so the EB SB survived T1. In this game, we are just using CO and FO rules (so no Admirals at all), so the Hydrans attacked the EB SB with 2 command points where the Lyrans had none. The EB SB had no hope of survival, so it was destroyed on T1. Allowing the Hydrans to substantially raid the Lyran Capital on T2 (they devastated 2x minor and 2x major planets in the Lyran Capital on T2 for minimal losses). It remains to be seen how much total damage they are going to do, as it is still T2.

-The Klingons, in this game, went for a reckless raid on the Kzinti Capital on their first turn, which worked, allowing them to Devastate 3 Kzinti Capital planets. This did, however, leave the Klingons vulnerable to the T2 Kzinti counter attack, which is killing 4x bases and let them kill a forward deployed FRD. Which the Klingons badly needed to use to repair all the damage from the Capital raid. At press time, the Klingons and Kzinti are both badly mangled, ship wise.

It is still just T2 in this current game, but indications are that the Alliance is already totally dominating--the Hydrans are an unholy terror and the Kzinti have enough ships to be able to fight evenly with the Klingons.

The current tweak to the EW ship construction rules (1 big scout and 2 small scouts per year, max) is certainly limiting the number of CD/D6D scouts produced, which so far is keeping EW levels reasonable. But also limits the Klingon's ability to use drone bombardment (they need to use D6Ds for direct EW combat and not DB most of the time and can't produce that many; the Kzinti use the CDs for direct EW combat and can still produce and use DFs for drone bombardment). It remains to be seen if this will make a huge difference, but it is something worth considering.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, November 28, 2013 - 10:26 am: Edit

We could consider adding one command point to everyones basic F&E OOB...

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 28, 2013 - 10:52 am: Edit

That certainly couldn't hurt the Lyran situation.

I think the basic dynamic is one where the Hydrans are pretty much certain (barring significantly bad luck or total negligence) to kill the EB SB on T1 (which was always the case with this scenario--the Lyrans have not much to defend it with, especially given the number of pre-game cripples and the Hydrans have a ton of ships to attack it with). But in the original version of the scenario, the Hydrans couldn't realistically then attack the Lyran Capital (as that would release the Far Stars fleet and income). So the Hydrans had a significant limit to the amount of damage they could cause (and VPs they could gain). Which was problematic for the scenario, as the Kzinti had an anemic fleet and just got steamrollered while the Hydrans couldn't really score enough VPs (due to a lack of available targets) to make up for it.

In the current version of the scenario, the Lyran Capital is available to attack (except for the Homeworld system), which is fine in theory, as it gives the Hydrans more targets and more ability to score VPs. But at the same time, the Kzinti fleet is significantly bigger and stronger (and released more rationally) than it was in the original scenario, meaning the Kzinti are vastly less of a pushover than they used to be.

In the first time Richard and I played this, the Alliance (i.e. me) was very conservative and not very aggressive (and the Hydrans failed to kill the EB SB on T1 due to the Admiral rules we were using), and they still scored, like, a 150% VP victory over the Coalition. In this version, again, it is still early, but the Alliance seem to be doing very well, and it is unlikely they'll start seeing significant reverses any time soon.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, November 28, 2013 - 12:01 pm: Edit

I feel Peter could have saved the Lyran SB on turn one (or at least inflicted a lot of damage on the Hydrans. I was on the cusp of retreating when he destroyed the base.

Victory point wise, the Klingons DID devastate three planets in the Kzinti capital, which is better than I did in our previous game.

The Hydrans DID take significant losses devastating four planets over Lyrantan, losing 5-6 ships, four of which were cruiser hulls. Definitely paid a price to do that.

Having just come out of civil war, it doesn't make sense for the Lyrans to have a command point at the start of the game - surely they would have used them all in the fighting over the throne.

If anything, the Hydrans, being the agressors, should be the empire (perhaps the only one) that starts with a command point.

Anywho, we should finish this game before we make such suggestions about game balance.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 28, 2013 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>I feel Peter could have saved the Lyran SB on turn one (or at least inflicted a lot of damage on the Hydrans. I was on the cusp of retreating when he destroyed the base.>>

Ya think? I don't think the Lyrans had any chance at all to not lose that SB. I could have probably crippled the whole Lyran fleet to have kept it alive, but then would have lost it on T2 anyway, and still had a totally crippled fleet. I think that the SB is a mostly forgone conclusion.

>>Victory point wise, the Klingons DID devastate three planets in the Kzinti capital, which is better than I did in our previous game. >>

Oh, sure, which is certainly a plus. But I think in the previous game, the Hydrans managed to devastate 2 Lyran capital planets before the game ended. In the one, 4 are already down, and I can't imagine that the last few won't get devastated soon as well.

>>The Hydrans DID take significant losses devastating four planets over Lyrantan, losing 5-6 ships, four of which were cruiser hulls. Definitely paid a price to do that. >>

That is certainly something, but I think in the grand scheme, the Hydrans came out way ahead on that attack.

>>Anywho, we should finish this game before we make such suggestions about game balance.>>

I'm not suggesting changing anything at this point. Just pointing out things that are certainly worth examining.

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