Archive through January 12, 2014

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 January 12, 2014
By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 12:24 pm: Edit

607.261 says to send a D7 or D6 to the Romulans by the end of Y158F if not using SO. However, 607.565 says if not using SO to remove the D7N and D6N completely.

Essentially, if you are using SO, you probably aren't losing anything as you're likely to have a diplomatic cruiser with the Romulans (to do trade agreements) anyway.

But if not using SO, you have to lose a cruiser that you other wise wouldn't.

I suggest removing the requirement to send a cruiser to the Romulans if not using SO.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 06:14 pm: Edit

I suggest that something be added that the Kzinti cannot provide fighters for adopted Hydran ships. I think this would make sense.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 07:28 pm: Edit

There are no Kzinti fighters until late in the war so that does make sense...

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 09:48 pm: Edit

Concur.

By Keith Plymale (Zaarin7) on Wednesday, December 11, 2013 - 07:15 am: Edit

With the proviso that once the Kzinti do get fighters they can provide them to adopted Hydran ships?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, December 11, 2013 - 10:03 am: Edit

My thought is 'no' on that. I think that at least at this point, the Kzinti aren't up to providing fighters that the Hydrans can use. It keeps things simple.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, December 13, 2013 - 01:12 pm: Edit

I suggest that the Kzinti CLD be added to FO, for use as a standard unit in 4PW. It's ship description says it was used in 4PW where all were lost.

It would be strange to not have it in the 4PW with this information in existence.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, December 13, 2013 - 03:06 pm: Edit

I suspect it isn't necessary, EW wise (or balance wise). If folks are using AO, then they show up; if they aren't, then it doesn't. I can't imagine that the Kzinti are going to suffer currently without them.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, December 13, 2013 - 03:34 pm: Edit

It did feel weird to be using full EW and not to have them in 4PW.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, December 14, 2013 - 01:53 pm: Edit

This is true. But I suspect that with the attempt to limit EW in total, doubling up the number of 2EW scouts that the Kzinti have in circulation is probably not an optimal plan, especially given that the Kzinti don't have to give up drone bombardment to use them for EW like the Klingons do (as they can also build DFs to use along with the CD/CLDs).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, December 14, 2013 - 02:05 pm: Edit

The lack of them does put the Kzinti at a significant EW disadvantage, as opposed to the Klingons who get all their scouts and drone ships in the basic game.

If you use all expansions, the Kzinti DO have them, I feel that the balance of power between the Kzinti and the Klingons should be the same whether using just FO or all expansions.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, December 14, 2013 - 02:15 pm: Edit

>>The lack of them does put the Kzinti at a significant EW disadvantage, as opposed to the Klingons who get all their scouts and drone ships in the basic game. >>

I dunno--the Kzinti start with 4xCD and 5xSF (ignoring the CLDs); the Klingons start with 4xD6D and 5x F5/E4S and then the 2xDrone Pods (ignoring the ships that will likely never get released). They both can produce the same number of big and small scouts. The Kzinti are in general on the defensive, so they also have bases (and when using AO, PDU ew and AuxScouts along with the CLDs). Seems like the non CLD situation is about a wash and with the AO rules, the Kzinti get a significant leg up EW wise.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - 12:41 am: Edit

I suggest that victory points be added for building BS / BTS / SB in enemy territory (the same amount as you get for destroying such bases and rebuilding destroyed bases in your own territory).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - 04:15 am: Edit

FEDS: I may add that -- are there any concerns to doing such?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - 06:25 am: Edit

Should one be built in enemy space, does its destruction count for victory points when the original empire destroys the base in question as it retakes lost territory?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - 07:56 am: Edit

I would think not. It's destruction would prevent the gaining of victory points at the end of the game, which should be sufficient.

Such a base already costs a lot of EPs to create, which is something that is not a factor for pre-existing bases (you didn't have to sacrifice anything during the war to have your original bases).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - 09:29 am: Edit

Yeah, getting VPs for bases built in enemy space seems totally reasonable. Just change:

>>each MB or BS rebuilt within an original province: 2
each BTS rebuilt within an original province: 3
each SB rebuilt within an original province: 8 >>

to

"each MB or BS rebuilt within an original province or enemy space: 2
each BTS rebuilt within an original province or enemy space: 3
each SB rebuilt within an original province or enemy space: 8"

That being said, I'd be totally ok with them being worth VPs if killed, as, well, that requires fewer changes to the VP chart. And it encourages you to build bases in enemy space only if you can really protect them.

I'd also suggest minimizing (or removing) VP bonuses for holding enemy things at the end of the scenario as a general principal. Like, as the Alliance goes last, and the game has a sudden death end, it is too easy for the Alliance to score a whole lot of VPs just by grabbing stuff at the end of the scenario that the Coalition can't do anything about. From the current chart, we got:

>>each enemy capital planet held at end: 18>>

Totally unnecessary, as if you capture someone's Capital at any point in the game, you have probably already won a total victory.

>>each enemy major planet held at end: 6>>

Really only something the Alliance will be able to do on the last turn.

>>each enemy minor planet held at end: 3>>

Also mostly something only the Alliance will be able to do on the last turn.

Also, having different VP scores for "capturing a planet" (which happens all the time during the game) and "holding a planet at the end" (which only happens at the end of the game, and supercedes the score you get for having captured it earlier makes score keeping more complicated--if I capture planet X on turn 2, I get 4 points for it. If I then hold it at the end of the game, I get 6 points for it, or 2 more if I already captured it, which requires remembering what happened previously. Which isn't a *huge* issue, but it is still something.

>>each enemy province disrupted at end: 2
each enemy province captured at end: 4>>

These two are the worst, as they are the easiest thing to do (especially for the Alliance, due to the sudden death of the scenario) and worth a disproportionately large number of VPs--holding an enemy province at the end of the game (which is something trivial for the Alliance to do) is worth half as much as killing a whole Starbase? I know this has been discussed before, but we lose nothing by rehashing :-) In any case, in this instance (and maybe the same with planets), replace these with something like:

"each enemy province controlled at the start of your turn: 0.1"
"each enemy minor planet controlled at the start of your turn: 0.2"
"each enemy major planet controlled at the start of your turn: 0.3"

Or something like that. The game currently already highly benefits from turn by turn score keeping, so adding a few extra bits of record keeping at the start of your turn doesn't hurt at all, removes the "sudden death" aspect of the victory conditions, and provides further in game incentive to do things like capture provinces and planets (which, really, given the current state of the economy and lack of ability to use planets as supply points, is currently not that attractive, given the work involved). Using the above numbers, for example, if the Hydrans take the two southern Lyran provinces on T1 and hold them for the entire game, they'd score an extra 2VP in total (0.1 each for each of the 10 turns they control those provinces at the start of the turn). Which seems like a much more reasonable way to hand out VPs, and provides more in game incentive to do things like risk police ships or whatever to keep disrupted control of provinces.

>>each enemy repair point not repaired: Repair Points/10
each enemy BS or BTS NOT upgraded or replaced within the original province with BTS: 2
(This reflects the need to be prepared for the next war.) >>

These are both fine for end of the game VPs, as they are really long term VPs, and the need to upgrade of bases is an interesting aspect to the game anyway.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - 07:56 pm: Edit

One way to cehck the 'pie-in-the-sky' is the supply connection to one's home territory to gain that VP...

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, January 05, 2014 - 01:22 pm: Edit

If the Federation-Kzinti commercial convoy is destroyed, can the alliance player have the Federation pay for a new one (starting it on a Federation SB), or must the Kzinti do it?

I suggest that the answer to this question be incorporated into the 4PW commercial convoy rule.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 06, 2014 - 12:31 pm: Edit

Yes, but currently, the only means a pro-Alliance Neutral empire (Fed or Gorn) (or a pro-Coalition Romuan) can purchase a replacement ComCon is using its unspent Diplomatic income using (540.23).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, January 06, 2014 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Thank you.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 05:44 pm: Edit

After playing again, I have some thoughts.

1). I think the balance in the early part of the scenario is about right. A lot of fighting happens, the Lyrans get beat up (probably), and the Klingons take some damage.

In the middle part of the scenario, the coalition starts to get it's act together and really press hard against the Kzinti. The Hydrans in this stage are somewhat too powerful. As a counterbalance to this, perhaps allow a limited release of ships (six, no more than two cruisers) from the Far Stars if the Hydrans devastate any major planet in the capital system or destroy more than one starbase.

I also suggest that the Klingons get a release of ships after the Smarba treaty (six ships, no more than two cruisers). I feel that letting these six ships be the best from East Fleet is not realistic, considering that the Federation is still going to be a concern.

I also suggest that the Vudar be officially added to this scenario to help a bit with Klingon defense if the Hydrans are getting too crazy - add a Vudar Fleet to the Vudar capital that is released if Alliance units come within two hexes of 1619. If the Vudar expansion is not available to the players, replace the Vudar ships with equivalent Klingon hulls that operate under the Vudar restrictions. In the case of release of the Vudar, use the rules under the Vudar joins the Klingons variant.

This will also help stem victory point bleeding towards the end of the scenario.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 09:23 am: Edit

All of these suggestions from Richard seem totally sound, although in the name of some sort of simplicity, maybe making the Vudar rule an abstract one (i.e. after a certain point, the Hydrans can't enter a few southern Klingon provinces or something) rather than adding more counters to the map that require a whole set of extra rules (given that the scenario comes in FO where the Vudar are not at all near :-).

To support his comments--in the early part of the scenario, the Lyrans are a total punching bag. I can't imagine that the Enemy's Blood SB will ever survive past T2, and the Lyran Capital will not be raided and have multiple planets devastated. The Kzinti can get beat on early in the game, and might have some Capital planets devastated, but it seems difficult to get into the Kzinti Capital past a certain point.

By mid game, the Lyrans are on a soundly defensive footing vs the Hydrans, and can put pressure on the Kzinti, while the Klingons are pretty good at beating on the Kzinti and sort of can hold off the Hydrans, but the Hydrans can still pretty much kill any Klingon target they can reach with impunity, and the Klingons/Lyrans don't really ever have the ability to threaten the Hydrans at all, other than killing a few border bases. The Hydrans need to be careful in deploying units, to keep from accidentally losing a SB, but that only really happens if they are sloppy.

The big problems I see are:

-The incredibly randomness of the Lyran Civil War results at the start of the game (the Lyrans might lose zero ships, or they might lose a dozen), which is a significant balance issue which is completely random and capriciously applied to a side that is already fighting uphill most of the game (as suggested earlier, minimize the Civil War results by, say, making the Lyrans cripple 40 points of ships per fleet and then having them just lose 1-2 ships at random per fleet, rather than "roll a D6 for each crippled ship and on a 1, kill it", as losing 1-2 of those crippled ships per fleet will result in an average result rather than a random balance effect).

-The Victory conditions should (as also discussed above) be adjusted to minimize points gained from sudden death; i.e. minimize or remove points gained from holding provinces or planets at the end of the game.

Allowing the Lyrans and Klingons to release some unreleased ships (i.e. some of Far Stars and some of the Home Fleet) when certain things happen would also be helpful, as noted above. Maybe something like "If any planets in the Lyran Capital are devastated, Far Stars will release 6 ships (just define those ships--CA,, 2xDD, 3xFF or something)" and something similar for the Klingons and the Home Fleet (if any Klingon Major Planet is captured or a SB destroyed or something).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 11:30 am: Edit

I think a way to help with the civil war problem (which I agree can be a problem) is to allow the Lyran player to (after crippling ships in a fleet) select 6 crippled defense factors (per fleet) worth of ships to destroy. Left over points must be applied to the next fleet chosen, with leftover points on the last fleet chosen being used to destroy any ship of the Lyran player's choice without regard to number of points to kill.

Possibly let the Hydran player choose what is destroyed in the EB Fleet and the Kzinti player choose what is destroyed in the Red Claw Fleet.

If so, do it in this order: Hydran, Kzinti, Lyran player (for Home Fleet and Far Stars Fleet).

Needs better phrasing though.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 01:58 pm: Edit

That would probably work too.

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