| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 05:29 pm: Edit |
Based on my extensive SFB play I feel that the odds of capturing ships should be increased under the right circumstances. Particularly in large fleet battles it is possible, in SFB, to completely overwhelm a ship with boarding parties in a single turn and even prevent the enemy from rolling self-destruct at all. Even then, the self-destruct roll is only 1-2, with usually less than a turn left before the defenders are completely overwhelmed. Overwhelming a target ship with boarding parties is difficult or impossible in small or even mid-size engagements, but in large fleet battles it is possible to cripple a ship at range, force the opposing fleet to abandon the crippled ship, and then completely overwhelm the cripple with boarding parties for the capture. No, it's not easy, but I've done it personally many times against skilled opponents.
Based on this experience I wanted to propose two ways to increase the probability of capture in F&E under the right circumstances. The proposal automatically takes into account the necessary large fleet sizes as well as the difficulty of pulling off this concerted maneuver. The proposal has two methods of increasing capture.
Process:
1) Identify a target, not in the form box, not the free scout, not in the support echelon, not an ISC protected core unit, and not behind a web. If uncertain, target identification obeys the normal directed damage rules and limitations.
2) Whether or not the identified target is crippled, if you use three times the damage points needed to kill the uncrippled unit, you increase the probability of capture from a "2" to "2-6" on 2D6. This probability is increased to "2-7" if the player qualifies for a bonus (such as if a G ship is on the line and not used for a G attack, or a PT has been validly assigned the marine mission).
3) Whether or not the identified target is crippled, if you use four times the damage points needed to kill the uncrippled unit, you automatically capture the unit.
4) In either case, a mauler reduces the number of damage points needed by the compot of the mauler, only.
5) In either case, an enemy target in stasis reduces the number of damage points needed by the combined crippled and uncrippled defpots of the target, only.
6) The effects of a mauler and stasis use combine.
Example 1: A Klingon player scores 50 damage. He notes a crippled BC on the Kzinti line, not in form. He wants to increase the probability of capture the Kzinti BC. The Klingon player uses directed damage, but uses 3*(8+4)=36 damage points and increases the probability of capture from a "2" to a "2-6" (or from "2-3" to "2-7" if a G ship or PT marine mission is present). The remaining 14 damage points fall normally.
Example 2: While defending against a capital assault Kzinti player scores 75 damage against a Klingon force including a D6M not in form. The Kzinti really would like to have a mauler for use in future Alliance turns. The Kzinti player elects to spend 4*(10+4)=56 damage points and use directed damage to automatically capture the mauler. The remaining 19 damage points fall. Note that had the mauler been crippled, it would still require 56 damage points to automatically capture the mauler.
Example 3: As example 1, but the Klingon player uses a MD5 mauler to aid in creating an increased capture chance. The MD5 has a compot of 7. Thus, the directed damage points needed to increase the probability of capture of the BC is reduced to 36-7=29.
Example 4: As example 1, the Klingon player uses a D6M mauler to aid in increasing the chances of capture, and has already validly placed the target BC in stasis. The directed damage points needed to increase the probability of capture of the BC is reduced to 36-10-12=14. "10" is subtracted because the compot of the D6M is 10. "12" is subtracted because the combined crippled and uncrippled defpots of the BC is 8+4=12. Alternatively, the Klingon player could automatically capture the BC using the D6M and the stasis (assuming the BC is placed in stasis) by using (4*(8+4))-10-12=26 directed damage points.
Comments?
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 06:20 pm: Edit |
I think a 2-6 is much too high. 2-3 or 2-4 would be a much better thing.
| By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 07:00 pm: Edit |
x2 damage gives you a capture on a 2 (may be modified) [Current rule]
Under the proposed rule x4 damage gives you an automatic capture, equivalent to a -10 to the capture roll.
x3 damage giving a -1 or -2 to the capture die relative to just directing it to death for x2 is out of line with x4 giving a -10 to the capture roll.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 07:30 pm: Edit |
There is more to capturing a ship than sending in Marines. You have to get it off the board with the enemy wanting very much for that not to happen. The proposal fails to account for that, so the odds are much less than you think they are.
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 07:31 pm: Edit |
2-2 = 02.777%
2-3 = 08.333%
2-4 = 16.667%
2-5 = 27.777%
2-6 = 41.667%
2-7 = 58.333%
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 07:46 pm: Edit |
SVC,
Is the basic premise of the proposal (using more directed damage to increase your capture chances) DoA? Or are you possibly interested in tweaking the numbers in my originally worded proposal?
Thanks for considering.
[EDIT] Everyone else, thanks for your input. I want to make it sensible and workable if it's accepted.
| By Eric S. Smith (Badsyntax) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 08:17 pm: Edit |
Dropping the mauler/stasis special rules, and leaving a flat 3x damage, I kinda like it. I just think those specialized systems would require more coordination than is possible in combat to combine in order to net another ship (maulers are all about damage, not capturing). Plus, the coalition will be using it all the top to avoid letting the enemy take fighter damage, and instead capture half their ship kills, many of which will be CA type hulls. Just my two cents.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 08:26 pm: Edit |
I just don't see the odds increasing in a fleet battle. The enemy can counter your every move. Your basic premise is just wrong.
As for spending more damage points to increase the odds, the enemy could also spend damage points to counter that. I'm not sure that kind of bidding war is a good idea.
Not DOA but not convinced you have anywhere to go.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 08:55 pm: Edit |
SVC, thanks for reviewing again.
Quote:I just don't see the odds increasing in a fleet battle. The enemy can counter your every move. Your basic premise is just wrong.
As for spending more damage points to increase the odds, the enemy could also spend damage points to counter that. I'm not sure that kind of bidding war is a good idea.
Not DOA but not convinced you have anywhere to go.
Your assessment of maulers is not correct. Maulers are not just all about damage, but also anchoring with large battery reserves.
Quote:Dropping the mauler/stasis special rules, and leaving a flat 3x damage, I kinda like it. I just think those specialized systems would require more coordination than is possible in combat to combine in order to net another ship (maulers are all about damage, not capturing).
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 08:56 pm: Edit |
True the Coalition will use it to avoid losing damage to fighters, at least where the Coalition isn't planning on staying. However, the Alliance can use it to increase the change to have maulers, which is a major boon to them.
Quote:Plus, the coalition will be using it all the top to avoid letting the enemy take fighter damage, and instead capture half their ship kills, many of which will be CA type hulls. Just my two cents.
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 09:05 pm: Edit |
What your not taking into consideration is the other half of what SVC said.
You may have captured the ship in a single SFB battle, but the original owner is going to try and get it back (or destroy it) during that SIX month turn period.
The scenario may be over, but the campaign isn't.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 10:45 pm: Edit |
True, but possession is 9/10 of the law.
All I'm saying is that it stands to reason that it's easier to capture ships in large scale battles. At least, that's my experience.
IMO some version of the rule makes sense. IMO rejecting the rule makes sense.
I think what is more important is whether this rule makes the game better by adding additional tactical flexibility.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 01:07 am: Edit |
Actually I said nothing about six months. I was talking about within the same SFB battle, which remains an unresolved issue. The premise of more captures doesn't fly. Still doesn't fly.
| By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 06:01 am: Edit |
While agreeing with Ted that captures are more common in large SFB battles than in F&E, I'm wary of the strategic effects of more captures. So I'd chalk up the difference as just another one of the artefacts of the different system and scale, similar to the number of ship kills, the power of maulers or the value of fighters.
| By Eric S. Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 08:55 am: Edit |
Also, the way SFB games are played will differ from F&E battles.
For example, if you knew you'd be fighting that captured ship in the next game with the same forces, would you let it be captured as easily? Would you throw all your marines on it and leave your other ships so easily captured themselves?
There is often a serious disconnect with players who are playing one-off scenarios vs scenarios where the forces have something invested in the outcome, and some reason to stay alive.
I'm betting there aren't many captains who would hang around after the first salvo that goes through the shields. Both sides would probably disengage, and surely whoever took the worst of that first salvo would. Fighting to death is something neither side wants. Heck, I'd bet they'd "show their colors" and both captains would agree who won, and who is leaving, as a professional courtesy. Even in large battles, once somebody turns on their navigation lights and stops shooting/beaming, it is no longer a target (and it'd only take seconds to leave anyway)
Heck, capturing ships may not be a strategic goal at all. It is cost prohibitive to refit it, you have to deal with prisoners, foreign parts, the fact none of your crews want to be on it, and often times you loose hundreds of marines when the target explodes (from self-destruction or the opponent doing it to avoid loss).
I'd like to see more captures in the game, but only with a *massive* resource expenditure, and only if both sides choose a '4'. Say each G on the line is -1 to the capture roll, and all of which can be directed upon at 1:1 or something. Basically if you really really want a ship, you should be able to get it, but it should cost you... a LOT, and there should always be a reasonable chance it just explodes anyway.
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 08:58 am: Edit |
Oh sorry, my bad.
My experience with captures in large fleet battles in SFB is pretty close to Ted's. But I guess I'm thinking more long term.
I don't see a reason why (from an SFB viewpoint) it wouldn't work, but I certainly can see one from a "big picture" perspective why it wouldn't.
| By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 09:43 am: Edit |
In my games I have used a very simple rule adjustment to increase ship captures.
If you direct to destroy a ship, you get a bonus of one to your capture attempt.
Thus if a ship is self killed, capture range is 2 (on two dice)
If directed to destroy: 2-3
Directed with troopship handy: 2-4
Directed in pursuit with troopship handy: 2-5
I found that to work just fine, without cluttering up the ruleset. I did also change how captures ships are used, but that's not relevant to this discussion.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 10:52 am: Edit |
That's probably too many captured ships.
| By John de Michele (Jdemichele) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 11:09 am: Edit |
IMHO, ships are captured too often already. After all, Anarchists are rare in the historical record.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 12:05 pm: Edit |
Seeing as how SVC is dubious regarding the proposal I just assume let the matter drop. I have no interest in being argumentative.
It was simply an idea based on my personal experience in SFB. If it doesn't fly for F&E, it's not a big deal.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 12:05 pm: Edit |
I didn't read everything posted in this topic but I'll just toss out a few thoughts.
Captures happen, IMO, mostly only when there is a disparity in ship size between forces. This disparity can be temporary which is why captures can happen more in large fleets battles.
By disparity I mean, for example, a cruiser vs. a frigate. In a fleet action it is easier to have a situation where for a turn or two in an SFB battle you can have a couple ships (or more) gang up on one while still maintaining the general fleet action.
Captures would almost never happen with squadrons (three or four ships) of equal size or with one on one encounters unless you are looking at a full cruiser vs a frigate or something.
If there was some sort of increased capture rule besides a direct method, I would think it should be based of force disparity and force size.
Or maybe it is already? BTW, I've not found that Troop Ships (themselves) help in captures that much. The only way is if they disperse their troops to other ships early in the battle. Troop ships do their best work against fixed/ground targets. Frankly, a Troop Ship in a fleet in open space is going to provide more capture resistance than capture ability (IMO).
| By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 12:12 pm: Edit |
Current capture is not a choice, it is random. I think you are getting too far away from F&E with the auto capture choice. As much as I agree with your SFB experience, we have already established there is no direct parallel between SFB and F&E. I suggest 3x1 adds one to the standard capture choice, 4x1 adds two, etc.
For a wrinkle why not add the following: you could put a marine ship in harm's way (a la the G attack risk where it becomes a bonus directed damage kill choice for the opponent) for an additional +1 (in addition to the standard +1 for the presence of a marine ship in the battleforce).
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 12:25 pm: Edit |
Loren, F&E has a straight up capture chance of "2" on 2D6 for capturing one of any ships killed in a battle round. This number can be modified by 1 by a G ship or a PT marine mission. The number can be (additive) modified by 1 during a "pursuit battle" where the enemy is disengaging. Those are the only modifiers.
The proposal's idea was to reflect in F&E my personal experience of increased capture chances in fleet battles due to the availability of overwhelming marines. The idea was to use more directed damage to increase the chances of capture, but so much would be required that only large fleets could generate the amounts required.
Eric, don't forget you can also scrap small FFs for 1 EP. You can also use a captured ship for a bonus to the die roll. Also, you are incorrect in your assumption regarding cost prohibitiveness, at least for any ship that is larger than a FF. The EP cost for conversion is 3, plus the cost of repair. It's cost effective to capture and convert many ships. If you're planning on overbuilding an FF it's more cost effective to repair and convert a captured FF instead.
Quote:Heck, capturing ships may not be a strategic goal at all. It is cost prohibitive to refit it, you have to deal with prisoners, foreign parts, the fact none of your crews want to be on it, and often times you loose hundreds of marines when the target explodes (from self-destruction or the opponent doing it to avoid loss).
Yes. But it remains true that the risk of capture is greater when it's possible to put a 100 marines on a ship for an instant capture. It's also incorrect to assume that doing so leaves you more vulnerable to counter-capture. After all, many of those marines can be beamed *back* to their ships after the ship is secured. Also, the odds of self destruction are nearly nil when you so totally overwhelm a ships' defenders. At least in SFB. The only hope the enemy has is friendly fire (and I have definitely seen friendly fire destroy captured ships).
Quote:There is often a serious disconnect with players who are playing one-off scenarios vs scenarios where the forces have something invested in the outcome, and some reason to stay alive.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 12:25 pm: Edit |
G Units and Prime Teams can modify the existing capture chance under the various F&E rules.
Also Prime Teams can steal valuable crippled ships using the E&S mission rules.
Therefore I don't think this is needed.
Comments as a player only.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 02:09 pm: Edit |
Unless the staff contacts me with support for the proposal I see no reason for this to continue, but I do commend Ted for having the guts to give it a try.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |