Archive through February 20, 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 February 20, 2014
By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 09:42 am: Edit

Thomas wrote:
>>Peter, the mothball activations for the Klingons are very relevant to them. >>

It is not relevant to the playing of the *scenario*. Again, it is a rule that could just be "The Klingons lose 4EP a turn starting on y159", and it would have no difference at all on the playing of the game.

>>Chuck is very correct in that as a historical scenario we need to get it right.>>

Sure. If it is important to have historical consistency across scenarios, then it is worth fixing. But in terms of playing this actual scenario, it is completely irrelevant.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 11:35 am: Edit

The D4/F4s are subsumed into the background and do not require any comment in 4PW.

I am not going to delve further into the early/middle years stuff at this time so please don't ask or assume anything beyond this as I don't have time to do so.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Peter, the mothball activations have political consequences not seen on the western half of the map except along the Federation and Klingon border. Taking EPs away from the Klingons will not balance the scenario properly.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Thomas wrote:
>>Peter, the mothball activations have political consequences not seen on the western half of the map except along the Federation and Klingon border. Taking EPs away from the Klingons will not balance the scenario properly.>>

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

In this scenario, the 4PW, there is a rule. It states that starting on a given turn, the Klingons need to pay to activate and send ships to the Romulans. In regards to the actual playing of the actual scenario, the specifics are almost completely irrelevant. The composition of the mothball fleet is almost completely irrelevant. What ships are activated is almost completely irrelevant. The counters are never put on the map. What mothball ships are activated or not is almost completely irrelevant. As noted, the "mothball activation and sending ships to the Romulans" aspect of the scenario could be completely replaced with just a rule that subtracted 4EP from the Klingons every turn, and it would have the same effect on the game (i.e. all the activation of mothballed ships that the Klingons do in this scenario does is make them lose money. Which is fine. But that is the only effect it has).

The political consequences aren't relevant to the scenario. What mothball ships are sent to the Romulans aren't relevant to the scenario.

Yes, I realize that in the name of consistent history, making sure it is F5s instead of E4s is a reasonable change to the scenario. And in the *incredibly* unlikely instance that the Klingons have their Capital attacked in this scenario, yes, what ships are left in the mothball fleet *might* be possibly vaguely relevant (in the sense that they might get activated before the scenario ends). But still, in regards to this scenario, what specific ships get activated and sent to the Romulans is almost completely irrelevant in every way, except in so much as it costs the Klingons money.

I have no problem with the want to tweak this particular rule to make the scenario reflect the established history. Which has already been done, and that is fine. My initial comment on this was based on "Huh. Is this even worth worrying about?" as, in regards to the actual playing of the actual scenario, it really isn't (as again, except for costing the Klingons 4EPs a turn, the specifics are irrelevant). But ok. Change the wording in the name of historical consistency. Which is fine.

That being said, and me really not trying to be combative here, I have no idea what you are trying to suggest is relevant. In the game. I'm not talking about the imagined history. I'm not trying to indicate that the Klingons should not have to pay 4EP to "send mothballs to the Romulans", as taxing the Klingons 4EPs a turn is totally reasonable. I'm just indicating that in terms of actually playing this scenario, the specifics are, in all likelihood, completely irrelevant.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Political consequences are relevant to the scenario. The Kestrels forced the Federation to transfer ships back to the Romulan border allowing the Klingons to concentrate on the Kzintis and Hydrans. See (607.0), text included: Trying to remain out of the war, the Federation (in Y158) threatened the Klingons with attack, but the Klingons countered with the Treaty of Smarba, vastly increasing the Romulan threat to the Federation and eliminating the Federation threat to the Klingons. The result was that even more Klingon units were released for the war with the Hydrans and Kzintis.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 02:17 pm: Edit

That's all interesting Turtle, but the key point is this I think: What are you suggesting be done to the scenario? If it is 'nothing', then this discussion doesn't matter, as it's the scenario we're working on (I think).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 03:03 pm: Edit

It may become a relevant issue in adjoined scenarios of the future so it will be included in the final recommendation to ADB.

This issue is closed.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>It may become a relevant issue in adjoined scenarios of the future so it will be included in the final recommendation to ADB. >>

Which is excellent. The scenario already changed the wording so that they are activating F5s instead of E4s. Everything is perfect there. That doesn't, however, make me understand what Thomas is talking about.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Thomas wrote:
>>Political consequences are relevant to the scenario. The Kestrels forced the Federation to transfer ships back to the Romulan border allowing the Klingons to concentrate on the Kzintis and Hydrans. See (607.0), text included: Trying to remain out of the war, the Federation (in Y158) threatened the Klingons with attack, but the Klingons countered with the Treaty of Smarba, vastly increasing the Romulan threat to the Federation and eliminating the Federation threat to the Klingons. The result was that even more Klingon units were released for the war with the Hydrans and Kzintis.>>

Yes. But what does any of this have to do with the scenario that is being worked on here? The Romulans are not part of this scenario. The Federation are not part of this scenario. The result of these ships being activated and sent to the Romulans have no impact on this scenario.

You are talking about something involving the large scale, imagined history of the Star Fleet Universe. I'm talking about a rule in a scenario of a game and the impact it has on that game. Which, as far as the scenario is concerned, could just as much be "The Klingons lose 4EP per turn to represent sending ships to the Romulans" as it is specifying which ships are sent. And the result is the same. In so far as the game being discussed here is concerned.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 04:09 pm: Edit

I thought I closed this issue -- was I somehow not clear?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 04:21 pm: Edit

The issue is closed. I'm not debating the issue. I'm totally happy with the resolution. All works great.

I'm just still trying to figure out what Thomas is trying to suggest.

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeril) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 09:12 pm: Edit

What if the Hydrans cuts off Klingon SR movement path from 1411 to Rom main grid? I think this is possible in this scenario.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, February 01, 2014 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Then the Klingons are penalized for not sending ships to the Romulans. Probably a good idea to not let the Hydrans do that.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 08:52 pm: Edit

So there seems to be some ambiguity in the rules in regards to the Hydran Supply Tug (509.5). There is nothing in the scenario that indicates that they have this available, and as (509.5) indicates that the Supply Tug is in the Expeditionary Fleet (which the Hydrans don't have in this scenario), I suspect that the intention is that they don't get this special tug (especially given that the Expedition isn't a possibility for the Hydrans in this scenario). But that should probably be made specifically clear.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, February 16, 2014 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Does FH roll for shock on 2d6 (shocks on a 12)? Most shock ships (other than maulers, perhaps all) do this.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 17, 2014 - 05:03 am: Edit

Yes -- shocks on 12 with 2d6.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 17, 2014 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Now that we are on the last turn, here is another possible thing that would make the last turn/sudden death ending of the game behave with a bit more sense:

Make it so that ships that end the scenario in enemy space and out of supply count as destroyed for victory purposes.

It is too easy for the Alliance to, on the last turn, send ships into what would be suicide attacks at any other part of the game, but 'cause there is no next turn, leaving ships deep in enemy space, cut off from supply, just to kill another BATS or whatever, is too attractive.

There isn't really a reasonable way to make the Kzinti, like, have to have ships ready to defend their capital (assuming the war continued), but at least preventing them from leaving dozens of ships out of supply at the end of the scenario seems reasonable, for my money.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, February 17, 2014 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Wow Peter. I was just about to post the same idea. It seems obvious to me as well that this is a problem. :-)

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 17, 2014 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Heh--I mean, to be fair, in this instance, it is only getting you an extra BATS, but it could be much worse.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - 11:38 pm: Edit

After the list of ways to get victory points:

Units disrupting and capturing provinces/planets at the end of the game must be in supply to collect these points.

*The reference to provinces should probably be deleted - no victory points are awarded (atm) for captured provinces at the end of the game.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - 11:49 pm: Edit

Should their be a penalty at the end of game for starbases lost and not replaced? I suggest -8 (or -5 if replaced by BATS or -6 if replaced by BS).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 09:38 am: Edit

Yeah, I'll reiterate the idea that ships that end the scenario (i.e. at the end of Alliance T11) out of supply and in enemy territory count as destroyed for the purposes of victory.
FEDS: CONCURS - will add.

At the end of our current scenario, the Kzinti have left about 80 ships cut off, out of supply, and stuck behind Klingon lines (along with 35 some odd Hydrans also cut off and out of supply), while leaving their Capital completely undefended with 75+ Lyrans in range of it (i.e. if the scenario continued at this point, the Kzinti would certainly get their Capital captured). Which is how things happen in sudden death scenarios, but at least providing disincentive to send ships on suicide missions out of supply to kill a few more bases would be a good plan.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 09:42 am: Edit

>>Should their be a penalty at the end of game for starbases lost and not replaced? I suggest -8 (or -5 if replaced by BATS or -6 if replaced by BS).>>

FEDS: how about this…

each enemy SB NOT replaced within the original province: 8
each enemy SB destroyed but replaced with MB/BS within the original province: 6
each enemy SB destroyed but replaced with BTS within the original province: 4


This makes sense. But note that VPs for missing basses are awarded to the other side rather than subtracted from the side missing the bases, which makes a difference for victory calculation.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 12:17 pm: Edit

FEDS: Can you guys recalculate your VPs based upon the above changes?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 01:42 pm: Edit

I'll go do the math with the SB changes (I think it is going to give the Coalition net +8, which won't change the end result, but certainly helps).

I'm not going to worry about the out of supply ships, however, as that would suddenly make the Coalition have an astounding victory (80+ Alliance ships instantly are vaporized!) when the Alliance clearly would have not put those ships in those positions had it been something to worry about :-)

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