Archive through September 01, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Proposals Forum:
FOLDER: ways to kill more carriers:
Carriers Revisited:
Archive through September 01, 2019
I think you're stuck with directing one ship a battle round, escort or not.
An exception that multiple escorts are somehow easier to hit with directed damage than non group ships seems backward as they do offer each other some protection against seeking weapons and such.
I think it would greatly harm the use of carrier groups to allow multiple ships to be targeted, as then attrition could tend to kill more ships if they are in carrier groups than if not. I do not like this.
Gregory, I think you just described directed damage in SFB terms. If you meant something else, I missed the point.
Richard, rule (302.565) includes "[or the entire group]". This means you can direct damage at more than one ship in certain circumstances. It's already in the game. I sited and quoted the rule. So your point of "I think it would greatly harm the use of carrier groups to allow multiple ships to be targeted, as then attrition could tend to kill more ships if they are in carrier groups than if not." is invalid.
Your point of "An exception that multiple escorts are somehow easier to hit with directed damage than non group ships seems backward as they do offer each other some protection against seeking weapons and such." is invalid, too. I pointed out that "No changes are needed to (308.111), and a carrier is not an escort."
As a reminder, "(308.111) To cripple an escort by Directed Damage requires a number of Damage Points equal to twice the escort’s defense factor, plus one point for each escort in the group (including the escort under attack). To destroy an escort by Directed Damage takes the number of points required to cripple it plus twice the crippled defense factor. There is no “per escort bonus” if the escort is crippled." Nothing about my suggestion makes it easier to cripple any escort. They still get the escort bonus.
My suggestion is for a middle ground between directing at a single escort or the entire group which is what (302.565) says, and eliminating the requirement of destroying each escort before focusing on the next escort in line. If there is a 4CVA group and you generated enough damage points to cripple the three escorts, but not the whole group, you may cripple the escorts if you wish. If you generated enough damage to cripple the entire group, but not destroy the entire group, and have enough damage points remaining to destroy the carrier, you may cripple the escorts and destroy the carrier. There are other combinations possible, too, but I think I made my point.
CV groups will still be tough, just not as tough, and it would be possible to make the enemy withdraw the CV group faster to avoid losing the carrier itself. The point of this topic is ways to destroy more carriers, which my idea does. If the enemy withdraws the carrier from battle sooner than he would otherwise like, and keeps it out of battle due to an escort shortage, that's almost as good.
Only option which comes close to being okay for me is allowing more than one escort to be directed on in a single damage allocation.
It probably wont kill carriers any more than before but will take them out of action quicker.
Doing 40 damage to [SCS+2xHDWE+2xFF] is usually kill an FF and heaps of fighters. Next round the SCS is back with more fighters and 1 FF screening.
If you could kill both FF in a single go that makes things more fun.
Late game XShip Mauling for 40 damage would mean FF dies for 8, next FF dies for 14, HDWE is also crippled.
SCS is now in serious trouble.
That said, Coalition get Maulers from T2 and the Alliance carriers are very vulnerable early on. So this could be massively powerful for the Coalition.
Tes, I know that you can direct an entire group, but you can't normally otherwise direct multiple ships and it was probably put into the game as a way to otherwise kill unkillable carriers in extreme compot situations.
I don't really like that you can kill a whole group with directed damage when you can't otherwise kill multiple ships at once with directed damage (generally) but it is what it is.
I'm pretty sure it was put into the game to protect carriers. Without carrier groups working the way they do, everyone would DD carriers at every opportunity. Carrier groups simulate that you have to get through the escorts to hit the carrier.
The Wild Wild West game saw 2 or 3 carrier groups directed out of existence. Those being Kzinti groups of CVS+MEC+FKE where they were attacking Klingon/Lyran hardpoints that had compot totals up in the 130s+.
By contrast the Empires of the Dead game has seen 1 D7V group, 1 FV group, 2 SKB groups, and 1 SEB group along with 3 LAVs, and 6 SAVs die. That doesn't count the numerous escorts* that have died either voluntarily or by directed damage.
If you want to force carriers off the line, kill escorts. Under the 2010 rules which eliminated CEDS every dead escort can't be replaced until the next construction phase of the owning player.
I said when the 2010 rules first came out that escort management is going to be key to using carrier groups effectively. It still is. Using ad-hocs somewhat helps with the escort management issue, but those die even easier than true escorts as they don't get the bonus points for the number of escorts in a given group.
Smaller groups are even easier to kill. If you can force those on the line against a 90+ point fleet you can generally direct on the group to put it out of your misery.
* Example: 16 Kzinti EFFs and 3 FKEs have died over 9 turns.
John yes was my point. In SFB fleet battles I am always firing mass fire on one are two ships. The best targets are those with few EW points. That •••• CVA is going to have a high ECM.
You pick the best targets to cut down on the other sides fire power. So in latter turns you have a higher damage out put. Forcing the other fleet to disengage.
Thomas, in 30 turns against Peter we have lost a handful of escorts. We almost always use ad hoc FF.
Saves a heap of money for minimal loss of compot.
Jason, minimal loss of ComPot is subjective, but (515.34) seems more than minimal. 50% reduction in attack factor (or reduced by 3, which ever is greater) and no receiving or conveying the (308.111) benefit weakens the CV group and makes it more vulnerable to attack.
Gregory, do you ever play those SFB games with escorts already crippled or the CVA group already missing escorts, or maybe fighters? In other words do your SFB battles represent 2nd or later combat rounds in F&E? Also, if "yes" was your point, that means you like my proposal? I'm just trying to clarify.
I just noticed my original proposal didn't cover ad hoc escorts. (515.34) seems to have already done that.
For 4-point escorts, 515.34 is (usually) a pretty minimal penalty.
A Kzinti EFF is 2-4, while an ad-hoc FF is 1-4
In a CVS +MEC + (EFF or FF) group, directing the EFF in 14 damage (8 with a mauler), while directing the FF is 12 (6 with a mauler).
1 extra O-COMPOT and 2 extra points against dirdam is not a lot of benefit for the 1 EP cost.
There are a few 4-point escorts that are, IMO, worth the 1 EP:
Hydran AH (3-4) vs ad-hoc CU (1-4) - note that the Hydran tendency towards large carrier groups means a bigger escort bonus against dirdam
Lyran FFE (4-4) vs ad-hoc FF (1-4)
Romulan SEE, K4D, and SNE (each 4-4) vs ad-hoc base full (1-4)
Like I said, subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree.
A thought just popped into my head (will miracles never cease? 
) that might simultaneously address 2 "problems" some people express with regards to carriers and escorts.
What if a directed damage attack or CV groups could hit any and all ad-hoc escorts in addition to the outermost "real" escort?
Assuming availability of a 10-point mauler
CVS + MEC + EFF; directed damage options
1. 8 points to kill the EFF
2. 32 to cripple the entire group
(unchanged from current situation)
CVS + MEC + FF directed damage options
1. 6 points to kill the FF
2. 18 to kill the FF and cripple the MEC in a single attack
3. 26 to kill the FF and MEC in a single attack
4. 32 to cripple the entire group
This makes CV groups slightly more vulnerable without, IMO, massively changing the dynamics and it provides some incentive to actually pay the 1 EP surcharge for the lousy 4-point escorts.
I think your math is off. Ad hocs do not receive or convey the (308.111) benefit. The 2 cripplings of the entire group shouldn't be the same.
Do the escorts get that +1 defensive bonus, when the whole group is directed?
I thought that’s only for directing the escorts separately when you do not have enough points for taking on the whole carrier group.
That way the EFF and the ad-hoc FF would count as 4 point units in Jason’s calculations, as he crippled the whole group.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Soeren Klein
Wow - need to look into the other folders more often - missed this discussion.
So taking the point SVC wants more carriers to die, how to go about that and keep the game balanced?
Firstly - are more Carrier Groups dying now than they used to?
Accepting in some games, the right roll might be made and in other games, not - I think more carriers are dying, purely due to the average mid-war or later battle line has more compot than they used to (more speciality higher compot ships - DNL's for example and Interdiction Carriers - plus defensive forces, PGB's for example).
Therefore in some battles, the threshold level of Direct Killing Carrier Groups may occur more often and outside of just SB/Homeworld Assault battles - but is it too few games get to say turn 12, to evidence this?
But assuming too few Carriers will still die, what easily can be done?
In my opinion, four game dynamics have massively altered carriers
1) Flexible Carrier Groups - this has made it a lot harder to kill carriers - as generally Defensive Compot has gone up by more than Offensive Compot on the other side (a good example being the 3D6V group 16 DC to 19 DC uncrippled and a massive 8 DC to 11 DC if crippled, with an AD5 and F5E being added).
So option 1 - remove the ability to change escorts in a group and require them to keep the original historical escorts.
2) Ad Hoc Escorts - with the removal of CEDS, there has been a huge reduction in the value of Light Escorts - and therefore it costs less to build carrier groups than it used to.
Option 2 - remove Ad Hoc Escorts from the game
(Note this would require some Order of Battle Changes on the Kzinti)
Escorts HAVE to be built and therefore if you don't build escorts, carriers will only be usesable as FCR's or used at much higher risk with lower escort numbers (and the Command Slot ship penalty)
3) Better Carriers
CVP and CVD carriers - extra fighters on the line for everyone (bar Federation generally).
Being able to take 21 or more damage on fighters means mid war fights (with higher compot) means less permanent damage
(Accepting Federation has stupidly expensive better carriers and the Hydrans get Hybrid fighters - both where limited in numbers)
Option 3 - Remove or massively limit Improved Carriers.
Probably not going to do much, as it probably doesn't increase the CV kill numbers though - just more cripples.
4) CEDS removal
Have any carrier groups died, which would have been repaired at the end of the turn (via CEDS) but were left unrepaired and got caught up in the following turn combat?
I only say this as this very very nearly happened in my current game with William - and only by changing my battle strategy (escorting them and in effect pre-designing the retreat force (killing other cripples to ensure the 3 crippled Carriers would keep both of their uncrippled escorts).
So - has a Carrier died because it wasn't CEDs's repaired?
Option 4 - No change - just a comment at this stage!
Nuclear Options
There is perhaps one way to change the way players use carriers, or the will lose more Carriers - when directing on a Group - Allow the attacker to ignore any Ad Hoc Escorts.
So a CV+MEC+FF group could see the CV & MEC die for 52 (or 42 with a Mauler*) leaving the FF unscathed
Main value of using an Ad Hoc is to ignore the penalty of a missing command slot and to provide some protection an inner escort (if the Ad Hoc is the outer escort).
* I say nuclear option as removing the ability of Maulers to maul a part group would probably be needed - a Kzinti CVL group with a CL would only need 26 to kill (leaving the CL alive) with a 10 point mauler - and that threshold seems very very very low.
Persuit battles would also be more dangerous - a CVL+CL+ff for example would only need 18 to kill (leaving the CL alive) with a 10 point mauler.
The balance of the game would be massively altered - in effect the Alliance would lose more Carriers and until X-Ships (or a Mauler is captured) arrive, only the occasional additional Coalition carrier would die.
The other option, if Carriers are 'too good' would be to increase the cost of Ship born fighters for early fighters.
Turns 1 to 12 - Each Fighter Factor costs 3 Ep's
Turn 13 to 24 - Each Fighter Factor costs 2 Ep's
Turns 25 onwards - Each Fighter Factor costs 1.5 Ep's
Hybrid Fighters - probably keep the cost as it is - any slight increase in costs for Hydran ships is probably not good for game dynamics.
Doesn't directly increase the number killed - but would reduce the number of Carriers built.
Summary
The simplest option I think would be to remove Ad Hoc Escorts from the game (and so things like Convoys and SAF's would need Carrier Escorts), which indirectly will weaken carrier groups and may result in more dying, if you risk them.
Comments on other suggestions
Perhaps the easiest option is just to say, outside of IFF only forces, you can only eliminate up to 50% of Carrier** Fighters each combat round. More cripples will be taken, which occasionally will result in more carriers dying (as ships would be crippled and therefore more vulnerable in pursuit)
** - Game Dynamics probably require Hybrid fighters to be fully self killable too.
Again, makes fighters less valuable and so less carriers will be built.
That's probably enough ramblings for the moment!
Soeren Klein, I think you are correct. I missed "(308.101) A player retains the option to use Directed Damage against the entire group rather than using these rules." when referring to the rules. The key part I missed being "rather than using these rules".
My initial proposal suggested eliminating (308.1112) "Each escort could be crippled and/or destroyed, but only one escort can be attacked by these rules in each Combat Round and the smallest escort MUST be the one attacked as it is the only one that can be attacked." I missed this rule, too, but my proposal stands. This corrects that oversight.
Perhaps ad hocs should lose all AFs to make their use less simple a decision to make.
Soren, escorts do not get the +1 per escort if the whole group is directed upon. See (308.101). Only individual escorts get the +1 per escort and only if the escort in question is not crippled. See (308.111).
John, certain ships used as ad-hoc escorts would have a 0 AF, e.g. HNG 1-4G becomes 0-4. The G cannot be used if the HNG is used as an ad-hoc under (515.332).
Thomas, I get that. I'm building on the thought that some ships used as ad hocs are not so much less efficient than proper escorts that they are worth the cost of substituting or converting.
The Kz FF is a 4/2 ship and a 1-4/0-2 ad hoc. The EFF is a 2-4/1-2 escort. For the same cost you could have 4xFFs or 3xFFs and 1.5 EPs for other uses. The primary value of the EFF is as another set of shields and an added combat round for the carrier, not as a damage inflicter.
Similar can be said for the CM and MEC. Additionally, the standard hulls have more flexibility of use. Also, there is "(515.543) Escorts placed into a battle line but not in a carrier group have their attack factors reduced by one point. For example, a Federation FFE (4-5) would be treated as a (3-5)." It's better than an ad hoc escort's reduction of firepower, but is also an exposed premium value ship.
John
I would disagree on the CM/War Cruiser Hulls.
A MEC costs 6 Eps and provides 6 compot - and is fairly safe from dying (i.e. risked if the outer escort is killed/missing or the group dies).
A CM costs 5 Eps and provided 3 Compot (reduced to one half and round DOWN) if used as Ad Hoc - and can be killed for just 22 Damage - as Ad Hoc's can always be targeted and gain no bonus.
An MEC (and any escort) used as a normal hull would lose 1 compot.
The loss of 3 (or more compot - a Lyran CWE would lose 4 for example) is a lot to lose.
John, Escort crews have a well defined mission for which they are trained. Part of that training covers other engagements where they could be separated from their assigned carrier. Either by choice, or by circumstances beyond their control.
Ships assigned as ad-hoc escorts are thrust into a role they do not actively train for and which are typically at odds to their normal missions in fleet and squadrons battles.
Also keep in mind that SFB scenarios represent a single engagement and are balanced, while a single round in F&E can easily be 1 or 2 or even more engagements as part of a six month turn.
Even a phasing player's turn is just part of the full six month turn. There is still the non-phasing half of the turn to deal with.
Just a note, I gave up on "more carriers need to die" a while ago. Nothing works that doesn't work too well.
"Perhaps the easiest option is just to say, outside of IFF only forces, you can only eliminate up to 50% of Carrier** Fighters each combat round. "
That's kind of a neat idea!
Another is "Carriers must remain for another round of combat after the last of the fighters it supports is destroyed."
Those are arbitrary and seem to me to not really be justifiable in any sensible way.
Paul, I said similar, not the same, but point taken and thanks for the "round down" reminder.
Thomas, it sounds like you're supporting my position. I agree with your escort description, and ad hocs would have untrained for the job crews with inappropriate weapons to do the job.
What about my original idea?