No No No Richard.... it clearly means the Alliance is starting to think of surrendering.

(Look, you have to got to look for even the smallest sliver lining's when the dice have been that evil!)

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 21, 2019 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Paul:

Sadly RNG is RNG. And it's a dice server so really crap just happens. Like for example in my current game, the dice server seems to love the Hydrans versus the Coalition, but most certainly does NOT like the Kzinti when fighting the Lyrans. The dice are kinda even when it's just the Klingons. Haven't really done enough Fed battles yet, but the server may like them too.

But man since the Coalition went Kzinti first, rolling back to back to back 1's really sucks when it's over your last fixed defenses! But it all evens out in the end really. Trying to justify "good" or "bad" dice is just going to drive you crazy. Just take the rolls for what they are and keep moving on. Maybe you overkill targets a bit more to make up for it if you have to, but getting hung up on it will only serve to remove your enjoyment of the game.

I often wondered if maybe there should just be a set number, so the only thing rolled is VBIR and stuff like ship captures and shock. Assume every combat die roll is 3.5 for example. So you just alternate between 3 and 4 every other round. But that would probably make it too easy to dial in the perfect line to kill targets with exact damage. Or maybe each player has six tiles, numbers 1 through 6, and each round you pick one and set it aside. It can't be used again until you use all 6. Could always do a rule that says you can never play the 6 tile for the first round of actual combat. I dunno, that's probably abuse-able too.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, October 21, 2019 - 12:45 pm: Edit

Or go the other way. Start playing F&E combat with a D12 with an intrinsic -2 to the roll and allowing the percentage to just keep going up if you max out at 10.... but if you rolled a "1" you'd end up with a -1 plus any reduction in VBIR.

That would be a nightmare of random damage! Heh. Sounds like a perfect layer of Hell for poor old Paul Howard!

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, October 21, 2019 - 05:05 pm: Edit

I would be happy to 'get close to the average' - perhaps in a face to face game, you could play with a stack of cards of each type of dice event.

i.e. Each Stack has 4 of each number - plus a re-shuffle card.

So 25 Survey Cards, 25 Combat Cards (Includes Marine Assault), 25 Capture Cards, 25 Persuit cards and where required, 25 Cloak Cards, 25 Shoock Cards and 25 SFG cards.

(Might be possible to combine some stacks - Persuit and Shock for example - as low is 'good' and high is bad).

On average - you will get average but the re-shuffle card will get some variability (you migtht get 1/1/1/1/Reshuffle for example).

You could split the decks in two and have the re-shuffle card in the bottom half to reduce extreme chances (several games do that).

Due to the amount of deck cards - probably not playable - and if does have the problem if you seen several good or bad cards go through, you might do certain combats first, but if a side had to declare the next battle hex prior to starting the current hex - that would reduce the chance of metagaming on the cards

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Monday, October 21, 2019 - 06:30 pm: Edit

Homeless ships -- the Feds want to support EIGHT Kzinti carriers next turn. They already have support for 8 Kzinti ships, including one carrier. A couple of things are unclear:

1) Can a "Noncarrier" line be upgraded to a "carrier" line for 1EP? Or do they have to cancel the old one and create a carrier line for 1.5EP?

2) Can a "carrier" line later be used to support a noncarrier?

This is one of those cases where the spirit of the rules would appear to answer 1EP and yes, but reading them like a math paper says 1.5EP and unclear.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 05:08 am: Edit

Mmm - I can see what your saying.

My gut reaction is 'I am not sure'.

410.52 infers once set up, the only way they can be changed is via being destroyed or supported by another empire (or own supply) - and 410.562 confirms when that can be changed.

410.563 confirms you can voluntarily cancel a line to support another empire.

So I am guessing there is two questions

1) Can an Empire voluntarily change the unit being supported, if it is of the same empire and doesn't meet 410.52 - and I am guessing no.

2) If you can change voluntarily - do you have to cancel line A and set up line B (so cost is 0.5 EP's for a new ship or 1.5 Ep's for a Carrier) - or just add on the Carrier surcharge.

If it was an involuntary replacement (i.e. 410.52 applied), my gut reading of the it would say you just pay the 1 Ep Carrier surcharge.

From 410.52, I get the feeling the idea is you can't keep changing the supported ships - unless that ship physically doesn't need to be supplied.

Probably a good question to ask in Q&A as neither 410.52 or 410.562 comes up in a search

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 09:26 am: Edit

Kzinti economy, turn 11

Survey roll 8
Survey total 113
Survey EP 10
Offmap 17
Scrap F5 1.5
Income 28.5
From last turn 18

Total Money 46.5

Repairs
Barony
L-BC, D6M, BT, 2CVS, 3CLE, 2EFF, TGC,TGT, SF 24

Builds
Shipyard (4/6) 15
FF 2.5

Conversion
Captured BC 3

Total spending 44.5

Money after Econ 2

Command points: 2+1=3 available

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 09:56 am: Edit

Hydran economy, turn 11

Survey roll 12
Survey total 85
Survey EP 8
Offmap 17
Provinces 1
Income 26
From last turn 2.5

Total Money 28.5

Repairs 2TG, SC, 10HR 20
Build CU 2.5
Conversion CU>SC 1

Total spending 23.5

Money after Econ 5

Command points: 2+1=3

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 10:04 am: Edit

Federation economy, turn 11

Survey roll 25
Survey total 46
Survey EP 4
Offmap 6
Capital 59
Planets 47
Provinces 60
NZ 1
Income 177
From last turn 5.35
Total Money 182.35

Repairs
Survey 8
2nd 2
3rd 4
4th 8
6th 1
7th 3
8th (inc. 2FRD) 20
9th 8
BATS 3212 2
BATS 2006 1
BATS 2603 1.5
Subtotal 58.5

Builds
10NCL 50
FFS 4
11FF 33
activate CA+DD+3CL+3FF 8
Skipped: DN, 2CA, 2NCL
Subtotal 95

Conversions
CA>CVS(FFF) 2
DD>DE 1
D6M 3
DD>DE 1
Subtotal 7

Homeless Kzinti (add 4 carriers and replace or upgrade 3 non-carrier lines, total 12 ships inc. 8 carriers) 10.5

Total spent 181.5
Remaining after econ 0.85

The homeless cost is pending Q&A. The Feds may be able to claim a 1.5EP refund.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 10:26 am: Edit

Just checking.... two Federation provinces which only have a Federation planet in also have 'liberators' (OK, yes Coalition) forces in - have you counted it as a Lost or disrupted province? (430.25 - PDU's don't effect provinces)

i.e. it should be 0 Ep's and you might have claimed 1 Ep for each of them.

Provinces with BATS in are only Disrupted.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 11:25 am: Edit

It was Orion. Traitors!

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 01:09 pm: Edit

anything atypical happen on the romulan front?

also, sometime when it wouldnt be hand-tipping, id be interested to hear paul's perspective on the effect of the extra starbases the feds built.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Chris

For those that have played Siege of Jerusalem (by Avalon Hill) - it's very much a Fortress Triangle.

I thought one would go down this turn due to keeping some Federation forces guarding the other key locations - but alas I had sent rubbish there - so a lot of pin, but no power - and by the time I realised the ability to outmanoeuvre had gone.

(i.e. if I had reinforced the attack, William could have reinforced the defence).

It has kept the Feds in the North West, but with the final destruction of Kzinti bases, I can now move East from the Marquis area, in force.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 06:28 pm: Edit

The strange thing about the Romulan front is what hasn't happened. There has not been a big battle where both sides came with large fleets and intended to fight to win. The closest we've come was a BATS battle where both sides had a more-or-less full line and the battle went three rounds.

This may mean that I have overdefended my SB during his turns. On my turns, it has meant that I've taken a look at the Klingons and the Romulans and decided to focus on the Klingons.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Inventoried the fleets as of after A11 builds. Numbers are uncrippled + crips. I ignored all mothballs. Frozen fleets and the unreleased IWR squadron did count.

Z: 56+11
H: 37+40
F: 203+12
G: 77+0

Alliance total: 373+63 = 436

L: 90+73
K: 199+172
R: 190+16

Coalition total: 479+261 = 740

For comparison, last game as of part way through C12 combat, it was 488+213=701 vs. 370+42=412. So their lead is 106+198 this time, compared with 118+171 last time. But the timings of the comparisons are off.

The Coalition will build 40-odd ships and repair another 70-odd, so even allowing for province raider pickoffs, this shows a bigger lead for them this game than last. That makes sense as they did a lot of self-killing last game.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - 04:22 pm: Edit

If any watchers want to help the game move forward, they could do worse than to chime in on the homeless ship questions in Q&A discussions.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - 04:27 pm: Edit

I think you need to get an official Q&A answer or resolve it between you and your opponent.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Given that this issue comes own to, like, a nickel (i.e. pay .5 to turn a non carrier line into a carrier line or not), I suspect the good move is flip a coin for one or the other, move on, and eventually it will be officially clarified.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - 09:10 pm: Edit

My opinions on that matter:

1) Yes and 1 EP. Clearly you are allowed to switch which ships use the supply line. If that ship was not a carrier last turn, but is a carrier this turn, then the 1 EP charge must be paid.
2) Why not? Just because the supply line can support a carrier doesn't mean it has to. It's a waste not to use it for a carrier, but you do what you have to do.

I saw you want to support 8 homeless carriers. That's all well and good, but don't forget you cannot escort said carriers with a different empires escorts. You must use escorts of the same empire. 8 carriers without escorts does not sound very useful (or safe) to me.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 03:03 am: Edit

Rob

Just to be devils advocate (and the first time I read it, I thought the same), no where in the rule does is say you can explicitly voluntarily change an empires homeless supplied ships.

Weird - I know, but perhaps few people use the rule to notice this issue.

410.52 states how you can change the supplied ship (Death, New Empire supporting it or becomes own supplied) and 410.652 when the change can happen...

...but strangely it's quiet on if there is an voluntary option to supply ship B instead of ship A of the same empire (i.e. in effect you can voluntarily change Gorn Ship A for Kzinti Ship B, by canceling Ship A's support line - but not Kzinti Ship A to Ship B, if ship a still needs supply) .

The other issue is can you transfer fighters from homeless supplied carrier to an out of supply carrier - to them claim replacement for the homeless supplied carrier.

My gut feeling would be 'no' - the homeless suppled carrier hasn't lost it fighters, but equally you would need to track fighters more accurately (which I am guessing SVC would say a big fat dead horse too).

Example
Kzinti CVS is out of supply but still had 2 Fighters on it.

A homeless supplied Kzinti CVE transfers it's fighters to the CVS...

...so you have 2 Fighters which are OOS and so worth 0.5/1.0 each and 3 fighters which are in supply, but are now on a OOS ship - so do they count as 0.5/1.0 each or 1.0/1.0 each?

William agrees that perhaps transferring the fighters to get 'free replacement' fighters is very much not in the spirt of the rules.

Perhaps when the rules were written, it was one of those things that wasn't though as being possible to occur - i.e. paying for several Homeless supplied Carriers (and indeed, perhaps wasn't an issue prior to 2010, due to the carrier counters being 2+ ships, and so there was a limit of say 4 3CVS groups being supplied - as you would need to supply all of it, or none of it).

All confusing stuff....which perhaps due to the rule being rarely used (it seems from the games in play), has never come up before.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 08:29 am: Edit

Paul,

I am referring to rule 410.511, note the bolded part:

---

Quote:

(410.511) If this cost is not paid, the homeless ship cannot draw supplies from the allied Supply Grid. The host need not pay the cost for all homeless ships, at least not all at the same time, and the host player may decide which ships are receiving the available support.

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 09:26 am: Edit

Rob - I believe that covers when the Supply line is set up.

i.e. - there are 8 ships out of supply.

I can afford to set up a supply line for 4 of them this turn - and as I need Scout support over combat ships, I declare the 4 Scouts as being supported.

The following turn, I can afford to set up a further 2 supply lines - so 2 War Cruisers get supplied.

So that covers off which ships get supplied and when.

410.52 - Perhaps there isn't anther way of changing the ships supplied through the Homeless ship rule - as otherwise, surely it would be just easier to say - At the start of each of your turns, you can freely change which ships are supplied and if ships do not require supply (and you give the examples - dead/home/other empire supporting them), the supply line remain and can be used at a later date - or cancelled and another Empires ships supported.

And the more I read that section - I think that it perhaps what we have missed - you can't freely change supported ships - hence why it specifies when you can change it.

All confusing stuff

P.S. Will copy reply to the Q&A Discussion topic as we have split the conversation.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Paul.

No, 410.511 does NOT cover when the supply line is setup. What it's telling you is what happens if you do not pay, or if you only partially pay.

This part in my opinion is the key:

---

Quote:

The host need not pay the cost for all homeless ships, at least not all at the same time, and the host player may decide which ships are receiving the available support.

---

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 03:02 pm: Edit

I'd also refer you to the SoP:

---

Quote:

1D5: Purchase and/or designate support lines for specific homeless ships (410.56) or forward defense units (536.15).

---

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat2) on Friday, October 25, 2019 - 09:31 am: Edit

The Q&A is now clear that the homeless carrier is a surcharge, not a different line. On top of that, I was double counting the cost of homeless ships (error in my spreadsheet). The corrected Fed econ is below:

Federation economy, turn 11

Survey roll 25
Survey total 46
Survey EP 4
Offmap 6
Capital 59
Planets 47
Provinces 58
NZ 1
Income 175
From last turn 5.35
Total Money 180.35

Repairs
2nd 2
3rd 4
4th 8
6th 1
7th 3
8th (inc. 2FRD) 20
9th 8
Survey 8
BATS 3212 2
BATS 2006 1
BATS 2603 1.5
Subtotal 58.5

Builds
12NXL 60
12FF 36
Skipped: DN, 2CA
activate CA+DD+3CL+3FF 8

Subtotal 104

Conversions

CA>CVS(FFF) 2
FF>FFS 1
DD>DE 1
D6M 3

Subtotal 7

Homeless Kzinti -- 4 ships + 8 carrier surcharges, total 12 ships inc. 9 carriers: 10

Total spent 179.5
Remaining after econ 0.85

Command points: 2+1=3