Thanks gents for a couple of years of vicarious entertainment!

As for updating the victory conditions, it's obvious some thought needs to be given to revising the timing of the end vis-à-vis the VP calculations. Even with a known end date, which allowed the Alliance to gain an unrealistic number of victory points on their last turn, the Alliance was still well behind the Coalition on T34. Had a random ending been used, they would not have occupied so many Coalition provinces all over the place, so would have been even further behind in VPs had the game ended randomly (on a roll of 1) on T34.

Taking this game for example, I don't see a "break even" point in VPs attainable unless the game goes to T36-38. If the war were to end any earlier (T31-T35), it likely guarantees a Coalition victory. If it ends much later (T39+), it most likely results in an Alliance victory.

So how to address that dynamic, where victory is largely dependent on when the game ends on the random roll of a die? The current system is not satisfying. Perhaps some kind of VP handicapping system is in order, depending on when the game ends. Maybe award the Alliance bonus VPs if the game ends "early", while subtracting Alliance VPs if it ends "late."

Or perhaps institute some other dynamic to the end date? Perhaps the Coalition could sue for peace, offering VPs as incentive. Or institute a VP bidding system, dependent on end date.

While I'm not sure what system would be best, I know the current one is not it.

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Sunday, February 16, 2020 - 06:39 pm: Edit

ARCHIVED TO THIS POINT.

Peter,

Can you email the JPG for the maps you posted? Email in profile.

Thanks

Ryan

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, February 16, 2020 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Jason

Please let use know what specific rules and unit types that you guys didn’t use.

No need to list any playtest rules.

Thanks

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, February 16, 2020 - 08:39 pm: Edit

We used 2K10, CO, FO, AO rules and ships.

We did not use:

-Ship captures.
-Orions of any type.
-SFG
-77th PF/23rd FiCon Division
-SAFs
-Monitors
-Ground Combat
-Prime Teams
-Police Ships (except to counter raids).
-Swarms
-Logistic Task Force
-Penal Ships

Most of these were to avoid extra fiddly phases online, and things taken out to balance other things taken out. The real significant things we opted out of were SFG, SAF, Penal Ships, Ground Combat (mostly pro Coalition); Monitors, Police Ships, LTF (mostly pro Alliance). The rest were mostly a wash.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, February 16, 2020 - 08:55 pm: Edit

565 pages if anyone is interested.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, February 16, 2020 - 10:09 pm: Edit

How'd you like X-ships and XTPs?

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 12:22 am: Edit

X Ships are great for the Coalition. Not much for the Alliance.

The YIS is brutal. And the Feds are way behind the Coalition in making powerful X Ship BGs. The other Alliance empires couldnt afford to build many at all.

Peter ended with double the number of X Ships at the end of the game. And was able to spread them out nicely.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 03:16 am: Edit

As so few games get to the end, perhaps a good question to ask is

"Do both sides feel the end of game VP position to be a fair assessment of how both sides played?"

i.e. the Alliance player might say 'The Coalition played perfectly and got the right amount and luck and bad luck - and the Alliance didn't play as well - and therefore the Coalition VP win should have bigger!' - or 'yep, a modest 150 VP win seems fair to both sides'.

(and to be fair 'The Coalition played terribly, never got any luck - and the Alliance played perfectly, so it should have been an Alliance win'!)

In addition, although probably tougher to quantify - which turns did both sides like the most (i.e enjoyment factor)?

As mentioned on the other topic, my concern in the game ending early, is the Alliance loses out on the 'counterattack fun' - which may or may not be important and relevant.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 08:07 am: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>How'd you like X-ships and XTPs?>>

X-ships are fun. The XTP math is kind of minimal, so not a hassle, and once you figure out what the X-ships actually do, they are pretty seamless (i.e. figure out battle line, subtract a little EW, vaporize 1-6 fighters, x-maul somethng). I don't know that they vastly changed anything dramatically, however. Like, once or twice, there was an all X-ship reserve force that got to move 7 hexes somewhere, but generally speaking, they were just there to make battle lines bigger, although the Alliance being able to X-maul does make their late turn combat much more interesting. And X-ships did allow the Hydrans to one shot a Lyran SB. So that certainly was a change.

As Jason notes, the YIS dates are just cruel, however. The Klingons get FXs 2 years ahead of the Fed getting FFX, so the Klingons get X Battlegroups 2 years ahead of when the Feds do (I kinda get the sense that the YIS dates were established before the Powers That Be decided that the Fed DDX counted as a SC3 ship for BGs...).

Jason built few X-scouts (I think the Kzinti had a CDX or whatever), as I think he was mostly just trying to maximize X hulls, so in instances where the Coalition had X-scouts, the Alliance fell behind in the EW war as well.

By the end of the game, the total XTP production of the Alliance was about identical to the total XTP production of the Coalition, but it took till the last turn for that to happen. Unless the Alliance is doing really well, the Hydrans/Kzinti/Gorn are likely never going to be able to field an X-BG (Gorn *maybe*). The Coalition will have plenty. The Feds can do it once they finally get to build FFXs.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 08:19 am: Edit

Paul wrote:
>>"Do both sides feel the end of game VP position to be a fair assessment of how both sides played?">>

Maybe? Sure? Like, I won by less than a 10% victory point margin, which seems fair, relative to how the game went. But again, it clearly all comes down to exactly what turn the game ends on. If the game ends on T33, I probably win a Major victory. The game ends on T36, it is probably a draw. The Alliance could have (if many things happened a little different earlier) been a turn or two ahead of that schedule, and changed the scale.

Like, if I were to judge my play and strategy/tactics, overall, a modest Tactical Victory (i.e. winning by less than a 10% VP margin) seems perfectly reasonable. I was very conservative the whole game; I didn't (or only rarely) did anything particularly risky; I decisively crushed the Hydrans, locked down their Capital with a pair of stabases (including an SBX when available) and PDUs, defended that heavily, and then never significantly threatened any other Capital. There was never a possibility (assuming nothing dumb happened) of me capturing 3 capitals, and most of the game was one of economic attrition and conservative holding of the things I got easily. No huge risks, so no huge victory. Seems reasonable.

>>In addition, although probably tougher to quantify - which turns did both sides like the most (i.e enjoyment factor)?>>

The whole game was a serious slog for the Alliance until the end; like, I can't imagine that Jason felt it was a grueling nightmare or anything, but the Alliance was certainly just constantly on the defensive till, like, T25 or so. They only started to push back and actually be able to make meaningful attacks (other than the occasional lucky BATS killing and the one time they killed a SB, 'cause I wasn't paying attention enough :-) during the last 25% of the game. And then just when they finally got to the exciting counter attacking phase, the game ended.

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 09:01 am: Edit

The main thing is each time the Alliance started to fight back the Coalition got new toys.

First was PFs. Then the XShips. Massive power shifts in favour of the Coalition.

Which makes sense. The Alliance catches up economically so these thibgs give the Coalition the boost to continue pushing.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 09:43 am: Edit

Peter and Jason

Thanks... unfortunately, this all adds to the concerns of if the game doesn't end on A34, there are significant game balance issues....

…. and not getting to Counterattack is probably the one thing which can't resolved easily .

It's like a boxer having to stand in the corner getting hit for 12 rounds and then being told the fight is over before they get to swing a punch!

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, February 17, 2020 - 03:46 pm: Edit

That is very much how it feels for the Alliance.

Spend the game getting smashed then when you finally get some toys the game is over.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 07:57 am: Edit

Paul wrote:
>>Thanks... unfortunately, this all adds to the concerns of if the game doesn't end on A34, there are significant game balance issues....>>

I mean, I do think this is probably an issue; if games generally swing like this one, the exact turn that the game ends on is likely to have a huge impact on the total outcome of the game; agains, for example, in this one, if the game randomly ended on T32, I probably win a Major Victory. If the game randomly continues to T36, I probably lose and the Alliance gain a Tactical Victory.

That being said, if the game was going to end on a random turn, things would have played out differently as well (i.e. the Alliance probably start taking risks earlier which may or may not work in their favor).

In a grand scheme, however, while the turn that the game ends on will likely have a significant imapct on the victory conditions, how well either side is doing will certainly too; if the Alliance is doing a little better, they are certainly going to be a turn or two ahead of the "counter-offensive" curve. If in this game, the Alliance was doing a turn or two better in terms of counteroffensive momentum (which is not at all out of the realm of reason), the Alliance certainly could have won a Tactical Victory when the game ended on T34, for example.

So yeah, the exact turn the game ends certainly will effect the overall outcome of the game. But how each side is doing certainly pushes the scale back or forward.

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 06:46 pm: Edit

I was certainly conservative from maybe T25 or T26 onwards when it became obvious that Peter was playing the safe game of getting an end of game victory, rather than finishing the game by taking Capitals.

If I didnt know when the game would end I may have started the tactical strikes in to Coalition territory, but I really dont think I could have done much until I got ship superiority, which only happened maybe T32.

Even at the end of T33A I had to stick heaps of the Fed X Ships near the Capital because I couldnt risk losing more SB or having planets raided.

Peter then wisely went nowhere near them so they were stuck doing very little on T34A.

By Trent J. Telenko (Trent_Telenko) on Sunday, November 08, 2020 - 11:08 pm: Edit

>>As Jason notes, the YIS dates are just cruel, however. The Klingons get FXs 2 years ahead of the Fed getting FFX, so the Klingons get X Battlegroups 2 years ahead of when the Feds do (I kinda get the sense that the YIS dates were established before the Powers That Be decided that the Fed DDX counted as a SC3 ship for BGs...).


Yeah, I said what you described above to the Game Designer at the time that outlawing the Federation DDX X-battlegroup decision was made.

Five unanswered Klingon production and nine Coalition and Alliance combat phases of x-battle group combatant usage before the Feds get a shot to do the same with X-battle groups is utterly unbalancing in favor of the Coalition in the Y182 thru Y183 period. The spread sheet analysis is a pro-Coalition horror show.

When you crunch the numbers for combat rounds where the Klingon have a 20 COMPOT advantage in a X-BG battle force and also get the full six attrition unit automatic kills from X-battle groups in that Y182-Y183 period. It represents _440_ additional damage to the Alliance in Y182 & Y183 compared to non-X battle groups.

The Coalition X-BG damage numbers work out thus:

1. Assuming a average .25 damage, the extra 20 COMPOT from an X-BG over a non-X BG adds 5 damage points and six attrition unit damage points per X-BG per combat round.

2. If there are 10 combat rounds on both the Coalition (7 rounds) and Alliance (3 rounds) player phases in a turn where Klingon X-BG are engaged.

3. It works out to 50 general and 60 attrition unit additional damage to the Alliance per complete game turn. 4 X 110 = 440 damage points.

Points #1 thru #3 above were balanced by the Y182 Federation 6xDDX battle group in the original play tested A.O. release.

The game mechanics incentives for the Federation without Y182 X-BG combatant builds means there is literally no point in building less than five Fed CCX a turn -- three new, one converted and one overbuilt.

This is because of the superiority of a 12 COMPOT unit over a 10 COMPOT unit, especially since the CCX can lead a fleet as a DN.

Worse, the inability to turn Federation XTP into hordes of immediately usable and thus IMMEDIATELY EXPENDABLE X-BG combatants means the Alliance will not risk Federation CCX or DDX on the battle line versus Coalition X-mauling powered with X-BG COMPOT until it can.

That is, if the Federation will only put one CCX in a battle force formation protected position instead of a DNG or DNH. It loses five attrition unit damage a combat round in addition to the 5 less general damage at .25 from 20 less COMPOT compared to a Coalition X-BG line.

And, since a mauler in the formation position cannot use it's special ability, that means the Federation will not be using X-mauling for 40 rounds of combat on turns 28 Thru 31! So that eliminates all Alliance X-BG mauling and most Alliance X-ship attrition unit damage from the original A.O. play balance.

When you crunch those numbers, assuming 40 combat rounds over four turns, that is 400 less damage inflicted by the Alliance than the original play test balanced A.O. The combined effects of reduced Federation X-BG damage and X-Mauling represent 400 damage points and _40 EACH_ Federation 10 point one to one mauling damage strikes shift in the Coalition's favor in the turn 28 thru turn 31 game period.

Those 40 Federation X-Mauling combat rounds in Y182-Y183 were the "COMPOT Shock" I wrote about in the Captain's Log.

There are other opportunity costs from that damage shift for the Alliance. Those four over produced Federation CCX in the Y182-Y183 period burns through 96 Federation XTP which would have been used for X-battle group combatants. IOW, The four over built CCX would have bought six DDX and five FFX with a few XTP left over.

This represents both a huge shift in pin count as well as much lower Coalition PF attrition rate in what should have been the peak of the Federation counter offensives.

When I was involved on the F&E staff with the original A.O. We developed both the Federation CVBG and Federation Y182 X-BG to get exactly that effect. AO gave the Alliance both the COMPOT and additional automatic attrition unit damage to power through late General War PF powered fixed defenses.

When the Y182 Federation X-BG was removed. That ability was delayed until the FFX arrived in Y184...and incidentally gave the Klingon's X-Ship hull count advantage which was not there when AO was play balanced by the F&E staff.

There is literally no point in the F&E game timeline now where the Alliance player has the opportunity for the real fun of strategically planning, building and executing overpowering assaults on Coalition capitol fixed positions.

The result of the Game Designer's outlawing the Federation 6xDDX X-BG was exactly the "lack of a fun payoff" for the Alliance player in the Turn 25-to-Turn 35 period that was the whole reason the Federation 3rd Way and 6xDDX X-battle groups were invented in the original Advanced Operations.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, November 11, 2020 - 03:30 pm: Edit

Yep, good analysis Trent. I came to the same conclusion (though I never wrote out as good of a synopsis as you did), and ruled that the 6xDDX battlegroup was legal. Most of the issues went away.

Though I still have some concerns on the valuation of the various X-cruisers though. I mean, yes, the FHX (14)is better than the DX (13), and the DX is better than the CX (12), but is the FHX really 2 pts better than the CX?

In the base rulebook of F&E, there is a statement on the valuation of ships that basically reads "The Lyran DW is clearly superior to the CL, but as both are superior to the DD (valued at 5), and both are inferior to the CW (valued at 7), they were both then valued at 6."

It makes me wonder if the total range of X-ship values should have been narrower, instead of linear, either with the least valued given a slight boost or the most valued toned down a bit.

The Feds with 13 pt CX's and battlegroups of 6 DDX is a fearsome thing, just at the point in the game where the Federation is supposed to be fearsome.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, November 13, 2020 - 02:01 pm: Edit

What was the official reason given?

From a game point of view - I am guessing so few games get to turn 26 (and not all use AO), that this PF style game effect (on Crack Cocaine) hasn't come up often enough?

Certainly 6 X-Ships are better than 5 X-Ships....

(As the Feds could field 5 DDX's 2 turns after the Klingons field a X-Battlegroup of 6 FX's)

So
Klingon X-Battlegroup for 2 turns....

Klingon X-Battlegroup (with DX's) for 1/2 a turn..

Klingon X-Battlegroup v Fed 5 X-Ships for 1 1/2 turns

X-Ships all round then....


The two DX led turns seems to be the problem?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, November 21, 2020 - 09:22 am: Edit

This is an interesting discussion that probably should be somewhere more relevant--not that it is a problem being here, but if it were in a more obvious spot, it would probably attract more notice.

I certainly agree that the lack of Alliance BGXs is problematic, but not an overwhelming disadvantage; as noted elsewhere, if the Feds are doing ok late in the game, they can make a lot of CXs quickly, and a line with 6CX (and then SCS/whatever) is going to still be terrifying, and 6CX is as many X ships as you need for maximum X effect (kill 6 fighters, -3EW, you can maximum X maul with a single 10 point X ship on the line).

It seems likely that the obvious thing to fix here is allow Fed DDX to be a small ship in a BG (so the Feds can make the 6DDX BGX at a reasonable point in the game), as was likely the plan when AO was originally envisioned. But I can't imagine that anyone is going to be convinced that this is a good idea over here in this small corner of the BBS :-)

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Monday, November 30, 2020 - 01:19 pm: Edit

It sounds like the game balance problem is maybe not the actual game, but that VP's assume that the game will end at a particular time (and AT34 seems about right, from the way this one ended.) I've obviously never played with X ships, so I won't comment on all of that.

The VP scale pretty much assumes that the Coalition is the aggressor and has to "make progress" to not lose. If you want to give the Alliance time for a potential counteroffensive during the time in the game they are advantaged, you'd have to take that into account in VP.

By Trent J. Telenko (Trent_Telenko) on Monday, November 30, 2020 - 06:30 pm: Edit

>>If you want to give the Alliance time for a potential counteroffensive during the time in the game they are advantaged, you'd have to take that into account in VP.

AO was balanced so the Hydrans had a realistic chance of retaking their homeworlds.

It isn't in the game now.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, December 03, 2020 - 02:03 am: Edit

Trent

What was that 'rule'.… only thing I can remember was the 2010 change on Dual Bases - which in theory does make it easier to attack 617?

A sensible Coaliton just keeps them pinned out of 617 though and no SBs are needed...

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, December 03, 2020 - 12:23 pm: Edit

My recollection is that the presumption in the 617 counterattack/dual base discussion was that the coalition had pulled all their decent ships out of Hydran space, stopped sending reinforcements, and were actually outnumbered without the bases on Hydrax. Otherwise, as you say, it's obviously hopeless.

The problem was, even with more ships and vastly better ships for the Hydrans; 2xSB+10xPDU with PFs and fighters on the bases and PDU made the attack effectively impossible even against mostly trash coalition fleets, even if the Hydrans had almost every ship they could possibly have built in the offmap during the game + some survivors from pre-war.

So even if the dual base rule doesn't force the coalition to actually lose Hydrax, it does mean they need to keep sending ships to the running sore of Hydran space and keep losing multiple ships every alliance turn to pin battles against multiple Hydran fleets rather than the creative alternative where they build defenses and then ignore the theater almost entirely and STILL hold Hydrax easily.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Thursday, December 03, 2020 - 01:50 pm: Edit

If the Alliance is almost inevitably going to gain ground from having another turn, why not just have the game end on A34 or after any Alliance turn thereafter that the Coalition player wishes?

You get to the end of A34 and the Alliance didn't overextend? Well, the Coalition isn't getting a better deal next turn. You get to the end of A34 and the Alliance attacked everything they could without regard for repair or losses? Well, the Coalition can certainly capitalize on that.

The effect of this would be that the game almost always ends on A34 without the unfortunate unrealistic last turn. Allowing the Alliance to end the game after Coalition turns C35 or later would probably never be used (the Alliance has probably already lost if it's in the Coalition's advantage to keep the game going), but should probably also be in there for completeness.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, December 03, 2020 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Sam

Not sure what your saying?

The game should never ever ever end after the Coalition turn - going first each turn is a massive advantange - getting an extra turn on top of that I think would break what little chance the Alliance have of winning.

The game ending after turn 34 is perhaps the only major rule benefit the Alliance gets in how the game runs.

Changing that would need other changes : -

The Historical Coalition failed attack on the Wyn (no actual rules for this)

The Historical Coalition failed attack on the Tholians (the Tholians are either ignored or pretty much die in one turn)

So - just leave it ending after A34 seems to be the better option....

(assuming your either not playing with X-Ships or the proposed DDX changes occur )