Archive through December 29, 2021
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Reports from the Front:
Active Scenarios:
Where Terrible Things Happen:
Archive through December 29, 2021
So the name is stolen from Jon Murdock, who in the middle of the "And Now For Something Completely Different, Part Deux" thread coined the phrase "Federation and Empire: Where Terrible Things Happen." And Trent and I regularly quoted that deadpan whenever (in our prior game) some roll completely ruined someone's day/week/battle hex. So when it came time to name the new game it had the TAC seal of approval. Neither of us were really thrilled with my spur-of-the-moment reference from the last game. [It also probably cursed my maulers, which shocked out over 50% including 3 out of 5 on the last turn.]
We are running things back! This time I am playing the evil Alliance and Trent is the glorious Coalition fighting to unite the galaxy. Or divide the galaxy in a less complicated manner. Or what have you. We both have kitties on the team, so it is hard to figure out who the good guys are.
All the same rules, specifically a very mildly modified version of the rules Peter and Jason run, mostly deleting any AUX ships not used and replacing specialty hulls with the base hull:
"...most of CO, FO, and AO, but removing a few rules (as well as a couple from the base rule set). Looking at them all:
-From Base 2K10: Remove ship captures (don’t like having to remember). Add “you can always sub an FF” (i.e. you can always build an FF instead of any ship on your production schedule). Only Klingons get BBs (using B10 construction rule), except for Federation Reaction (from AO). No Orions in any capacity other than abstract smuggling.
-From CO: Remove SFGs, 77th PF Division, 23rd FiCon Division, Monitors, SAF, Ground Combat (replace all G ships with base hull; ignore G Aux ships), Prime Teams, Police Ships (except to react to raids; all POLs are compot 4).
-From FO 2016: Remove Swarms, Wild SWACs. Long Term Capture (mostly to avoid having to figure out map status).
-From AO: Ignore Admiral Quality (use regular Admirals); remove Logistics Task Force (Feds can build FDX like Klingons); Penal ships; use Fed Reaction (opting to use optional rule)."
Different from them, we will be using:
-Ships: Any ship not requiring RULES located outside the expansions noted is allowed if it is on the online SIT. This includes anything conjectural or not-actually-built, but not ships that do not have complete entries or which require rules located in expansions that aren't on the list.
As last time I am letting Trent have some balance points (I said 15-20, ended up being 17, sort of) to balance out the age-related advantage I have. That's what they're for, after all. However, he saw "More Kestrels" and (correctly I think) identified it as undercosted even at +30, so in the end I took a few toys to get into the net range we identified.
Coalition:
Romulan: More Kestrels (+30)
Lyran: Early Maulers (+4)
Lyran: More Cruisers (+10)
Since this is 44(!), I took the following to bring the net number into range:
Alliance:
Federation: More Ships (Turn 5) (+4)
Federation: More Ships (Turn 6) (+4)
Kzinti: Extra Bases (+10)
Kzinti: More Carriers (+4) (BC+CL+FF becomes CVL+CLE+EFF)
Hydran: Quest for Methane (+6)
For a net of +17 to the Coalition. This shouldn't change the flow of the war and we agreed in advance not to look at things that did (like the Klingons attacking on Turn 1 or Hydran "Banzai" or "Fatalism").
So a few more ships each side, particularly for the Coalition, which is to the good because "Old age and treachery will always beat youth and exuberance." I believe that is from Mamet.
Trent is already putting together econs for CT1 so I imagine we will be off to the race track pretty soon.
I have often told people that if soul crushing die rolls crush your soul, F&E might not be for you.
I approve of your game name.
Where terrible things happen, indeed.
First good luck with the game.
Secondly -
"-Ships: Any ship not requiring RULES located outside the expansions noted is allowed if it is on the online SIT. This includes anything conjectural or not-actually-built, but not ships that do not have complete entries or which require rules located in expansions that aren't on the list."
I think this really busts the game - making it far more difficult to judge how the game is going.
I really don't know what 'good safe ships' (OK Hydran MKE IIRC) the Alliance gets - when the Romulans are getting 9 compot Heavy escorts and lots more good ships they can afford to build.
My suggestion would be to JUST play with the ships in the Expansions your playing.
EW rules also get stretch (as you found your first game - Alliance can't compete on good EW hulls etc).
Your game though.
Sweet!
Good luck guys !!
Paul, the reason to replace specialty ships with standard hulls is if you arent using all of the rules.
The game takes a crazy amount of time, and is incredibly complex without adding the dozens of extra rules.
It has been fairly balanced across our 2 games. Peter had a reasonable win for the Coalition last game, but it did reach the end and come down to points. Im struggling more this game as Coalition, but that is because Peter is a better player than me. And has a LOT more experience.
I am tempted to play Alliance a few more times for the experience, even though I know it will be painful.
But anyway, have fun Trent and Graham !
The alliance can easily compete in the EW game once the Feds jump in. They can make lots of three and four point scouts and can send a few to their neighbors as needed.
The Hydrans get the short end of the stick, to be sure.
I mean, the Hydrans mostly get the short end of the stick because they never have the EPs to investigate the deep end of their SIT in the first place. Fancy specialty ships are kind of secondary to "building full schedules" and "having escorts for the one big carrier you snuck out." Even in HILTSWALTM, where Hydrax falling was literally the end of the game, the Hydrans were making FFs in place of their whole build schedule a lot.
I'm sure that the "if you can see it you can build it" rule will confuse matters a bit, but I don't think it really favors one side. The Feds get LSC and (Alliance) Maulers, and (not to tip my hand) I think that will be relevant this time, too (and most of this stuff hits in Y173 or later, so it isn't a big deal until much later). I'm also less worried about rules that favor the Coalition - if it does - now that I'm playing the Alliance.
I am of multiple minds as to where to drop my "extra" Kzinti SB:
1802 is tempting, but provides zero strategic benefit unless the Klingons (and potentially Lyrans) actually attack through there... They can just go around, attack the Feds, and try to cut the Federation and Kzinti apart somewhere else.
1502 is nice, in that it is a Major that starts with 4 PDU and I could add some later on if the pressure comes off. However, unless the Coalition is coming to 1401 to stay... once again, very little strategic benefit.
Anywhere else seems to run into the possibility of losing it for nothing, though... and even 1502 is a risk.
[Also you should hear the somewhat goofy plan for WTTN Part Two that Trent spun out for me on a walk. Sort of like Eye of the Storm only instead of Everybody-against-the-Feds, the ISC intervene in the General War on the Alliance side.
"What could possibly balance that for the Coalition?"
"I dunno... how about no exhaustion?"
This is NOT happening in this game. This is just a normal game with a few balance points.]
Jason - wasn't referring to to swopping the hulls for base hulls if a rule (Marine Ships for example) isn't being used.
What Ships are permitted?
Alliance Maulers are a good example - if you don't play with the relevant rule set - they can't be built as until you include that rule set, the build limit is none per turn (as per the normal Empires defined construction schedule....).
Hence only building ships from the Rule Expansions you will use, will at least keep some balance to the game and keep it simple (it's complex enough without adding a stack of more ships!!).
(There may also be some ships which don't appear to require the 'rule expansion', but do and you don't notice it until after the event.).
Paul wrote:
>>EW rules also get stretch (as you found your first game - Alliance can't compete on good EW hulls etc).>>
With the EW rules in AO (as opposed to just the EW rules in CO), the Alliance generally does fine, EW wise. I mean, yeah, the Coalition are way more capable, early on, of making some insane EW lines, but they can't do that *that* much, and between scout pods for tugs, AUX scouts, PDU EW, and that early on, the Alliance are generally fighting over bases/planets, it really isn't that big of a deal. And then the Feds show up with plenty of 4 point scouts and free SWACs.
Even the Hydrans aren't that bad off when, say, fighting over their capital.
>> "Federation and Empire: Where Terrible Things Happen"
Congrats on starting up a new game! It looks like an interesting one, and an interesting set of options. I hope it turns out to be fun, although sometimes terrible things do happen.
Quote:653.1 A. Extra Bases (+10): Allow the empire to have one extra SB, or two extra BATS, or four extra defense battalions. These cannot be in the same system or in the capital.
The extra SB for the Kzinti seems like a difficult choice. I think it is most likely to get toasted no matter where it goes. The key is to find some way to either make the Coalition work around it (thereby slowing them down), or make them destroy it (thereby also slowing them down and costing them more EPs).
How about doubling up the SB at 0902 or 1304? Or placing it in a hex with a border BATS? That may allow one of them to last an extra turn or two and/or threaten the Coalition rear areas a bit to make their deployments a bit more careful?
I think if the Kzinti approach the SB as being something they want to extract long term strategic value from, they may be disappointed?
--Mike
P.S Or does the "cannot be in the same system" language mean that these new units cannot be placed where something already is?
>> I have often told people that if soul crushing die rolls crush your soul, F&E might not be for you.
If the randomness is more frustrating than enjoyable, one could replace the rolls with the average percentage for the BIR:
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-------+
| br | d1 | d2 | d3 | d4 | d5 | d6 | d_avg |
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-------+
| 00 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 15.00 |
| 01 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 17.50 |
| 02 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 20.00 |
| 03 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 30 | 22.50 |
| 04 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 30 | 30 | 25.00 |
| 05 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 30 | 30 | 35 | 27.50 |
| 06 | 25 | 25 | 30 | 30 | 35 | 35 | 30.00 |
| 07 | 25 | 30 | 30 | 35 | 35 | 40 | 32.50 |
| 08 | 30 | 30 | 35 | 35 | 40 | 40 | 35.00 |
| 09 | 30 | 35 | 35 | 40 | 40 | 45 | 37.50 |
| 10 | 35 | 35 | 40 | 40 | 45 | 50 | 40.83 |
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-------+
Over the course of an entire game, the rolls will theoretically balance out anyways, yielding roughly the same result.
--Mike
The random element and assessment of probability is, to my mind, essential to the game (otherwise you could tweak your line to exactly direct the ship you expect or something). Terrible Things happening is the point!
My first thought was to put it in the Marquis area, where the Feds can help defend it, but of course that also means it provides essentially no value for 7 turns, which is obviously not optimal.
I wish there was a balance option for "The Kzinti don't have to jump through hoops and fiddle around just to make 5 compot destroyers." The inability to make FFK's is painful given that you're getting... an F5 destroyer equivalent.
1502 might be a good location for an extra Kzinti SB. It should definitely extract a pound of flesh from the Coalition there. 1802 is another possibility that comes immediately to mind, making it harder for the Coalition to crush the Marquis zone on T7.
Enjoy the mayhem!!
Alas for the Kzinti - an extra SB probably is not something they can generally defend - due to lack of ships AND lack of 'strong compot power' early on.
The only two places I think they might value is 1502 (a 1401 may be able to help defend it).... but my first choice would be 1802 - purely to make it more difficult for the Coalition on turn 7.
Turn 7 is perhaps the first turn 1401 may not be threatened in 'capture strength' - and two strong reserves in the Barony able to cover 1401, 1704 and 1802 would certainly make it much more difficult for the Coalition to send sufficient forces, to kill them both (and if 1401 is attacked, and the Fed invasion is delayed, they can help their).
So short term - their isn't a location the Kzinti will extract a fair amount of pain for.... and long term, 1802 might provide fair value.
No Klingon carriers?
...and it doesn't take long for the 'any Ship on the SIT' to show it's unbalanced (IMHO)
The Alliance gains 2 Ships in CL46
The Kzinti DWV (not very useful DW Carrier)
The Federation DDX2 (even worse DDX)
The Gorns, Hydrans and Romulans gain no ships.
The Klingons gain the C10A - but as no SFG's are being played - in effect it's no ships.
The Lyrans gain 2 very useful ships
CLS - Early 3 EW Ships (immediately)
CLV - An Early True Lyran carrier (from turn 2)
(plus the not so useful CLE and CLG).
As CL46 may well have added other F&E Game Rules - the overall package should be balanced (I don't have CL46) - so the Alliance you would have thought would have gained on the rules side of things - but only playing with the Ships and not the rules is clearly an Advantage to one side.
In effect - one side gets a huge number of EW 3 and EW 4 ships and one side gets .... well 2 Scout Tugs - and thats about it.
(Yes, a Ly CLS doesn't have an advantage against a Kzinti CD in deep space - but if the CLS is defending a BATS - it does make a difference).
In other words, I don't think you have got the game balance right - accepting you played it this way last time - which will make learning the game (to play other opponents) will be far more difficult.
Just my 2p - and very much IMHO 
I agree the Lyran mod CL's are good ships. Not too worried about game balance. As I've mentioned before, the really unbalancing thing here is that we are bad at F&E.
I wondered about the carriers too, but he can save the FFF and just convert an extra one on CT2, and the Coalition generally gets better carriers as time goes on so saving some FFF works out.
You will learn
The issue will be that you will have to re-learn alot of things if you play with normal rules.
The main issue though is that it may not seem alot and the Alliance gets to defend with Bases etc etc etc.
But it does mean the Alliance will have to burn through 3 rounds of approach to get to a target - as even with a Scout Tug - the Alliance are unlikely going to get beyond 6 EW early on (i.e. Scout Tug and a CD is 6)....
...... A Lyran Scout Tug and 3 CLS's in a Battlegroup is 13 EW.
-2 on the dice will make winning an approach battle very hard.
The Carrier thing is incremental...
Normally it's
CVL on S 171
CVL on F 171
CV on S 171
CVL on F 171
So 4 carriers on the map by the end of turn 171 -and other than FCR's - no depth to them.
With the CLS, you can build
CLV on S 169
CLV on F 169
CLV on S 170
CLV on F 170
So thats some depth (and with a CW and DW, the group is 15 Compot - the same as a 3CVT - so perfectly useable BATS busting until the CVL's and CV's arrive - and with a CWE and DWE actually pretty good with 22 Compot!!!)
In the normal rules, you don't get free Fighters until the first true carrier* is available (so 171)... and the CLV is a True Carrier - so you pay for 4 Fighters and you get 16 fighters on the map!
So, thats 24 Ep's of Free fighters the Lyrans get given!
* - I don't believe the JGP with a V Pod counts - no one has asked a formal Q&A on it yet though???
Harder Alliance attacks AND some useable free attrition from turn 2....
...that isn't good IMHO.
Stewart:
We knew that. It will get fixed on the spreadsheet but since no carriers were built nobody checked that line.
Paul:
I can't get excited, and don't want to get into the (old) Lyrans-do-or-don't get FFF discussion. For this game, the relevant thing is that Dad got them in the last round!
It will be interesting to see how the game plays out with the non-historical Lyran CL variants. Will they be decisive, or a historical footnote? Or will the Lyrans wish they saved those CLs to make into BCs? I just hope something terrible doesn't happen!
--Mike
A Lyran Scout Tug and 3 CLS's in a Battlegroup is 13 EW.
-2 on the dice will make winning an approach battle very hard.
Umm...While the second statement might be true, the example to get to 13 EW is extreme, wasteful AND reduces the Lyran BG ComPot by actual 12 points (-15 if you subbed them in for CWs) which makes that -2 shift way easier to face.
A -2 shift is -5%.
3 CLS subbed into the BG in place of 3 CL or CW means the Lyrans have self inflicted their own non-shift shift of 10-15% (using a standard 100 ComPot Line...early on Coalition will be hard pressed to get to 100 with that many CLS in the BG) I believe I would make that trade.
Lawrence - sorry, your confusing compot with damage done which isn't the same.
Example.
Lyran 100 Compot with 4 EW v Kzinti Compot 100 with 4 EW
or
Lyran Lyran 85 Compot with 13 EW v Kzinti Compot 100 wuth 4 EW
Both sides roll a 4 at BIR 5, so that 30% in first example and 30%/25% in 2nd Example.
30 v 30 - draw..
26 v 25 = Lyran win.
i.e. a 15% compot drop results in a larger 16.7% damage done drop for the Kzinti.
Lower BIR's the difference is even bigger and higher BIR's the difference is smaller (a roll of 3 at BIR 6 would be the same as the above though).
.5 Damage breaks may make a difference - and lower damage is done by both sides, but it does make it more difficult for the Kzinti to win approach battles.
(and I deliberately kept it simple - as 2 CLS and a Scout Tug MIGHT be sufficient to get -2 on the dice - and so that would increase the Lyran compot by 5).
Can't be done all the time - but killing 3 Kzinti Escorts in an approach battle is better than 1.....
Point well taken. One can overscout a battleforce and ultimately make it less effective.
I think the point that the CLS gives the Lyrans another heavier scout option earlier is valid, and this strengthens the Lyrans somewhat. And at the beginning of the GW, DWS is also available which provides a 4-6 scout which is basically better than the CLS (and more easily and less expensively replaceable). At 2-6 CLS is really not a whole lot better than the 2-5 SC.
--Mike
Mea culpa, I read the SIT wrong:
SC, EW2, Y119
DWS, EW2, Y167
CWS, EW3, Y172
CLS, EW3, Y159
So CLS has +1 EW over SC or DWS, 4 GW years before CWS arrives.
--Mike
Mike
Hence my concern - the Alliance has nothing like the CLS - and being EW3 - against a standard Kzinti SF or Hydran SC (both EW 1) can make a difference ion less relevant battles too.
Yep - it's compot is poor (and it costs 3 Ep's) - but I think the ability to stop Alliance counterattacks over Coalition bases hasn't been taken into account.....