In SFB in a 1 on 1 fight, can a 5 point Frigate, kill a 7 point Cruiser?

If the answer is 'yes', this is not possible under SSC currently in F&E.

i.e. Difference in Compot is +2 v -2 - and then you have the size modifier of -1.

Even a roll of 12, would only result in 2 casualties on the Cruiser (so crippled and retreat and no chance of persuit).


Should the table therefore be shifted, so a difference in compot has less effect on BOTH sides?

i.e. Shift of 1 column, adding a '0' to all nhative differences of 1 between Offensive and Defensive Compot.

So a a 7/7 Cruiser versus a 5/5 Frigate would still get +2 on the dice.

However, the Frigate would only get -1 on the dice and then -1 from the size difference.

On a frigate roll of 12 - the Cruiser will now die - plus crippling the Cruiser occurs on a 10 or 11.

A two shift (so within 2 offensive compot of the enemy defensive compot) with zero's added, might be too much - but +2 v -1 would still give the Cruiser a very good chance of winning.

To me - a small difference in ship compots have a massive difference in SSC - and the larger force, hardly ever takes any damage - and it would be nice to see 3 ships taking damage, when it defeats says 2 ships (i.e. 2 Casualties for 4 Casualties say).

In other words -a good roll by the defender 99% of the time still does no damage currently.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, February 08, 2022 - 04:49 pm: Edit

I don't think that in SFB I would expect to have anything close to a 1 in 36 chance of using a Federation frigate to kill a Klingon D5 on an open map where the Klingon was allowed to disengage unless I had surprise or some other similar advantage or the Klingon simply refused to disengage for some reason.

I'd have to get astonishingly lucky to not be running myself.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, February 08, 2022 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Well, currently it's a nil chance....

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 08, 2022 - 08:09 pm: Edit

I think "nil" is the correct answer.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, February 08, 2022 - 09:19 pm: Edit

If you take for example:

F5 vs NCL
SK vs NCL
FF vs D5

and:

1. Players/captains are of somewhat equal skill (no first game player vs an ace)
2. Ships start at somewhat equal weapons status (not WS0 vs WS3)
3. Ships start at somewhat equal damage status (either both undamaged, or both crippled)

Then in SFB the frigate class ship has no chance. The frigate may get in some damage and put up a good fight, but will be destroyed in the end unless it disengages before it is too badly damaged to do so.

--Mike

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, February 09, 2022 - 08:19 am: Edit

OK..

How about a modifier for using smaller ships?

In normal battles, cripples are very vulnerable due to the 50% rule.

Yet cripples can safely be used in SSC.

Example

FV, E4 and an e4.

14 offensive and 15 defensive

(If a reserve turns up - the e4 dies).

Or even a Kz-CVL, SF and ff = 14/18 with EW.

Again the ff can be used without penalty.

If there was both a modifier for Largest v Largest and Largest v Smallest, there would be a penalty for using cripples in fights?

Yes, the crippled ship might not charge in, but the other ships might need to put themselves in danger to protect it?

So a penalty for using it would seem reasonable?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 09, 2022 - 11:11 am: Edit

If a solution is desired for 'invulnerable' cripples in SSC, perhaps allow a directed damage attackign using up two casualties to score a single casualty on a target of choice (obviously not inner escorts or escorted targets).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, February 09, 2022 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Richard

The issue is - adding cripples makes it basically impossible to get to 2 cripples...

i.e. 7 v 5 is a +2 v -3, so a slim chance for the smaller side (11+)

Add a crippled 5 pt FF, is now 10 v 5 and +3 v -4, or two crippled FF's is 13 v 5 and +4 v -5.

You can't get 2 Casualties now.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Wednesday, February 09, 2022 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Maybe each side should be able to add a BIR (+/- 1)? Apply it to both sides. Then NCL vs FF could be +4/-1 - so the FF would probably die but the NCL might too. Or it could be +0/-5 - so most likely neither would die.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 09, 2022 - 02:26 pm: Edit

How about not modifying the rule at all? That one works for me.

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, August 23, 2022 - 07:18 pm: Edit

In SFB the frigate is trying to escape without being captured, destroyed or crippled. In most cases, the frigate will be severely hampered by engine/power damage and subsequently destroyed - in a floating map the frigate might get away if lucky. In a fixed map the frigate is dead and is simply trying to inflict internals. Like Mike said. SFB is not F&E. Put a Legendary Captain on the frigate, or timewarp an X-frigate, and the story may be different.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Tuesday, August 23, 2022 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Alan, you would think but ... The Candle still died. 🤠

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, August 23, 2022 - 10:36 pm: Edit

The current SSC rules are so much better than what they replaced. The original 310.0 rules from DF&E93 were terrible unless you had a CC or larger against a 4 point FF. The current SSC rules give a 4 pt FF a chance of surviving an encounter regardless of it being a lone picket or the target of a raid. DWs as province or planet garrisons have a slightly better chance of surviving 1 on 1 combat from raids.

When Police Ships are called up in a raid hex they really help balance SSC out.

You can argue about the upper limits of SSC being out of touch if you have a single ship carrier or PFT or other reasonable 3 ship group that exceeds those limits but are still used in SSC.

Overall I much prefer the current SSC rule to what we had previously. I do not see any need or reason to change the current rule even with new units published from Tac Ops or anything currently being looked at for inclusion in Civil Wars.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 24, 2022 - 12:55 am: Edit

I am the designer and I do not see any need or reason to change the current rule.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Wednesday, August 24, 2022 - 06:58 am: Edit

VANDAL stupid auto correct... The Vandal still died.

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, August 24, 2022 - 01:56 pm: Edit

The Vandal was attacked by a squadron or a fleet as I recall. Not a single cruiser.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Wednesday, August 24, 2022 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Vandal fought an NCL one-on-one. Fleet battle came later.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 24, 2022 - 04:48 pm: Edit

I wouldn't spend a lot of time using a piece of dramatic fiction to overturn a rule. Special cases happen and the rule doesn't have to account for them. I said before that I don't see any grounds for a rules change.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 24, 2022 - 05:26 pm: Edit

The FX (8) destroying an NCL(7) would normally happen if the FX rolled a 10 or better. Not covered in F&E, the FX might get some bonuses because the NCL Captain was overconfident 'It's only a frigate' and had no idea about advanced technology (or speed 32 drones).

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, May 10, 2023 - 12:00 am: Edit

The 32-speed drones is a good point. We don't make changes in the game over time because all navies refit at more or less the same time. But if an X-ship or any late-war ship want back in time to the slow drone era, they'd have another advantage not currently represented in the game. So I could see the Vandal getting a +1 boost for fast drones in the slow drone era.

Doesn't require the base rule to be changed.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 10, 2023 - 01:57 am: Edit

The Klingon FX is 9.

The FX is (+3) vs the NCL.
FX can for a retreat on a roll of 2-4; a cripple and retreat on a roll of 5-6; and destroy the NCL on a roll of 7+.


The NCL is (-4) vs the FX.
NCL can force a cripple and retreat on a roll of 12; force a retreat on a roll of 9-11; a roll of 8 or less has no effect.

I see no issues here.