MINESWEEPERS

My thought process behind this is that a good portion of the fire power for a base or PDU is in the minefields assigned to it.

COST

The cost of a minesweeper is the base hull plus 2. One substitution allowed per turn.

USAGE/EFFECTS

-A minesweeper must have 2 consorts in order to be used.
-If a minesweeper is used, its attack factor does not contribute to the battle line's COMPOT.
-A minesweeper can "sweep" either one base or up to 4 PDUs.
-The effect is that the COMPOT of the base (or PDUs) is cut in half. If the base is a SB, then its COMPOT is only reduced by one third.
-Sweeping does not affect the fighters or PFs from the base(PDUs) being swept.
-The defending player may direct against the minesweeper at a 1 to 1 exchange rate.
-The effects of being "swept" only last for a single round of combat.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 02:06 pm: Edit

What about conversions?

As noted in the F&E designer's notes, why wouldn't every single base assault of any important (i.e. SB, or a BATS that isn't totally swmaped by attackers) have a MS supporting? And the ability to just knock 6 to 12 COMPOT off for just bringing a particular unit seems a bit strong.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 02:12 pm: Edit

How are PDUs rounded?

Each PDU loses 1.5 COMPOT, so is it 6COMPOT total? Or 4COMPOT (1 each, the 1.5 being rounded down)

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 03:07 pm: Edit

The P-4s on Bases and PDUs justify their current COMPOT.

As has been discussed before in other threads, anything that reduces the defenders ability to do damage with his fixed defenses, helps the Coalition in the early part of the game, which then snowballs.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to adding Minesweepers, IF Minefields were added as Additional Fixed Defenses.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 03:20 pm: Edit

6 compot (4x1.5 for PDU, .5x12 for BATS) =~2 damage points. to get this you loose a hull (DD at 1:1) and you loose 6-8 compot on the attacking fleet (the minesweeper's compot doesn't count)

with a SB it is twice as effective saving you 4 points of damage

why would anyone bother?

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 03:48 pm: Edit

MINEFIELDS

Minefields and Minesweepers have been previously abstracted into the game. These rules allow these units to be fully integrated.

COST

Minefields cost 1 EP per field. This cost includes the cost of deploying the field. The Minefields are deployed by Auxillary Minelayers which are handled by dedicated staff officers. No more than five minefields can be deployed per turn.

LIMITS

The maximum number of minefields per defense is as follows:

Unit	Max Minefields
MB or BS	1
BATS	2
SB	4
PDU	1 per 4 or fraction

Only one unit per location can have a minefield. Multiple colocated base use the Max Minefield of the largest base. If the largest base is eliminated, the number of minefields is immediately reduced to the new maximum minefields .


USAGE/EFFECTS

- A Minefield provides a 4 COMPOT bonus to the Base or Planet it is assigned to. Minefields must be assigned to a Base or Planet when deployed.
- Minefields provide an additional offensive ability against units using special abilities against the unit protected by the minefield or any units which must be assigned to a 'base' (i.e. FRDs, Convoys, etc). This ability is treatd as a 'Mauler' like affect equal to the COMPOT of the minefield. Units vulnerable to this ability include: Maulers, Troop Ships and their consorts making a Marine Assault, and SFG ships. This reflects the necessity of these units to actually penetrate the minefield to reach their target. The Hydran FSP is immune to this effect.
- A Minefield can be eliminated ("swept") by a Minelayer performing the Minesweeping mission (see below), or if the controlling base is destroyed.

MINESWEEPING

- Minesweeping is performed by Minesweepers to eliminate minefields.
- While Minesweeping, the Minesweeper can be directed at 1:1. This directed damage attack does not count as the one allowed directed damage attack per battle round. Additionally, a Mauler or SFG cannot be used against the Minesweeper.
- At the end of the battle round in which the Minesweeper performed its minesweeping mission, determine if the minefield has been eliminated. This is done as follows:

Minesweeper Status	1-2	3-4	5-6
Uncrippled	Swept	Swept	Swept
Crippled	Unswept	Swept	Swept
Destroyed	Unswept	Unswept	Swept

MINE PENETRATION
- Mine Penetration is used to clear a temporary path through a Minefield to allow specialty ships to reacth their target.
- The Minesweeper performing the Mine Penetration Mission is under the same penalties as the minesweeper mission (directed at 1-1 damage).
- This mission shields one unit using its special ability (Marine Assault, Mauler, or SFG) against a target within the minefield from the minefields special attack.
- Mine Penetration Mission is inherently more dangerous than the Minesweeping Mission. At the end of the damage allocation step, roll for each Minesweeper that hasn't been destroyed.

Minesweeper Status	1-4	5	6
Uncrippled	No Effect	Crippled	Destroyed
Crippled	No Effect	Destroyed	Destroyed

MINESWEEPER COST
Same as Base Hull for substitution
1 EP Conversion
No more than 1 a turn.

INITIAL DEPLOYMENT
1 Minesweeper per Fleet
1 Minefield per BATS, 2 per Starbase

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:01 pm: Edit

[Wrtten at same time as above.]

I've always liked the idea of including minefields and minesweepers. But I envisioned something like:

- Minefields are layed around bases and planets. A starbase could have up to 6 minefields and a BATS or MB cound have up to 2 minefields. (If torn down a MB simply loses the minefields.) A planet can have a minefield for every 4 PDU/PGB.

- A minefield must be layed by a Mine Laying Frieghter. These are Aux Ship like AuxCV. Laying a minefield would require the MLF spend the turn in place. Minefield cost 5 EP from supply grid. Small MLF could lay 1 minefield per turn; Large MLF could lay 2 minefield in the same hex per turn.

- Minesweepers cost same as base hull, conversion for 2 EP. Offense about half, defense +1 due to heavy shields. Build 1 per turn, convert 1 per turn. Add MS mission to HDW. (Adjust factors to race.)

- Combat effect dependent on the BIR chosen by the attacker. Defender gains an additional intensity point per BIR up to number of minefields.

- Mauler attacking base risk being cripple before reaching target. (More)

- Commando assaults against base risk ship being crippled before reaching target. (More)

- Minesweeper can remove a minefield, making it non-effective in later rounds. Chances depends on MS rating of ship and BIR. (CWM has better rating than FFM. All ships might have a minimal capability.) [This is not a total removal but punching an effective hole through it.]

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:02 pm: Edit

So I add 4 Minefields to a SB, and it gets a 16pt Mauler verses Troopships, Maulers, and SFG ships?



Isn't that way to powerful?

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:02 pm: Edit

The above gives minefields some teeth, which encourages the attacker to sweep them.

A battle against an undefended or underdefended will take ~1 extra point a turn (assuming that a Mauler or Troop Ships aren't used). The attacker doesn't need to worry too much about this.

Against a SB or Major Planet the Mines will do ~2 extra a round, and will probably need to be swept.

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Scott,

that would be 4 minefield PACKAGES from SFB. Tell me what Troopships, Mauler, SFG ship would try to penetrate that unsupported?

And its limited to units that have to be 'at the base' (i.e Convoys, FRDs and the Base itself).

So you can still freeze/mauler the fleet, just not the FRDs and Convoys.

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Brad,

the effect seems out of proportion with what the ship can do in SFB by a wide margin.

Joe

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:09 pm: Edit

better, however I think that this may be to much if combined with reduced maulers. once maulers are only useable against fixed defenses and those fixed defenses get minefields then they become even less useful

how about letting maulers sacrafice half of their mauling ability to penetrate a minefield (they don't have to, but not doing so exposes them to damage. this represents the huge amount of reinforcement a mauler can put up, but at the cost of having the power available to maul)

I assume the mine penetration mission automaticaly suceeds in protecting the critical unit

what is the SAF/minefield interaction?

you do realize that every capitol assault will now start off facing 9 minefilds, this is 36 points of compot and enough mauling ability to trash anythign trying to penetrate them. you may have a few additional minefilds put up at SB, but I wouldn't expect to see much else (although they are cheap enough that you may see them at major planets)

in addition the relativly low production rate of minesweepers will slow the attack from the current pace (if the upcoming reduction in fleet sizes slows the pace this may be less of a factor)

overall it's a significant benifit for the defense (and therefor the alliance), but it's also about the first improvement to fixed defenses (other then the PDU EW fix in CO, the only improvement) which have been loosing ground steadily with each expansion so it may be a good thing anyway

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:09 pm: Edit

John,

I like the attack BIR = minefield COMPOT idea.

And I hadn't thought about the Minesweeper size. What if SC3 Minesweepers get +1 to the sweep table? A bit simpler and doesn't requre MS ratings.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:11 pm: Edit

What about SC2 minesweepers?

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:16 pm: Edit

or what about a ship serving as an ad-hoc minesweeper

also what happens if you send one minesweeper against 9 minefields at at capitol? does it sweep all of them, one of them, something in between? can it penetrate all 9 minefields to clear a path for a mauler at the same risk as penetrating one?

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:20 pm: Edit

David,

was considering this against Normal Maulers, not the reduced Maulers. But you're right, against reduced Maulers, these minefields would be too powerful.

Your mauler idea makes perfect senses. It allows reduced mauling against the target without using a minesweeper. Of course, using a minesweeper will allow full Mauling, but at the cost of the minesweeper.

The mine penetration mission is an automatic success as written, but maybe there should be a roll based on the number of minesweepers assigned vs the number of minefields.

I was thinking SAFs would be immune, since they have suicide freighters, etc, to 'blow' a hole through the minefield. Perhaps there should be some interaction?

Max minefields in the Capital System would be 5 (20 PDUs = 5, which is more tha 4 from SB). 1 would be eliminated as soon as 4 PDUs were destroyed. This still would be 20 extra COMPOT, which might not be a bad thing with the additional offensive capabilities added over the years.

Minefields as written wont slow the offense against undefended BATS, since the minefields will do 2-3 extra damage before the BATS is destroyed. Against a SB, the attacker will take 2 extra damage a round and will probably need to use a minesweeper(s) to address this.

And after the first few turns, the Alliance wont be able to churn out that many additional minefields without sacrificing ship production, so there should be some balance achieved.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:30 pm: Edit

SAF's should have some interaction since if there is no minefield they are more effective (the suicide freighters are hitting the base not the minefield) it should probably be setup so that it has the same result against a SB with 2 minefields that it does currently.

I missed that you could only have one unit's worth of minefields.

looking towards the late war, what will happen if the coalition has invested a few EP/turn and has max minefileds everywhere (or close to it) this is less cost then is spent on a B-10 and could seriously hurt any counterattack.

would X-ships have any minesweeper abilities? (I wold think a squadron of X ships sweeping in with each ship takeling a few mines would be at least as effective as a minesweeper, and probably less exposed)

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 04:37 pm: Edit

"SAF's should have some interaction since if there is no minefield they are more effective"

I would not make that assumption. Right now, the game assumes that minefields and minesweepers cancel one another out, so SAFs are already facing SBs w/o any significant minefields.

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit

What if SAFs are disrupted unless they roll over the number of Minefields?

I'll work on a complete rewrite later that includes Adhoc Minesweepers, X-Ships, and SAF interaction.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Minefields are a tactical weapon. I think it has been posted about 30 times. Each time I think that the fact that it is already represented in the factors of the bases and fleet interaction has been used as the death blow.

What's with the dozen or so new rules posted in the last 2 days? Digesting AO not enough for you guys?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 05:18 pm: Edit

No, from most of them, it's lack of purchasing AO is not enough for them.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Joe, my point is that a SAF attacking a SB with no minefield should be more effective then one attacking a SB with 4 minefields. I am basing it on the fact that if there are minefields the SAF need to expend resources breaking through them, while if there are no minefields those resources can be expended against the base

today this is assumed to be taking place without player involvement, thus my comment that a SAF attacking a SB with 2 minefields (the default that every SB gets with this proposal) should be the same as the current rule.

this if the defender deployed more minefields the SAF will be slightly less effective, but if the attacker clears the minefields first the SAf would be more effective

By David Lang (Dlang) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Christopher, of the 13 proposals, 5 of them are in the last couple of days, 1 (agressive engagement) is a move from the old proposals section so that it won't be lost, 2 others are also discussing potential ship kill rules, and the remaining two are hospitol ships (pretty much dead) and this one.

so it's not really as many new rule proposals as it seems

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 05:40 pm: Edit

"Joe, my point is that a SAF attacking a SB with no minefield should be more effective then one attacking a SB with 4 minefields."

Well, there were several points, and this was one of them. You were also pretty specific about making the SAF more effective that it already is, and it should not be.

Joe

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 05:41 pm: Edit

I'm just surprised to see so many....I have plenty of rules at the moment, so just stunned to see ideas for more all at one time.