Several of the scenarios that have been posted on these forums completely remove SFG's. So, what would that be worth as a Balance Option?

-30? No SFG's in return for No Tholians?

-20?

-15?

-10?

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, May 02, 2023 - 12:25 am: Edit

No SFGs for no SWACs.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 02, 2023 - 02:58 am: Edit

SFGs are much more valuable than SWACS, which if you hate them that much can be directed away pretty easily.

As a rule of thumb, each SFG equipped ship (not B10) should be able to destroy at least two enemy ships very cheaply. If the SFG survives this use, even better.

And B10AAs... so much more dangerous in a fleet than what SWACS do for Feds (or even better, two B10As). And defensively on a SB, SFGs are very helpful.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, May 02, 2023 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Joe had HORRIBLE luck with Stasis ships last year. I think he had three catrostrophic failures in one turn.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, May 03, 2023 - 12:52 am: Edit

Richard; OK, I'll bite. Why are SFGs on SBs "very helpful"?

Understand that I am thinking of this in SFB terms. I don't think SFGs are completely useless on starbases but they are much more useful, in my opinion, on mobile warships. In SFB, they make a fairly marginal contribution to a starbase's defensive capabilities in most cases. So what do they do in F&E?

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, May 03, 2023 - 10:41 am: Edit

Even before my horrible luck at Stratcon last year, I've always been willing to dispense with SFGs to get rid of SWACs.To me, their impact vs cost has always been out of whack.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, May 05, 2023 - 11:58 pm: Edit

No one wants to address my question from Wednesday? I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious whether SFG-equipped starbases in F&E have some special ability that makes them "very helpful", to use Richard Eitzen's wording. Based on SFB, I think they can be useful at the margins in some situations, but hardly a game changer. And given the limited numbers available to the Klingons, I'm not sure - again, within the context of SFB - that it makes sense for the Klingons to put any on starbases, as opposed to fielding larger numbers of SFG-capable warships. But maybe F&E is different.

By Patrick Sledge (Decius) on Saturday, May 06, 2023 - 12:26 am: Edit

Alan: Basically they all but guarantee that attacking that particular base will become a long, slow grind.

Since the attacker would be opening himself up to getting his ships frozen if he picks a high BIR, he's almost certainly going to pick low. Which means that using ground attacks to score cheap SIDS is out of the question, and that a higher percentage of his damage is going to go towards directing each SIDS, which leaves the defending fleet less left over to resolve.

If the base is also over a captured planet you've put some PDUs down on (looking at you, Hydrax!) it can make for a really horrific position to try and assault.

Early in the war, yeah, the Klingon is almost certainly better off with the SFGs on a mobile unit. Late in the war, if they're getting pushed back a bit and have a spot where they want to stay dug in like a tick? Nothing says 'Go Away' quite like an SFG equipped Starbase.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 06, 2023 - 02:47 am: Edit

My post on the subject did not go through a few days ago, I said some of those things posted above, also pointed out that a SB is not easily destroyed as a stasis ship is when it uses its SFG and that it can defensively freeze valuable and vulnerable units, such as FRDs.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 06, 2023 - 02:47 am: Edit

My post on the subject did not go through a few days ago, I said some of those things posted above, also pointed out that a SB is not easily destroyed as a stasis ship is when it uses its SFG and that it can defensively freeze valuable and vulnerable units, such as FRDs.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, May 06, 2023 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Patrick and Richard:

Thanks. I had been wondering whether it had something to do with BIR.

I note that in SFB, SFGs have a range of 5 hexes so the threat of the SFGs on a Klingon starbase might keep the attacking fleet from rolling into point blank range. But they won't keep the attackers out of overload range. A large Fed fleet with fully-overloaded photons can still wreck a starbase without ever getting close enough for the SFGs to be a factor. The same goes for a large Hydran fleet with overloaded hellbores.

And in SFB one can, in effect, "split the BIR" by sending some units into point blank range (high BIR) while others hang back at range. For example, the Hydrans could send a bazillion Stinger fighters closing to optimum fusion beam/gatling phaser range, while the hellbore-armed ships hang back at range-8 with their overloaded hellbores. And the starbase SFGs coulfd grab a few of those Stingers, but huge numbers would still get through. So those SFGs can be... somewhat... useful, but ultimately are a lot less important to the survival of the starbase than the long range weaponry, the EW, the minefield, and any defending ships/PFs/fighters the Klingons have as part of the defense force.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 06, 2023 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Defending ships can possibly drag attacking ships into range.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 06, 2023 - 09:30 pm: Edit

I wouldn't put much effort into trying to equate an SFB effect into F&E. There are too many factors at play.

That said, I would think SFGs are worth a lot more than SWACS. There just aren't many "one side has it the other doesn't" rules to trade it against.

Assuming I was the Klingon player, the inability of the Federation to use drone bombardment AND swacs might be close. The inability of the Federation to use carriers larger than war cruisers could be close.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Sunday, May 07, 2023 - 12:16 am: Edit

An F&E starbase assault would be a horrible SFB scenario, because it's usually an attacking fleet vs. a roughly equal defending fleet + the SB + the SB fighters + the minefields.

If you are very lucky you are out BPVed 3-2 or so (look at the ComPot in F&E from the first rounds of a SB assualt and you can see this).

Your fighters are outnumbered (base fighters don't count against the attrition unit limits), they aren't closing to point blank on the base unless the fleet closely supports them.

And you aren't closing to range 8 and wrecking the base with 60 or so overloaded photons, because if you unload everything at the base then you damage it some (EW means that a bunch of your photons are at +2 to hit, you can't give the entire fleet 12 ECCM for even or even 9 ECCM for only +1; not all on the same turn anyway), and the defending fleet then totally destroys you because you've taken minefield damage and totally emptied your alpha-strike without doing anything at all to an approximately equal defending fleet which is already in overload range.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, May 07, 2023 - 02:37 am: Edit

Douglas,

It seems to me there are a couple of problems with your assessment. One is that an F&E starbase assault needs to be thought of more as an SFB mini-campaign. If the starbase has its full complement of PFs and fighters, plus a major battle fleet supporting it, the attacker simply can't concentrate enough combat power into a single battle force to take out the starbase in a single battle, as you pointed out. What the attacker can do, is use his (assumed - for purposes of this discussion) overall strategic superiority to attrit the defending forces and set up favorable odds for a subsequent assault. That "subsequent assault" may be the 3rd or 4th (or more) battle in the vicinity of the starbase. The earlier battles weaken the defending forces so that, eventually, the defender no longer has enough ships/PFs/fighters to adequately support the base, while the attacker can still put up a full-strength (or nearly so) force to assault the now-isolated (or nearly so) base. The situation as you describe it seems to me to be an artificial one that doesn't reflect how the assault on a heavily defended starbase would actually occur. In SFB; a mini-campaign rather than a single scenario.

I also think there is a problem with your post in that you are assuming bad tactics on the part of the attacker (the Federation in this case). My previous post was made in the context of whether SFGs actually contribute much to a starbase defense in SFB. I pointed out the attacker can do something and you responded as if I had stated the attacker will do that, or should do it.^* But the attacker's actual tactics will depend on the specific forces involved, and on the opponent's tactics. Nowhere did I say the Feds will move into 8 hexes of the starbase. I merely pointed out they can, if the circumstances favor that tactic; and that if they do, the SFGs on the base don't help much, except to intimidate the Fed from moving into range-4 (or closer). But my opening move as the Fed may involve massed proximity-fuzed photons from range-30, targeted on defending ships rather that the base itself. After all, even if the Klingons have a major defending fleet, it's very unlikely to be all dreadnoughts and cruisers. And from 30 hexes, my frigates and destroyers can still reach with their photons, while the disruptors on the Klingon small ships don't contribute to the fight; unless they move out toward me and away from the base.

With the phaser-4s and disruptors from the starbase itself added in, I still might suffer heavier losses that the defender. But with my overall strategic superiority, I can afford those losses. the starbase itself falls in "round 2" (or 3, or 4...).

Lastly, are we actually arguing at all? Note the following from my post:

---

Quote:

So those SFGs can be... somewhat... useful, but ultimately are a lot less important to the survival of the starbase than the long range weaponry, the EW, the minefield, and any defending ships/PFs/fighters the Klingons have as part of the defense force.

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, May 07, 2023 - 03:23 am: Edit

I don't play SFB - so no idea that a SFG SB can do there....

...but in F&E - as others have said, a SFG equipped SB forces the attacker to select a max of BIR 3 - and to me the main effect of that is to reduce the chance of one shot crippling a SB - which doesn't happen very often, but late war the chances of a net 72 damage increases.

Crucially, the interaction with several rules also gets stopped...

....No SAF assaults for example.

So it's a slog to kill a heavily defended SB.

With the change to a max 2 SFG's being used (not 2 ships), their effect has been reduced - no SWAC's and probably 6-10 Coalition Option points to me would seem a fair exchange.

(Both players may seem their value a little different and so you could bid to exclude them).

More than that - removing them is a tad pricey for the Alliance I think.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, May 07, 2023 - 11:15 pm: Edit

Slight error, there could be up to four SFGs, two on the base (SB/SFB, one on an STB) and two on ships ...

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, May 08, 2023 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Stewart

I think the rule change last year limits it to two SFG's in total?

I don't have the full updated rules from CO though - my copy is the 2003 version....

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, May 08, 2023 - 12:46 pm: Edit

From CO2021:

(312.25) LIMIT ON SFG UNITS USED: No more than two ship-based SFG generators can be used by any battle force during a single combat round. The two ship-based SFG generators may be on the same or different ships in the battle force. Additional SFG-equipped ships may be present in the battle force, but only two generators may be used. The Klingon player must specify which SFG-equipped ships are using SFG generator(s). A Klingon starbase (SB) or stellar fortress (SFB) in the battle may operate up to two SFG generators in addition to the one or two generators present on ships, although the side assaulting the SB/SFB must pick a high enough BIR in order for the SB/SFB to use its SFG generators (312.122). Nevertheless, it is possible to use an absolute maximum of four SFG generators on one side of a given battle: two on ship(s) in the battle force and two on an SB/SFB. This is not a technology limitation but a tactical one; it isn’t practical to get more than a few enemy ships into a position from which an SFG could target them.

--Mike

By Greg Ernest (Gernest) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 08:03 am: Edit

Remember in SFB you could use the SFGs to freeze and defend a friendly unit. It's not all about the attacker coming within range 5.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 10:06 am: Edit

I did mention freezing friendly units earlier.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Sidebar: I've always found the SFG to be one of the more odd oddities of the tactical game engine. Odder than Positron Flywheels or even *gasp* plotted movement. TL,DR: SFG's are weird, and so are my opinions of them.

The system is so rare that it only ever sees use on units large enough to not suffer for its installation over other weapons, though the weapons it replaces have a greater arc and tend to have a higher defensive utility.

In its use, you get to 'freeze' a unit down for a time dependent on your power budget and willingness to stay still. As a sufferer of ADD (they didn't put the 'H' in there until after my diagnosis) this is almost as fatal as telling me that the device keeping me from dying a horrible and swift death from rapid deceleration on the ground far below, only works when I'm not thinking of elephants. Whoops, I digress...

If your fleet size is large enough not to miss another cruiser hull, its also facing a force large enough that freezing three or six units every 4 or 5 turns seems less useful than having another cruiser that can maintain battlespeed and still fight.

But you cannot move, and short of a black hole pulling your ship along, anything that moves you breaks the SFG's fields. Worse, there is an 8 impulse delay between Emergency Decel and SFG activation, so becomes a lot harder to setup tactically. Yes, another unit could tow you before activation, but unless that unit wants to commit to nothing else tactically to act as your tug, it will slow down the rest of your fleet.

Then the is the 96+ impluse cooldown... Now if the SFG could be placed into a shuttle sized object, with enough power storage to operate for a reasonable length of time... The mothership (For lack of a better term) could spit out this disposable unit like a speed zero suicide shuttle and let it do its thing without sacrificing its own tactical utility. But, alias, like many ideas, there is too much value and not enough drawback in this notion to escape the inevitable balancing forces test and failing.

To my mind, I would think it would be better suited for a specialty ship similar to a mauler. Heavy shields, maybe even an armor belt, accessory reactors, and a lot of batteries. No heavy weapons on its own, though a reasonable self-defense phaser array. Run up, freeze the key units, and have the power reserves to brick incoming fire or hold the victims until the rest of the fleet gets into lynching range. Even then, like all niche ships, its just another variant design in a system with no shortage of variant designs.

Sadly, the downside of the SFG is that it is indirectly a weapon aimed at a player. It's because of the mental gymnastics of how to re-sync the previously frozen unit can be more than a little daunting, like the optional (and never used) rules on mid-turn power balancing due to damage.

Its up there with 'that one player' reaching for the extra-obscure rulebook and saying something like "The Fritz-Lederhosen Effect wont let you do that, I just read that rule yesterday, let me find it again!" and the announcement of "Not Going anywhere for awhile?" plays through everyone else's heads while they curse their luck for being caught in a Snickers Commercial.

For all of that, it sure seems like the Tactical-to-Strategic streamlining makes the SFG more effective than in SFB but not any moreso than ComPot makes it easier to crash cruisers together.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Now that I've wasted your time, I tend to agree with others above that there may not be any one single item that balances the removal of SFGs.

If someone has a grudge against SWACs and will take the balancing loss to forgo SFGs for their removal, that's a personal decision, though not one I would make.

If I had to make a suggestion, I would suggest adding mothballed hulls for the removable of SFGs. Not every balancing is a tit-for-tat 'I loose so you must' equation. While I don't have a good idea on values, perhaps a D6 hull for every base and a F5 or E4 hull for every ship... Here is where my knowledge of the game is just not robust enough to foresee all of the potential issues.

Scenarios may nix the SFGs as they tend to act as a Real-time strategic brake on gameplay in pinch sectors where SFG equipped bases are. This is usually undesirable when your aiming for a game that could be completed in a reasonable amount of time. And yes, the irony of that statement is not lost on me.

It's an interesting question, but like a lot of questions of balance, the pieces are not of uniform size throughout all empires.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 03:35 pm: Edit

IMHO, the idea of balancing a given F&E game is really a set of personal choices between a particular set of players. As we've seen here multiple times in games that have been posted, players can and do decide on sets of rules/ships that they choose to include/exclude to arrive at a game they feel is reasonably fair, fun, and logistically practical and then play from there. So I think the idea of what would "balance" an SFG-less F&E game really just amounts to some suggestions. One person's fair trade is another person's unfair trade.

--Mike

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 04:25 pm: Edit

You commented that freezing 3-6 ships at the cost of stasis ships sitting still was a bad deal in fleet battles. Really though, removing that many enemy ships from the equation using two stasis ships is generally a win for the Klingons, as if it's an equal number of ships on both sides, now the Klingons have more live ships than the opponent. Or, if nothing else, you can close withe frozen ships and set up to destroy them as soon as they are unfrozen. If you trade a stasis ship for two or more enemy ships of similar size, it's the Klingons that are ahead.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 - 08:48 pm: Edit

I grant you that Richard. Frankly, I know its more nuanced that that. Its part of what I always thought of as the close-quarters myopic zone. When my group was playing Battletech in the late 80's it was highly unusal for someone get to use their short range weapons, because of the fact that getting 'caught out' and letting someone get to where they could hit you with flamers, mach guns, or small lasers was a ego demerit more or less.

Letting a SFG ship get to range 5, seems like something a careful average commander could evade and avoid. This was the underlying premise behind my original post.