Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through January 31, 2023	25		02/01 10:56pm

And to say that heavy fighters “add nothing” in SFB means you haven’t actually sat down to look at the capabilities of heavy fighters versus contemporary standard fighters.

Consider the Klingon Z-H heavy fighter (R3.F7) which came into service in Y176. As heavy fighters are assault fighters, that means it needs to be compared to the Z-D (R3.F5) - more against two of them.

The Z-H takes 16 damage to kill, while it takes 20 damage to kill the pair of Z-Ds - although they degrade more as damage is done, and there will be two points where excess damage is wasted.

The Z-H has a ph-2 FX and and ph-3 RX compared to two ph-3 FA on the Z-Ds.

They are even on disruptors - until you consider the Z-Hs have in-built EW pods and don’t operate an EWF, so as a squadron they are 12 total compared to 11 for the Z-Ds. Also, the lack of EWF means the squadron's EW support can't be sniped out, increasing its overall survivability.

Then we get to drones. The two Z-Ds have 4 type-VI drones between them. The Z-H trades two of them for 4 type-I rails and 2 special rails - a *huge* offensive increase - a Z-H squadron has 36 offensive drone rails to none on the Z-Ds.

And of course being only six fighters, the Z-Hs launch and recover faster.

Nearly forgot, but the Z-H is speed 12 where the Z-D is only speed 10!

Now the Z-H is DFR 0 compared to 2 for the Z-D - but it has the RX phaser, and I think it's pretty reasonable to say the weight of offensive drone spaces outweighs this deficiency.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Tuesday, January 31, 2023 - 08:53 pm: Edit

I guess I'll add another thought to the discussion here. I love complexity and depth of options (which is why I enjoy SFB, probably), so in theory, adding mines would be a plus for me, as it would add yet another option and some more complexity.

HOWEVER

I would "vote" against adding them for a completely meta reason, and that is the near impossibility of balance due to the fact that the game is focused very heavily on the Coalition attacking the Alliance. So like 95+% of cases are going to be Coalition forces attacking an Alliance base or planet that might or might not have a minefield and need a MS to be present to nullify it (or just an extra bit of compot to win anyway). My point is that if the end result of this _even slightly_ favors the minefield side or the minesweeping side, that gets magnified on a grand scale to then _drastically_ affect the game balance.

If minefields are just a _teeny tiny bit_ too good for the money, Alliance now has a significant advantage, or if they end up not being worth it (example, minefield costs 3 EP but Lyrans can destroy a BATS easily at the cost of 1 extra FF or less), then the Coalition has an advantage (or realistically the Alliance just never buys minefields anymore once this is "solved").

Hopefully you see my point? Either it's perfectly balanced (tiny chance), gives the Alliance a nice benefit (decent chance), or it's just a completely ignored rule (equal chance of this as Alliance boost). Note the 0% chance of a Coalition benefit.

Also, compound that with what expansions are in use. Maybe it's perfect in "basic" F&E but moves one direction or the other when you add AO, CO.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 31, 2023 - 11:09 pm: Edit

I don't want to add minesweepers to F&E. If we did something marginally useful before does not mean we need to needlessly muddy the game any further.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, February 01, 2023 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Eric S. Smith:

Another thing to consider is logistics. The planets and bases in Federation and Empire represent the production facilities of the empire. A planet under siege with a minefield is also able to produce mines to plug gaps in the field. So can a base. Consider in there gamers the production of those fighters and fast patrol ships, not to mention repair parts for ships. Or replacement crew. Consider the T-bombs (no to mention drones) being replaced as they are used. Not to mention fuel and food. Sure, you can deny some of those things by besieging a planet or base, but it would take a lot of time to wear down the stocks of a planet. In terms of Federation and Empire, you are going to have to take the planet to keep it. from producing things for the empire it belongs to. And mines are one of the things it produces.

By Eric S. Smith (Bad_Syntax) on Wednesday, February 01, 2023 - 10:56 pm: Edit

@Steve, all of those other things are in the game though. The federation has a dozen frigate, destroyer, and light cruiser hulls that were dedicated to something not shown in the game. I'm not saying my way is the solution, but to ignore such a large part of SFB when so many smaller parts are modeled, it just feels like there is a hole. I tried to fill it, folks didn't like it, SVC said nope, so its dead.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 02, 2023 - 01:37 am: Edit

You say large part of SFB. I say, tiny, very rarely used, not fun, bad for the game part of SFB.

And I have indeed played with minefields and minesweepers.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 02, 2023 - 11:33 am: Edit

Richard,

I disagree that minefields are bad for SFB. Certainly, breeching a minefield is very different from a lot of SFB, much slower and more deliberate. But nothing says you have to use those rules. If you and the group you play with want to conduct a starbase assault with no mines (other than T-bombs, perhaps), you are free to do so. But others might enjoy that style of play, whether as a usual rule or as a change of pace.

None of this means that minefield rules should be incorporated in F&E; a question on which I have no firm opinion one way or the other.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, February 02, 2023 - 12:48 pm: Edit

I think Richard’s point was that Eric was over emphasizing the role of mine warfare in SFB ;)

By Eric S. Smith (Bad_Syntax) on Friday, February 03, 2023 - 12:40 am: Edit

*15* federation ships, at least, were made minesweepers. Around 96 COMPOT. If it was such a small role, surely they would have created a new fleet that may have helped save a starbase or planet instead of dealing with something so trivial.

Just saying. They had 2 hospital ships, and we have those in game.

Mine warfare isn't sexy, isn't fun, isn't cool, but in SFB a minefield can make a HUGE difference in defending a base. Having to punch through one, while moving slowly, and taking long range Phaser 4 fire is extremely painful.

I accept nobody wants it, though the justification never seems very solid compared to what is already in the game. Hospital ships 1.5 pages of rules, 77th/23rd 1 page of rules, SWACs 2 pages of rules, prime teams 1.5 pages, penal ships 2 pages, mega fighters 1.5, cloaked decoys 2, APT/PTR/FDX 2 pages, and so forth. Lots of things that in SFB are far less significant, and have a lot more F&E rules. But I've beat this dead horse. Nobody wants mines, including SVC, so that's that.

By Karl Mangold (Solomon) on Friday, February 03, 2023 - 08:46 am: Edit

I like where your head's at, Eric but it's probably best to drop the topic, especially since SVC has already weighed in. F&E and SFB aren't 1:1. A lot of units (looking at you, maulers) operate much differently between the two games.
It also may be possible that mine warfare is already tangentially accounted for in base assaults by the SIDS rules? It's never really explained why SIDS are they way they are, just simply that the rule reflects "how difficult a base is to attack and destroy." Perhaps that statement is meant to broadly include things like mine warfare, which otherwise aren't reflected in the game.
Just a thought.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, February 03, 2023 - 10:01 am: Edit

"Mine warfare isn't sexy, isn't fun, isn't cool".

My point exactly, no need to have unfun things added to F&E, thank you.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Friday, February 03, 2023 - 11:11 am: Edit

If it isn't sexy, why are there all those candy hearts that say "Be Mine"?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, February 03, 2023 - 12:32 pm: Edit

“Hospital ships 1.5 pages of rules, 77th/23rd 1 page of rules, SWACs 2 pages of rules, prime teams 1.5 pages, penal ships 2 pages, mega fighters 1.5, cloaked decoys 2, APT/PTR/FDX 2 pages, and so forth.”

The difference is those add new, interesting things to use and do, across the map, and aren’t no-brainer countered by bringing the thing that only exists to counter them. Yeah, personally I think having APTs et al existing in game is a bit silly, but I can see how being able to move an extra EP or two or a “special personnel” unit like a MMG in a pinch could be a handy *option* so I don’t sweat it.

You keep arguing how it’s an “important” part of the background without ever engaging with the actual arguments presented - that your proposed system, like all the ones before it going back to the original design work - still reduce to some extra accounting for no interesting or meaningful or even “I’ll build an NVS instead of a CVS this turn cause I like the Kzinti NCA” flavorful game decisions. That, and your tendency to be taking this rejection personally, is doing you no favors here.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, February 03, 2023 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Your guess is as good as mine!

By Eric S. Smith (Bad_Syntax) on Saturday, February 04, 2023 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Not taking it personally at all Alex, but all the hate against mines is irrational to me. I just don't get it. The game is already full of little rules that add complexity over fun, its pretty much what has made the game popular and have such a long life. The only reason those things add new interesting things is because they exist, who is to say adding mine warfare would do the same thing if properly written?

I have engaged with all the arguments, and given feedback on them.

Its clear that mine warfare is dead, ok, but it just seems to me that the justification for killing it is far less than the justification for not killing many of these other new proposals.

@Richard, do you really think hospital ships and APTs are fun and minesweepers not? I fail to see how.

We all enjoy the game for its excess detail, I just find it kinda funny actually that this ONE aspect has so much hate against it. Makes me wonder if many of these new rules had equal levels of hate thrown at them, or if folks were fine with the bookkeeping changes that something like hospital ships added because of who proposed them or something.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Saturday, February 04, 2023 - 04:19 pm: Edit

"Not taking it personally, you all are just being irrational haters!"

By Eric S. Smith (Bad_Syntax) on Saturday, February 04, 2023 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Thanks for proving my point Alex. Lots of negativity on this topic, and hardly anybody actually trying to be positive and offer any constructive criticism.

You can not support the idea without having to freak out at the concept of it. We could have come up with a workable solution, even if never adopted, instead... well...

But congrats on helping create such an unwelcome and hostile environment to fans just trying to help improve the game.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Saturday, February 04, 2023 - 07:29 pm: Edit

I just pointed out what you were communicating.

The problem isn’t that people irrationally hate mines, it’s that they aren’t interested in adding them to the game. F&E can’t support every single SFB detail, so “but it’s important in SFB” isn’t a compelling arguement. Especially on a subject the playerbase considers long settled and has seen numerous proposals on. They pointed out this suffers from the same fatal flaw the designer identified in the original design work of the game. Heck, I even suggested you take the time to playtest and refine this into a more formal rule for consideration, since that is more likely to get the kind of interest and feedback you want than a vague napkin-math proposal like this one.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Sunday, February 05, 2023 - 08:23 am: Edit

It's not hate, at least for me, if you review my comments about why I didn't think it should be included I wasn't "hating on mines" just commenting on how it too easily shifts overall game balance.

Things like Hospital Ships generally affect both sides equally, mines would not. It's not necessarily about "fun" or not.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Monday, February 06, 2023 - 12:28 am: Edit

Y'know, for someone who said that they were done with "beating a dead horse", there seems to be an awful lot of continued "discussion" that to my ears sounds like a high pitched whine.

IMO, mine warfare is already subsumed in F&E with SIDS incorporating it. It's already in there with an appropriate level of granularity for the strategic game that it is. Nothing needs to be done about it, SVC said it is dead, so let's move on, shall we?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, February 06, 2023 - 11:07 am: Edit

Mike, I’ve been trying to share some insight into making proposals in general at this point, ie understanding the deeper game dynamics, design history, and playerbase interest involved with any given topic - with mines as the illustrative point and pointing how those things apply here, and why in this case they result in a higher hurdle to clear.

And yeah, coming in with an expectation that people will be on board with one’s proposal and feeling entitled to positive feedback and calling people irrational and haters when one doesn’t get that…*shrugs*

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 06, 2023 - 11:38 am: Edit

The game is 37 years old. Kinda hard to imagine an old SFBism that's not in F&E that needs to be in F&E. You have to ask "why has it not been done?" and maybe the answer is "not needed" or maybe "because it adds nothing" or maybe "needless complication." I don't begrudge anyone trying to suggest something (maybe I missed it) but when I say "no" it's going to take a serious reason to reverse that decision, not just "I want my name on a rule".

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Monday, February 06, 2023 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Alex, Steve; sorry if I'm becoming that crotchety old man who shakes his fist at those youngsters and demanding that they get the heck off my lawn...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 06, 2023 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Eric Smith:

So far you have proposed rule that have been proposed before, even proposed by the designer. In the past, they were rejected as not really adding anything to the game. Player A moves to attack base of Player B, Player B notes he has a minefield, Player A notes he has a minesweeper. The mines and minesweeper cancel out and play continues as before. Nothing is gained, nothing is lost except that the players are angered that they were encouraged to buy the mine warfare module. You have spent time condemning other things in the game which you say are not indicative of strategic assets like minesweeper. You have made no effort to prove this, and in fact others have pointed out that these items have use. Moving EPs, healing planets. Your minefield rules essentially spend EPs for no gain. You have counted up the minesweepers and called for another fleet to represent them if you cannot have the minesweepers and mine rules you want. You can playlets mine rules (including your own and those of other players) and perhaps find something that works. We honestly have not.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, February 06, 2023 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Mike, no worries at all! I agree that SIDS represents the effects of mines well enough if one wants to think of it that way. I’m just saying there is value in looking at what goes into making a better received proposal in general, with this particular issue being a good one to help illustrate that, even if this particular proposal is dead. Kind of a proposal after action.