(6MM.0) MAP MODIFICATIONS
The F&E map assumes that the player became fleet commander or national leader or whatever just seconds before fleets (yours or theirs) crossed the border. Thus, all of the infrastructure (bases, etc.) were built by your predecessor without regard to how you might want to conduct your operations. This rule assumes that while you were his deputy and heir apparent, you managed to convince him to build at least a couple of things that fit into your plans.—Jim Cummins
Each player may place a limited number of colonial planets (4CD.0), Battle Stations, and Mobile Bases anywhere within his territory before play begins. None of these may be placed adjacent to or in the same hex as an existing planet or base, a border, or one of these units. Each player secretly records in writing where he will build these items and all of the written records are revealed (before any ships are set up) simultaneously. Monitors could be deployed at colonial planets as they could at any planet.
Race Colonies MBs BATs
Fed 3 2 2
Klingon, Romulan 1 1 1
Kzinti, Gorn 1 1 0
Lyran, Hydran 1 1 0
Tholian, WYN, LDR 0 0 0

By Charles Shevlin (Chass) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 01:30 pm: Edit

I think the Bats should be chainged to base stations. I do like this one.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

There should probably be some cost to getting these units. Something like giving up an equal EP worth of ships for the Colonies and Bats and the MB are just deployed from your capital stockpile.

By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Either that, or the initial deployment needs to be balanced along Coalition/Alliance lines.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Hard to balance on its own, it is extra fixed defenses away from the boarder, which helps the alliance more than the coalition early.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit

How so? TH Alliance cannot use it as a supply point unless they attack and hold it.

It is neutral, for or against both sides evenly. No balance is required.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Cfant, are you commenting on the right topic here? Colonies cannot be taken so their is NOTHING that you can take from your enemy in this rule that will act as a supply point for your side.

Under this the alliance STARTS with 4 extra MB (already set up), and two extra BATS in the Hydrans/Kzinti/Fed home space.

That is extra fixed defense points in alliance space the coalition needs to kill. The coalition gains some from the colonies, they get income from theirs while they can kill alliance colonies (unless the alliance can declare their colonies off map, in which case this rule is pure pro alliance).

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 04:02 pm: Edit

I think what Chris is saying is, this rule by itself doesn't need to be balanced. It needs to be balanced with all the other rules in the package.

So, this may be pro-Alliance by "3 points" (whatever that may mean), and if the other rules balance out as "3 points" pro-Coalition, the product overall is balanced.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Looks clear to me that he is saying no balance effect when he says it is neutral, and the part about not being able to use it as a supply point unless they attack and hold it is really strange on this topic.

I said it will need to be balanced by other rules.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit

"None of these may be placed adjacent to or in the same hex as an existing planet or base, a border, or one of these units"

This will need to be fixed as there is only one hex this works for in the Kzinti's case (1701).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 06:25 pm: Edit

I would say the rule is fairly balanced...

Colonial Planets I assume give extra income...

The Coalition will get to destroy any on map colonies, whereas it will be much later that the Alliance can do the same to the Coalition.

Conversely, the Coalition bases will not be used until much later, whereas the Alliance bases will get to be used initially.

So net overall, fairly balanced!

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 02:29 am: Edit

the alliance already has trouble positioning ships to defend the existing bases, these new bases will die cheaply (if the coalition has the time it will cost the coalition nothing other then the use of ships for one turn)

meanwhile the coalition bases will be available to be used to repair ships

By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:35 pm: Edit

I think the Kzinti and Hydran colonial planets should be located in the off map area to make this a balanced rule. If they are located on map I would say it is a pro coalition rule. Since all of the rules in a product need to balance each other out and do not need to be self balancing I would suggest this change only if the rule set were tending to be pro coalition already.

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 12:00 pm: Edit

As these bases are marked low importance by the high command how about making them un-upgradable for the first turn of hostilities.

Admiral to XO
"Look, I just let you have that base that you have been pestering me for. Now you want a tug to upgrade it? And dont even think of sending the corps of enginners there on a training mission."

Also agree BS rather than BATs as one can see these bases being built for political favour with planetary govenors to improve trade and such

By James Cain (Jcain) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 09:04 pm: Edit

""None of these may be placed adjacent to or in the same hex as an existing planet or base, a border, or one of these units"

This will need to be fixed as there is only one hex this works for in the Kzinti's case (1701)."

The Klingons have a similar problem since they only have 1819 and 2019, yet are allowed 1 colony, 1 MB, and 1 BATS.