Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through April 26, 2004	25		04/26 11:43pm

John - just to answer your question:

How would the production phase become a nightmare if all that was done was to require that ships of certain sizes take longer than 1 turn to build? Nowhere was I proposing extra forms or vast amounts of rules additions. The existing turn record track can be used to track production (i.e. Imperium).

Variable ship production times = tracking how many turns a ship has been in production. I've played games with this method (World in flames is a good example) and the long and short of it is it's a pain (and that is with far fewer pieces). IMO any extra time is wasted, for the increase in realism.

Computer F&E is another matter - that does all the organising and tracking for you - just click on the ship you want to build and the computer pumps it out the other end when it is complete.

I'm not against the rule for other people just expressing a personal preference - I've always been of the opinion optional rules are the best of both worlds - those that want them use them, those that don't...er...don't.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 06:30 am: Edit

I'm of the opinion that there is already alot of "chrome" in F&E now. We should be very careful before adding more. That's why I'm so wary of rules like depot level repairs. At least that rule adds an extra choice into the game for its extra workload. I can't see this adding any choices, only "realism".

With WIF, the delays in production are very integrated into the game. The war is only 5-6 years long, yet it takes 2 years to build a CV. When production schedules are so long compared to the length of the game, they do become a strategy problem in themselves, as they add a level of unweildiness to your production - you can't immediatly replace critical losses.

With F&E, critical losses could mostly be replaced quickly by conversions, which would still presumably all be effectively instantaneous.

Now, if you did something like the following:-

FFs take 4 turns to build, DDs 6, CAs, 8, DNs 12

conversions take 2 turns (each SB has 2 conversion slips).

Then you may make builds in F&E a major strategy problem. Gearing up for war would take ages (~6 turns + before war production kicks in). Likewise, exhaustion would kick in apparently later, as the effects of less money would have a delayed impact on builds (I'm assuming you pay all of the cost at the beginning of the contract).

Now I think these times are actually realisitic. I really do think it would take at least 6 years to build a DN. While that is three times longer than CVs in WWII, the complexity of the project would be immense - these ships would be orders of magnitude more difficult to build than a WWII CV.

By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 08:34 am: Edit

Why would these ships be any more difficult to build than a WWII CV? Granted, the ship is immensely more complex, but the construction methods are, too.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 08:35 am: Edit

David,

Good point about the stacks of ships on the turn record track. Of course, that assumes that Cws will take longer than 1 turn to build, as I don't seem to remember there ever being 30 CAs, Dns, etc in production at the same time.

How ship counts would be limited? Again, it ties into the production time. If a DN takes 4 turns to build, say, and you can only have 1 or 2 in production at any one time, that will limit the number of the big ships, at least.

James,

Nowhere was it said that ships would have to be tracked for numbers of turns in production. Buy ship X, place it on turn track Y turns in the future. When that turn comes about, ship is placed on the map.

See, I don't see this as chrome. Penal ships are chrome. All those unique and limited prototye ships are chrome. Marines are chrome. SFGs are chrome.

This was an attempt to at least try to offer a solution for those that complain the production schedule doesn't make sense, for a variety of reasons.

There hasn't even been a proposal made, and won't be, by me, as it's pointless now, so there's nothing really to pick apart yet, only a bunch of worst-case scenarios floating around ;)

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 09:19 am: Edit

John

Granted that we are in peacetime, but have you noticed how the time required to complete military construction contracts for new technology aircraft/ships has ballooned to a typical 20 years or so from conception?

During peacetime in between the wars, the Germans and British were able to build ships, aircraft and tanks MUCH faster than that!

The culprit is technology.

Going further back, a good smith could make a servicable sword in just a few days if he didn't have to decorate it.

By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:54 am: Edit

John - exactly my point - you have to organise what ships are coming out when. Either way you will have either to track the pieces or keep a record of what is arriving or put a stack on a future turn marker. Whichever way you look at it it WILL be more work than just deciding on production and putting it on the map, whatever the proposal. Realisms fine so long as it doesn't take extra time (IMO).

I'm guessing we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 11:22 am: Edit

Pretty much, James ;)

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 08:48 pm: Edit

John, there are a lot of ships in the pipeline at any one time
for one turn you would have (max)
7xDN (1 per race, started 4 turns earlier)
9xCA (1 per race plus fed/klingon second one, started two turns earlier)
50+CW/DD (16 fed,16 klingon plus others, started the turn before)

and the next turn square would have the DN's and CA's, but not the DW/DD's, etc

So john, you are saying that this would limit production becouse you would not give the races enough slipways to build their existing schedule,

how is this any different from just reducing their production schedule?

if we didn't have some of the restrictions on this proposal that we do (up front payment, etc) I could see this being interesting, but as is it just complicates things and gives more tall stacks to scatter, hurts the alliance more when they loose a capitol and doesn't gain anything other then a perception of 'realism'

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 12:14 am: Edit

I never actually made any sort of detailed proposal in terms of how long ships would take. I was thinking for CWs and smaller a production time of zero. For larger ships, let's take the Feds as an example. If the Feds have 2 DN slipways, they can have 2 DNs in production and have to wait say 4 turns before starting new ones, so there wouldn't be 2 Fed DNs coming out each turn. Like I said, there's never been a proposal to tear apart, only a discussion of parameters.

By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Replicators people replicators, the build schedual just represents getting the crews trained. They beam the ship up in 5 minutes using giant indutrial scale replicators.

The various limits on ship type represent docrinal restrictions and availability of dylithium crystals.

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:12 am: Edit

people replicators
Oh, no! Attack of the clones!

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit

I think that an idea like this would be better suited for some future computer version of the game where that kind of bookkeeping can take place with a lot less player hassle. While we're on the subject anyway, I'd suggest tying ship building time into size class somehow so that the larger ships take longer to build. A system like that might actually represent *thinks about the math involved* a more even number of slipways available for each type of ship, but the larger ones simply can't be built as fast as the smaller ones.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 07:36 pm: Edit

I've been working on this idea (borrowing of course a lot from World in Flames) for a campaign. What I have is this (ignoring WiF-style two-stage building, so these are total times):

DN - 48 mo
CA - 24 mo
CL - 16 mo
CW/DD - 12 mo
DW/FF - 8 mo

In F&E terms:

DN - 8 turns
CA - 4 turns
CL - 3 turns
CW/DD - 2 turns
DW/FF - 1 turn

This is based on hull size, increased or decreased like build cost is (DNs increased, CW/DW/FF decreased).

Now, the way I was going to implement it for a non-F&E campaign was that in half the time you get a bare hull, which can then be completed as any variant of the hull. This way, while you have to plan four years out that you will want a DN hull, you only have to decide two years out if it will be a DN, CVA, SCS, whatever.

I wouldn't call something like this chrome -- it adds a significant strategic dimension. The F&E player has way too much flexibility in his or her build choices.

I don't really know that it's feasible to do in F&E, though, without having a computerized database to keep track. There's also a big balance question -- a large amount of playtesting would be necessary to ensure the game is not unbalanced by such a radical change in the way production operates.

Oh, and as far as comparison to WWII build times goes, IIRC a SFB CA is about ten times the size of a WWII (10,000-ton treaty limit) CA. A SFB DN is maybe seven times the size of a WWII BB.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:09 am: Edit

TK> That's not a new idea. Something like it was in the old Star Letters.

My idea was to make all turns one month long, and each slip can build 1-EP worth of ship per month. Ergo, it would take three months to build an FF, and 18 months for a CVA. Assuming you paid the EP every turn.


Garth L. Getgen

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Sgt G: I would never assume that I'm the only one to think of something like that!

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 02:07 am: Edit

TK> Sorry. I didn't mean for that to come off as a negative post ... I do hope you didn't take that personal.

I agree: big ships should take longer to build than small ships. But, as has already been pointed out, it would make a very complex game unbelievably complex.

Perhaps if there was a computer version ....

Some other ideas to go with my one-turn-per-month idea:

- both sides move ships at the same time, either as a plotted movement or as alternating somehow.

- Tac-movement would be one-hex per turn/month. Perhaps two per month ... to allow for slowers ships (freighters/cloaked/etc) that only move one/turn and to allow for retreats/reactions/etc from F&E

- Strat-movement would be point-to-point, from one SB/planet/etc to another, up to 6 (12) hexes away, on a DIRECT line that can't go thru any enemy fleets. The number of ships using Stat-movement is only limited by how many can depart a base at once, perhaps 4 or 6.


Garth L. Getgen

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 06:51 am: Edit

Sgt G: No worries -- I'm not that thin skinned ;) I just reread my post and it could have come off as defensive; it was meant to be mildly self-deprecatory (I don't generally assume my ideas are all that original...).

What I'm experimenting with is WiF-style movement and two-month turns, to go along with the variable production times. I'm not sure how it will work just yet, as the playtesting has been very limited. But the basic idea is that a ship has a movement rating and a range. Despite the canonical position that tactical movement rates have nothing to do with F&E speed, I'm basing my MP on it anyway, so that a ship's speed is 20% of its theoretical tac speed if there were no speed-31 cap -- so most ships are 6, CF/CW/DW/FF are 7, prerefit Kzins or 24-warp EY ship 5, etc. Range is the same except for `war' hulls (for this purpose anything with an F&E discount) which is only 2/3. This makes things like FFs and CWs 7/5, while CFs are 7/7.

Movement is by turn, with return to base and the end of each turn (so you have to have a base -- SB unlimited, BATS max 10, MB 5, SAMS [assumed at planets] 3). Any leftover MP at the end of the move allow you to improve your search roll for determining engagements; if your search roll is better than your opponent's you get some options (may avoid combat, get better WS for the scenario, use a standoff fighter/PF/drone strike, etc.).

Oh, and ships have to move in task forces which are legal fleets, observing command limits from the time they leave the base. There's no strategic movement either, as being able to rebase three times, up to twelve hexes each time (for a typical CA-type), in the space of an F&E turn seems like enough.

This isn't for F&E, though, but for SFB campaign use.

Hmm. Should this be in a campaign rules topic?

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 08:39 am: Edit

TK> Yeah, it probably should go in a SFB-Campaign topic.

Am trying to figure out what you meant by "SB unlimited, BATS max 10" etc ... is that the number of ships that can dock there? Or the number of MP a ship gains by starting there?? {If the second, once I dock at a SB and gain "unlimited" MP, why would I ever lose them??}

If you're doing an SFB campaign using the F&E map, I would suggest that you might want to cut the fleet sizes down drasticly.

In the topic found under: "Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board : Federation & Empire: F&E Proposals Forum: Ideas for an ultra-lite, super-simple strategic-level game" I posted a cut-down OoB with initial fleet sizes about 1/3 that of F&E. Ah, found the post: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/4647.html?1057797666 dated Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 04:14 am

Not sure where you're heading with it, but if you want to make a SFB campaign, I would think you don't want MASSIVE fleets to play with.


Garth L. Getgen

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 08:48 am: Edit

TK> If you care, I found the post for the Gorn/Romulan OoB: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/4890.html?1059361158


Garth L. Getgen

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Garth

remember that you have ships with a move of 7 so you either go to 7-8 rounds/turn or ships could move more then once/turn.

also you will need to blend strategic, retrograde, and reserve movement into the operational movement phases (this actually ends up being pretty easy, ships at these speeds move ~6 hexes/month)

you need to limit the number of combat rounds per month so that additional ships can arrive as reinforcements.

if there are no other modifications the alliance will get crushed becouse the coalition as enough ship superiority that they can move in and pin the alliance fleets and have no need to retrograde back to their bases so the alliance will never have a chance to counterattack.

I think the 'correct' fix is a combination of fleet size changes and hidden movement.

for the hidden movement you would have something like the following rules

1. a unit always detects enemy units in the same hex

2. a unit has a fair chance (4 in 6??) of detecting a unit in it's reaction range (possibly a slightly lower chance for a scout vs a ship in it's outer reaction range). note that if you have large numbers of ships moving and/or large numbers of units watching this becomes automatic, but it allows single ships a chance to slip through the lines (i.e. raids).

3. cloaked ships would have a lower chance of being detected, but should also move slower when cloaked

4. a ship in enemy space can choose two modes of operation.


4a. 'passing through' where the ship is not trying to disrupt commerce, but has a chance of going undetected

4b. 'raiding' where the ship is disrupting commerceand so it's presence is known to the other side(which can call up a police ship, react ships, etc)

5. if ships are not detected via any other methods spies and communications intercepts will tell you where the enemy ships were 6 months prior (this delay can be adjusted with playtesting). so a massive buildup out of sensor range will be detected before an assault is made, but an attack could run into such a waiting fleet unexpectedly.

these rules would cause fleets to be far more spread out to give warnings about enemy actions rather then the 'one big stack' that F&E devolves into and I think would result in a very interesting game, but absolutly cannot be considered without computer support.

By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 06:46 pm: Edit

David, I've also been toying around with the idea of a "dark" F&E varient where you can't see from Hydra to the ISC capital. I was going to give spotting and range bonuses to scouts (and even greater bonuses to fixed positions). I also figured that it would put more ships out on "patrol" even when they were at war to avoid nasty surprises. I think that I was thinking of trying to put together a more realtime game rather than the turn based system that we're currently using.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 09:26 pm: Edit

well if 'realtime' you mean 1:1 game to real time I think you could do it, however 18 years for a game seems a little excessive

seriously with fleets scattered over such a large area you need to be turn based to play it reasonably.

however you can eliminate the 'coalition turn, alliance turn' aspect by making the turns simultanious

you still want ~6 month turns simply to save having to re-do all the income/production/repair rules, but you have to figure out how to interleave


1. operational movement
2. reaction movement
3. reserve movement
4. retrograde movement
5. strategic movement
6. combat
7. field repairs

and possibly
8. normal repairs
9. production (to bring things back on-topic )

with both sides getting income and doing other once-a-turn things (possibly including production) at the same time

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 07:33 am: Edit

David ... you mean, it shouldn't take 18 years to play this game??? Maybe it just feels like it does.


Garth L. Getgen

By Keith Plymale (Zaarin7) on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:24 am: Edit

Just catching up on old messages. Got that SVC said this is DOA years ago so addressed to anyone still interested.

Somebody above mentioned World In Flames production. That game borrowed and idea from older SPI games called the production spiral. For WIF you use one and everybody puts all there builds on it. I could see something like that for F&E. One for the Alliance and one for the Coalition.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 12:59 pm: Edit

I think 9 year necro of an old thread might be a record.