Federation Commander

[storeylf]

Sensor propsal.

OK - I've only played one game so far with sensors, and that was a merge of the Hydran attack Fed Scout rules, and the additional options from the older playtest rules. I've also gone through several scenarios solo 'testing' out a few things. Not a huge amount of playtest, but enough to get a feel for some aspects of the sensor rules.

I am posting the following for comments/consideration.

The emphasis here is the anti-seeker aspects of sensors.

The old rules had 2 anti-seeker aspects.
1) Use a sensor to instantly nobble 1-3 drones.
2) Use a sensor to provide jamming to friendly ship. Seekers suffered in a fashion similar to orion stealth - missing on a 6 (or 5 and 6 with self-jamming).

The newer Fed scout rules in Hydran attack provide 2 anti seeker uses.
1) Use a sensor to kill just 1 drone
2) Use a sensor to reduce an impacted plasma by 25%.

I'd personally prefer just 1 anti seeker mode to reduce the number of rules. It may be minor - 1 rule or 2, but look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves as they say.

Comparing the 2 sets of rules, the first thing that strikes me is how differently they scale against different numbers of seekers. The new rules are good against opponents with secondary drones, and useful against a limited amount of plasma (big plasma in particular). The new rules don't, however, scale so well as the number of seekers increase. Drones in particular are often found in sufficient mass to outnumber sensors by significant amounts.

The older rules, however, were quite different. They were even more deadly against secondary drone users, whilst providing little more than a prayer against an odd plasma. They did scale quite well as the seeker mass increased though, but not in a way that stopped seekers dead - equating to a 16% (or 33% for self jam) reduction in effective firepower, something that mass seeker users could still work within.

In terms of 'feel' the older rules for 'jamming' feel better to me, with the jamming working to disrupt any locks on a particular target. Also I'd prefer some way of allowing the scout to be better at jamming seekers that he has more time to work with. All subjective of course.


Therefore I'd like to propose something along the lines of:

1) remove all other anti-seeker rules (what ever they may be).
2) Add Seeker Jamming. The sensor unit uses 1 sensor (and 4 power) on a friendly target during defensive fire. The ship does not have to have been impacted yet. All types of seeker (except suicide freighters) currently tracking that target drop tracking on a die roll of a 6 (roll per seeker) and are removed. This includes both impacted seekers and non impacted seekers. Sequence wise this is as per orion stealth rules (after other defensive fire for that ship). Only 1 sensor per impulse may be used on a ship (2 sensor don't drop seekers on a 5,6). You may however use multiple sensors across multiple impulses to keep trying to drop remaining seekers. [edited for confusion below]



1 rule for dealing with seekers.
It doesn't totally kill those races with secondary launchers.
It does scale to larger numbers of seekers, so still feels useful against kzinti mass drones etc.
The longer seekers take to reach the target the more chance they may get spoofed, if the scout keeps trying.


Comments?

[Mike]

Adding a die roll complicates things and increases the amount of time to play.

I'm against it.
_________________
Mike

=====
Sandpaper gets the job done, but makes for a lot of friction.

[Warhammer]

I think I prefer the rules storeylf proposes. Sure, there is more die rolling, but its not like we've gotten rid of it as it is. Also, I think it feels right in that secondary races are not hosed, and plasma races are not hosed. It also has the "ah-HA!" moment of scuttling a wave of seekers at a ship.

This also has the side-effect of dividing seeker fire among ships or making sure they impact quickly, due to the risk of a massed volley being jammed away.

[Dal Downing]

Ok I like what Storeylf is trying to do here but I have to say i think it goes to far nerfing Big Plasma Races. Ignore the Secondary Drone and Plasma users for a minuete how does this rule effect the Kzinti and Gorns/Roms.

If you spoof away the Kzinti's drones what does he have left to fight with Disrupters and Phaser. If you spoof away the Big Plasma's Torps what does he have left to fight with Phasers thats it and not very many of them if he is a Eagle Series Ship.

What if we modified Storey's rules to something like on a roll of 6 you do a set number of damage points (say 10 or even 20) to the target. Ten Damage points would destroy a Suicide Shuttle and Drone so it woud be just like you removed them from play but would only reduce a Plasma Warhead sorta like it was hit by a Phaser.

Its late I need sleep I will think more on this.
_________________
-Dal

"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!"

[duxvolantis]

[OGOPTIMUS]

Having all seekers missing on a 6 (or a 5 or 6) just seems too overpowering. And I have to admit, that's just a gut feeling. But with all the "plasma is impossible to win with" discussions that have gone on, the last thing FC (or BoM) needs is a unit that completely negates plasma altogether.

Maybe having all impacted plasma reduced by 10% or 20% instead of just one would be better than just one torpedo. That way it's like making the target harder to hit by obscuring the sensor profile rather than jamming the tracking of the specific torpedo (or other handwavium).
_________________
O.G. OPTIMUS


Newest Page | Newer Page | OLD Page

[storeylf]

oops, Just to be clear I wasn't meaning all seeker drop on one roll, each seeker rolls. Bad wording by me, when I said 'all' I meant all types. e.g. Roll 6 dice for that stack of 6, two 6s = 2 dead seekers. If you want you can then try again next impulse and roll 4 dice for the remaining.

This would appear to put the seeker jamming and direct-fire jamming on a rough par. Incoming seekers lose on average 16% per jam. A +1 is quite variable depending on weapon etc, but is in that sort of region in terms of lost damage at close range. At long range +1 is more potent, which is respresented by getting multiple chances against seekers.

In most matches that isn't going to be to many rolls. By the time you are at the really large number of rolls you are probably playing a large game and allwoing for a lot of rolling and time.

[storeylf]

[storeylf]

The best way to explain the sort of imbalance the scout rules have IMO is to look at an example of a seeker vs direct fire matchup. Kzinti vs Lyran being the clearest example.

At the low end, say a couple of cruisers each. Adding a scout will allow the Lyran player to use jamming on both his ships when they get shot at (or 1 ship when all kzinti concentrate) and the remaining sensors kill drones. The Kzniti only outputs about 8 a turn, so most of his drones are jammed each turn, and his direct fire is neutered. The overall average effect is far greater than just direct fire jamming, the kzinti relies to a fair extent on those drones (be it hitting, draining enemy power or forcing his movement). The lyrans on the other hand see their fire power reduced against a scout, but the effect is no more than the 16-25% reduction that direct fire jamming produces. The lyran also frees up ESGs for ramming as well if drones are being jammed (that is specific to this case of course).

If both sides have scouts, then the lyran won't be affected at all as he counter jams the kzinti whilst still killing off most of his drones.


In the larger battles the picture switches around, the kziniti starts to output so many drones that knocking out a few doesn't make a huge impact, on the other hand the lyran is still suffering full on jamming effects due the scaling effect of that option. If the kzinti does get jammed he is not quite so badly off relatively speaking as he still has that bucket load of drones. Scouts start to find it hard to counter jam everything, and certainly a lyran can't jam, counter jam AND drop drones, way to many channels needed.


Of course one could well argue that such racial differences make the game interesting. Fair point, but finding that the presence of a scout has significantly affected the game you are playing in an uneven way is not always that good.

[Monty]

Just a longtime lurker chiming in here. How about a slightly different approach?

Jamming: The scout may use 1 sensor and 1 power on a single enemy ship to interfere with its fire control sensors. That ship may only fire one direct fire weapon type during (1E2d) of that impulse.

[mjwest]

Guys,

Please understand that any rules for special sensors in Federation Commander must be rooted in the rules for special sensors in SFB. While I am sure that will cause a few wrinkled noses, it is still important. This doesn't mean that special sensors in FC have to work like they do in SFB; but they do have to be rooted in how SFB works.

The original set of rules provided in CL/Communique are a fairly direct transposition of the rules from SFB. Quite frankly, they are a literal translation. The second set of rules from HA/CRUL2 are further distillation that was designed to be much simpler and involve way fewer die rolls.

So, being able to "attack" all of the drones in a single hex is gonna probably be a non-starter. That is just a totally different function that doesn't have a foundation in the SFB rules.

That is not to say that Lee's base issue doesn't deserve thought. It is just that any potential solutions need to be kept within the general framework.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy

[storeylf]

I accept what you are saying MWest. I haven't a clue how they work in SFB, not being an SFB player.

I would, however, add that if the old rules were a literal translation then wiping out stacks of drones with one sensor action was apparently part of SFB. The old CL/Comm rules allowed the benefactor of jamminig to avoid potentially all drones that had impacted in the same way I was proposing. That old rule was in fact the basis of my propostion. Same basic action - choose target of jam, roll a dice for each seeker tracking it, kill it on a 6. Still occurs in defensive fire, you just don't have to await the impact.

[storeylf]

I would add another thought, that is the dice rolling thing. You said the latest rules were written to avoid the dice rolling, and Mike noted that aspect as well.

For myself at least the dice rolling isn't an issue, I'm already rolling bucket loads of dice of different colors and checking different charts for different weapons when I fire. Counting how many 6s I roll on a jamming attempt is no issue IMO.

I find the newer ultra predictable usage worse. There is no 'risk' involved with jamming seekers in Hydran attack, you know before hand exactly what the result will be, you know what drones you will kill, and what plasma you will reduce by 25%. Seekers to some extent rely on the risk factor of taking them on - will I shoot them down, will I need tractors, can I afford the chance of a couple of leakers, etc. Again, if the older rules were a literal translation then it appears to have since moved a long way from SFB, a random chance of knocking them out to a set predictable defense where nothing goes wrong and it can't be countered in any way.

Horses for courses, and I accept that may not be everyones cup of tea. But again it's a comment that can be taken as playtest feedback.

[mjwest]

The Communique rules allow a scout to provide jamming to a friendly ship. This provides a +1 (4A4) modify and causes any impacted seeking weapons to miss on a roll of "6".

In addition, as a separate function, a scout can designate three drones and make them go away on a roll of 1-3. (I.e. there are three independent 50/50 chances.)

The HA rules modify the first to remove the die roll for the seeking weapons, and modify the second to a single drone with guaranteed success. I believe both of these were done to remove any extraneous die rolls and significantly simplify the use of the scout channels.

The other thing to keep in mind is that I consider the two different rules differently than others have stated. In my mind, the HA rules (or a slight adjustment to them) is there to provide some utility for scout channels in the base game. They are ostensibly there for the Federation Scout, but really, they allow scout functions in the main game, but intentionally simplify and key them down. The Communique rules are the full Borders of Madness rules. These rules are there to provide scout functions in their full glory and complexity (well, as complex as Federation Commander is supposed to get). I view them as complementary rules, not replacements or alternatives. [Do note that this is me talking, not Steve. Steve may not have the same view as I do.]

With that in mind, I do see the idea of asking to restore the "6" die roll to eliminate drones. I also see the need to explicitly state that friendly jamming can also be used for self-defense.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy

[storeylf]

Aye, whilst I keep refering to them as old and new rules, because that is the easiest way of putting it, I didn't see the new rules as actually replacing the old rules totally, that is sort of clear from the blurb given to them in HA. On the other hand it wasn't obvious whether the HA rules are the way ADB is leaning when it comes to those particular functions. That is why we used hydran attack as the basis and added in the extra options from CL/Comm to round out the functions.

If you are looking to avoid dice rolling on the jamming effect then might I suggest using a mechanism more like Fade/cloak - a set reduction in damage to every impacting drone, minus 2 points would equate near enough to the 1/6. Personally I'd prefer the dice roll and not knowing whether you sucessfuly jammed until you actually try it, but at least a set damage reduction would resolve the 'scaling' aspect that has been lost in the HA rules.