Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Proposed changes to cloaking
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Klingon of Gor
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 137

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I strongly agree with Kang on the "damage sponge" issue. It should affect all weapons. This has the virtue of simplicity.
_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Philip K Dick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1960
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It could always be introduced as an optional rule
[edit] ...meaning the end-of-turn thing, not the damage sponge (cross-posted with Klingon of Gor). That should always be in effect.
_________________


Last edited by Kang on Mon May 07, 2012 7:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:
In SFB, the opposing ship must roll for "lock on" to the cloaked ship. If the lock on is lost, then all seeking weapons from that opposing ship are removed from play. Keeping a "lock on" has varying degrees of difficulty to it. But basically, keeping the "lock on" is easier the faster the cloaked ship is moving, and harder the farther away it is.

That is why I mentioned a delay. Making the cloak be active for an impulse or two would still give the opposing force a chance to land those weapons, but would also let the cloaking ship avoid weapons too far away. It would help take away some of the cheesiest anti-cloak tactics, but still let seeking weapons hit if they are launched close enough.

If you want, make the delay based on how fast the cloaked ship is going. Say, immediately if the cloaked ship is stopped, 1 impulse at speed 0, 2 impulses at speed 8, and three impulses at speed 16.

Regardless, there are ways to nuance the point that seeking weapons go away to make it not be a complete shift of power the other way. It just needs to not involve die rolls for every seeking weapon.

Instead of a delay, use distance and speed:

At the moment cloak engages the seeking weapons drop:

Always if base speed is 0
If base speed is 8 if the "distance" is > 4
If base speed is 16 if the "distance" is > 8

In the above, "distance" is measure to the controlling ship for drones, suicide shuttles and other seeking weapons that require active control and to the weapon if plasma or any other seeking weapon that is self-controlled.

Rationale:
In SFB lock on was greatly impacted by speed of the cloaker and range. It was very hard to retain lock on a slow-moving cloaked ship even if very close. Also good players would use unplanned speed changes and ECM yo-yo to force multiple rolls until lock on broken. The "distance" simulates that the further out the cloaker is, the longer he would have had to "shake" the lock.

Advantages:
Status of all seeking weapons resolved at the time of the cloaking event.
No dice rolling for each weapon.
Fast and easy to adjudicate.
Weapons that lose lock would be apparent immediately rather than waiting for impact.

Of course the speed and range could be modified.

Seekers that retain lock would still hit for half damage against a fully cloaked ship.
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1879

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Under that proposal what would happen at start of next turn? There are more ways to alter your speed in SFB and hence have the ability to keep tweaking to shake seekers (as I understand anyway). The only times a cloaker will be able to alter speed is via ED or Start of turn.

If I activate cloak on impulse 7, fully cloak on impulse 8 and am now speed 16, the drones that are over 8 drop tracking. The only way I could be slower would be that I either choose speed 8 or less way back at start of turn (which in most cases is probably bad), or I used ED before cloaking.

An impulse later is the start of next turn, would you have more rules to allow the cloak ship to choose a lower speed and now drop the remaining drones. Or because I was speed 16 an impulse ago when I cloaked I am now definately to going to be hit by the seekers?

Would you allow a cloaked ship to ED and drop all seekers that didn't drop at the point of cloak?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:
Under that proposal what would happen at start of next turn? There are more ways to alter your speed in SFB and hence have the ability to keep tweaking to shake seekers (as I understand anyway). The only times a cloaker will be able to alter speed is via ED or Start of turn.

If I activate cloak on impulse 7, fully cloak on impulse 8 and am now speed 16, the drones that are over 8 drop tracking. The only way I could be slower would be that I either choose speed 8 or less way back at start of turn (which in most cases is probably bad), or I used ED before cloaking.

An impulse later is the start of next turn, would you have more rules to allow the cloak ship to choose a lower speed and now drop the remaining drones. Or because I was speed 16 an impulse ago when I cloaked I am now definately to going to be hit by the seekers?

Would you allow a cloaked ship to ED and drop all seekers that didn't drop at the point of cloak?

I had not considered that the turn break should affect the status of the seekers one way or the other. My idea was to check for seekers once only, at the time when the ship becomes fully cloaked.

It would certainly be advantageous to the cloaking ship to be able to have a second chance to shake seekers over the turn break but honestly I don't think it is necessary.

And, from a game play perspective I kinda like the idea that a cloaker might have to Emergency Decel in the middle of the turn if too many seekers are too close. Being forced to sit still is not as big of a deal as in SFB, but it seems a reasonable punishment for bad planning Smile
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3492
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alternatively, there is no reason that the cloaker couldn't get a second (or third or fourth) change when circumstances change.

So, if it drops to base speed 16 and there are still seeking weapons close, it could ED and get rid of them. Or, over a turn break it could change base speed and get rid of some. Whichever. (In this case the turn break itself is irrelevant outside the change to base speed.)

Or, like dux' said, it could be a one-time deal: you get the effect when the cloak engages, and that's it. Hope you planned well. Doing it this way actually works pretty well, as it lets the cloaked ship dump seeking weapons at range, but doesn't totally penalize more cunning opponents who managed to get in close for the launch, unless the cloaker is willing to throw away its speed for a turn.

But this is a pretty cool idea.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1879

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

duxvolantis wrote:

And, from a game play perspective I kinda like the idea that a cloaker might have to Emergency Decel in the middle of the turn if too many seekers are too close. Being forced to sit still is not as big of a deal as in SFB, but it seems a reasonable punishment for bad planning Smile


I don't think you can blame bad planning, unlike SFB you have no way other than ED to drop base speed in this game that is applicable to a cloaking ship. If you are speed 16 or 24 then when you cloak you don't get a choice to drop to speed 8 or 0 as you do so (which in SFB you may have planned for with a mid turn speed change). Starting a turn at 0 or 8 is often a really bad idea.

How would you handle fade, you said you would handle the seeker check only at the point the cloak is engaged, that means any seekers launched immediately afterwards whilst you are in fade (cloak is just before launch) would be immune. I can only really see this working if you do the check at the point you become fully cloaked as opposed to when you activate the cloak. That would also allow you to cloak on impulse 8 and then at the start of next turn drop your speed ready for when you become fully cloaked and the check is made.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ncrcalamine
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Posts: 228

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On cloak and distance

I would make the seekers check lock when the cloak becomes fully active or on any speed change down thereafter.


Nicole
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:
duxvolantis wrote:

And, from a game play perspective I kinda like the idea that a cloaker might have to Emergency Decel in the middle of the turn if too many seekers are too close. Being forced to sit still is not as big of a deal as in SFB, but it seems a reasonable punishment for bad planning Smile


I don't think you can blame bad planning, unlike SFB you have no way other than ED to drop base speed in this game that is applicable to a cloaking ship. If you are speed 16 or 24 then when you cloak you don't get a choice to drop to speed 8 or 0 as you do so (which in SFB you may have planned for with a mid turn speed change). Starting a turn at 0 or 8 is often a really bad idea.

How would you handle fade, you said you would handle the seeker check only at the point the cloak is engaged, that means any seekers launched immediately afterwards whilst you are in fade (cloak is just before launch) would be immune. I can only really see this working if you do the check at the point you become fully cloaked as opposed to when you activate the cloak. That would also allow you to cloak on impulse 8 and then at the start of next turn drop your speed ready for when you become fully cloaked and the check is made.


It is still just an idea Smile

Let's see if we can make it more precise. My thought is that the check would be made during the Other Functions Phase (1E2e) after the fade-out period expires (per 5P2).

Also, would need to deal with Voided Cloaks. Seeking weapons can be launched at a ship with a voided cloak. Any seeking weapons launched would lose lock per the range&distance considerations during the Other Functions Phase 4 Impulses after the cloak is voided (ie: when the cloak void expires).

Re planning. Are you saying you don't plan 2-3 turns in advance? Smile I was being facetious there. However I will say that I was trying to capture the feel of SFB without adding a ton of complexity for people to try and deal with.

Ammending the rule so that the distance check is also made at turn break would be okay too and not too complex.
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monty
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 231

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really like where the range & distance idea is going. The cloaking captain has the option to shake the seekers if he really puts some effort into it. It seems like a simple enough change that's easy to remember.

When it's all said and done the other seeking weapon empires don't lose out that much on the proposition. Drone reloads are unlimited, no scatter packs and there's not the one shot psuedo-plasma that needs consideration.

I'll have to remember to try this at my next get together.

Good idea dux
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1960
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Or we can go back to simple basics and just drop all seekers once the ship is fully cloaked. perhaps with a 'saving throw' of 1-3 for a plasma torp to keep its lock.....
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Klingon of Gor
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 137

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not so sure that giving a cloak even a 50-50 chance to spoof a plasma torp that has locked on is a good idea. That's going to impact play balance in Romulan-Gorn fights in a MAJOR way. As it stands, I think the Gorns have a significant advantage in a such a matchup, though I understand that others disagree, and I haven't personally been a game where Vulture DNs were in use. But it seems to me that if cloak can defeat incoming plasma, even part of the time, then the Gorns are going to end up being hunted like rats.
_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Philip K Dick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Soggy_Crackers
Ensign


Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 12
Location: London, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For my two cents on this I feel that having seeking weapons drop against cloaked ships is not the way to go, and my thoughts on that are below.

If the seeking weapon is controlled by the launching ship. Why would the launching ship still retain any target lock at this point (i.e. No direct damage weapon fire as well)? IMHO that just feels not right to me in the sense of keeping with the Fed Commander ruleset. This would also remove the opportunity for an enemy to punish a cloaker by launching during the fade out phase and forcing them to deal with the seekers in some way. This retains the ability to use cloaking in an offensive manner, while giving someone the chance to mess up their opponents cloaked attack approach.

Second to that I think the real issue with cloaking is that it's just not efficient for defense. The amount of power used just does not pay dividends when it comes to seekers, and using traditional avoidance methods are generally the better way to go. To resolve this I would suggest one (or both) of the following:

Reduce the energy cost of cloak. Simply change the rule from 4x the cost to 2x to engage the cloak. Keep the 'upkeep' at 1x the cost though. This makes the threat of your opponent cloaking something to worry about, you know it's cheap for them to do, so be ready. Kind of like holding back 2 overloaded photons, or ESG cap. energy, or fighters etc. Having the initial cloak cost lowered makes it a viable tactic to use in replacement of EM for example.

Change the seeking damage reduction %'s. Have the fade in/out phases to reduce the strength by 50%, and while cloaked reduce the warhead by 75%

Neither of those require any rolling, addition of complexity or re-printing of any ship cards.

Just my thoughts on the issue (and I do feel that cloaking is underpowered as is).

[edit] changed to 75% to: by 75%
_________________
-Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Soggy_Crackers wrote:
For my two cents on this I feel that having seeking weapons drop against cloaked ships is not the way to go, and my thoughts on that are below.

If the seeking weapon is controlled by the launching ship. Why would the launching ship still retain any target lock at this point (i.e. No direct damage weapon fire as well)?

The reason direct fire is range +4 and half damage is because the direct fire is being attempted without lock-on. The game mechanics of sensor ratings and lock-on are not present in FC (in SFB a damaged ship might not always be guaranteed lock-on whether or not cloaking was involved) but the concept of not having that lock are preserved in the inability to launch new seeking weapons at a cloaked ship and subsumed in the +4 range adjustment.

So it is not really foreign to consider that seeking weapons would no longer be able to track the cloaked ship.

In SFB when a ship cloaked the enemy did not automatically lose lock. They rolled a die based on range, speed of the cloaked ship and relative EW strength. That meant that a cloaked ship a far away or moving very slowly would likely benefit from enemies losing lock-on. When they did that all controlled seeks weapons would de removed from play. Plasmas would halve the same chances but could benefit from built in EW advantages and the range was based on range to the plasma rather than the ship who launched it. Even so, the cloaked ship could cause a re-roll anytime the chance changed which meant they could yo-yo the ECM or decelerate, etc and eventually most get completely free of all seekers and weapons lock-ons. I practice this meant tha seekers really close had a decent chance of striking but those further away were almost guaranteed to not hit unless the cloaked was moving fast and the controlling ship remained very close.

The purpose of this proposal is to recapture that feel without adding a bunch of die rolls.
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Soggy_Crackers
Ensign


Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 12
Location: London, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The reason direct fire is range +4 and half damage is because the direct fire is being attempted without lock-on.


Yes, I am aware of this however in SFB if you loose lock you also have to double range, and add the base +5 to direct weapons, so we really aren't keeping with the feel of SFB anyways. So to that point, based on the proposal should not a ship that would drop seeking weapons at a given time also suffer the additional range penalty for DD weapons?

I also understand that things are different from SFB to FC. I get that, I play both. My point is where does it end? For example all the speed and range proposal is doing (and I like the way this works, I like it SFB as well) is adding one more SFB complexity rule to FC (I'll point out G13.33 in SFB is half a column of text without the re-roll rules while the whole of the damge rules for both DD and seeking damage is about half the text in FC). As you said, plasma halfs the chance in SFB, should we not add that as well as without plasma races will be crippled as there are no PPTs to draw a cloak at range?

So that's why my opinion on the cloaking issue is to keep it simple and just change some numbers, make it more effective as is, not adding another sub rule and a chart is the way to keep the feel of FC. Simple, and not complex like SFB. I can't get my girlfriend to play SFB but when I pulled out the FC rule book it was a sigh of releif Wink
_________________
-Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 2 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group