Federation Commander

I just finished listening to episode 141 of the Star Fleet Universe On Call podcast. The entire episode is pretty much devoted to a discussion of plasma torpedoes in FC, and what might be done to fix them. And by "fix", I mean balance plasma-armed ships vs non-plasma ships in tournament-style play.

Most of the discussion is about rule changes such as making them faster, increasing their warhead size, allowing overloads, adding enveloping plasmas, etc. Reducing the point value of plasma-armed ships, which to me seems like the obvious and easiest solution if all you're worried about is tournament balance, is also discussed. Making an official change to the point values on the ship cards, however, means reprinting a lot cards and is problematic (as is making a change to the published plasma weapon charts, etc.)

In all of the discussion on rule changes for plasma, there is one point that was not brought up that concerns me the most. I'm still new to FC, but have been playing wargames for decades. I have little interest in tournament play. For me, FC is all about scenarios - having lots and lots of interesting, "historical" scenarios to choose from. My concern is that, in an effort to "fix" plasma torpedoes in FC to make tournament-style play more balanced, a plasma rule change may be adopted that will detrimentally affect the balance of the many published scenarios. Presumably these scenarios were playtested and balanced to the existing plasma rules, so in theory if the FC plasma rules are changed to improve the combat performance of plasma-armed ships in some fashion, most or all of these scenarios will then become unbalanced in favor of the plasma-armed player. To my way of thinking, that's a lot of collateral damage being done to the published game in the name of better balance - every bit as bad as reprinting ship cards with adjusted point values.

With this in mind, I would recommend trying to avoid adding or changing the exisiting plasma rules in FC. I think it would be far better to simply make point value adjustments in tournament scenario rules, making the plasma-armed ships cheaper for tournaments, than to make a rule change that might have a broader, undesirable ripple effect across the range of published FC scenarios and products. Perhaps a suggested point value adjustment for plasma vs non-plasma could be published in a future update to rule section 8B for tournament and/or "random" battle scenarios?

I think your assumption that each scenario was exhaustively balanced is probably a bit optimistic. I'm sure they are playtested, but I really doubt they have the resources or the inclination to take every scenario they think up and fully regress every possible combination of races and ship options, carefully adjusting the parameters and repeating till the win percentage is precisely 50-50 for any combination.

Indeed, my guess is that most scenarios start with the presumption that BPVs are a the authoritative play balance mechanism and then adjust from there based on the parameters and objectives of the scenario.

So I propose you look at the tournament balance conversation from a different angle. Most players don't play tournament, but tournament play is the laboratory where there are enough repetitions with enough control to be able to draw some meaningful conclusions.

So I propose you look at the tournament balance conversation from a different angle. Most players don't play tournament, but tournament play is the laboratory where there are enough repetitions with enough control to be able to draw some meaningful conclusions.

I do not doubt that there's a balance problem when using point values to create a plasma vs. non-plasma battle scenario, based upon tournament play. I accept that claim from experienced tournament players at face value. My concern is that, in seeking a systemic solution to a problem of scenario balance, specfically scenario balance between plasma and non-plasma ships, we may inadvertantly upset the apple cart in other ways.

The core contention in the podcast is that the plasma torpedo rules need to be changed. The underlying justification is that plasma torpedoes in FC are not as effective as they are in SFB - they don't force the FC non-plasma player to make the same hard decisions that they do in SFB. Again, I accept that claim at face value.

But I also think that's a bit of a chimera. The basic problem in FC is plasma vs. non-plasma scenario balance using the point system. So what if plasma torpedo tactics in FC are different from SFB? If the scenarios were balanced, this really wouldn't be a problem, would it? It seems to me that the best way to address a point-based scenario balance problem is to tackle it head-on with a point-adjustment system born out of those same tournament experiences that identified the problem in the first place. If certain kinds of scenarios are unbalanced, then balance them. But you don't need to make a systemic change to the FC rules to accomplish that, and by taking the direct approach you avoid the possibility of unbalancing other scenarios as an unintended by-product, or needlessly rendering obsolete existing rulebooks and other publications.

The FC scenarios are not playtested to the degree that say ASL scenarios are playtested. I wouldn't get too worried about throwing the existing FC scenarios out of balance. Many of them are simple adaptions of existing SFB scenarios.

I think the jury is still out on changing the core rules to strengthen Plasma further. You have to be careful with that approach because it helps the ISC and Orions, not just the Romulans and Gorns. In the end something may still happen in this area, but it may also require other changes such as a slight weakening of PPDs and/or an increase in the cost to buy Plasma on Orion ships. And, yes, there is a question in regard to when such modifications to the rules for point value balance end. For example, some folks think the Kzinti, Orions and possibly Vudar are far too strong. Do we change the rules to address this as well? You can keep chasing point value balance, never get there and in the process undermine the popularity of the game because of the constant rules changes caused by the chase.

I also agree there is no need to change the printed point values. However, when point value balance matters it can be addressed with printed point multipliers for each empire. This is the approach we are using in the current FC Online tournament. For example, in the current tournament, Romulan printed point values have been subject to a 92% multiplier and Kzinti printed point values have been subject to a 110% multiplier. Those are the two extremes. The intention is to adjust these point value multipliers before the next tournament. For example, if the top finishers in the current tournament all have the same empire, the multiplier for that empire will go up by one level (e.g., from 92% to 96%, 96% to 100%, 100% to 105% or 105% to 110%). Similarly, if the lowest placing players are all from the same empire, the multiplier for that empire will fall one level. In addition, the multiplier for those empires that were available but not selected in the current tournament will fall one level. With enough tournament play this should converge to a reasonable set of multipliers that can be used by players when they are concerned about point value balance (Exception: If the level changes on the multipliers are too large the multipliers for some empires might oscillate back and forth between two levels rather than converge to a given level).