Star Fleet Battles Open Community

that I have never actually played F&E, the single biggest problem I have with it, and what prevents me from even considering playing it, is seeing it at Origins and looking at the number of counters involved. Even with all the elements of the fleet cards keeping them off the map - there is simply too much there for me to take an interest. So, if this is an essential element of F&E or and F&E like game, I see two options:

1. Computerize it.

2. It will be a game in which I will never have an interest.

#2 is not at all unacceptable. It may be that for a game to accomplish what F&E is trying to accomplish that it must do things that will make the game uninteresting to me. I am sure there are tons of F&E players that feeling similarly about SFB. Could be a matter of taste.

With that said, if the thousands of counters and accompanying record keeping is not essential to make F&Eesqe work, then I would be interest in the general concept of playing out large scale strategic gaming in the SFU.

F&E tries to be the World in Flames of the SFU. The "counter" issue comes from tracking at the individual ship, PF, and fighter-pair level, which, for a strategic game of this scope, is simply too much. A far more "playable" approach would be to keep things at the squadron level. i.e., Frigate squadron, Carrier group, cruiser squadron, etc., with perhaps only command ships and scouts being tracked singularly.

Don't track PFs and Fighters individually, but simply build that in to the attack/defense of their parent counters.

Don't have command limits that prevent most of the units in a hex to participate, but allow command capability to modify combat results while everyone (or at least 2/3 or 3/4 - some calculated number) participates. Perhaps command limits allow you to increase or decrease the percentage of units you have in combat (i.e., allowing better command ships to either get more units effectively in combat or to keep more back).

Basically, instead of trying to make World in Flames, make Rise and Decline of the Third Reich.

In that vein, instead of trying to force fit maulers into the game (which in this could be represented by a one-use counter that modifies a cruiser squadron), add diplomacy, spying, R&D, and other strategic options. Instead of trying to make the combat rich in its depth, make the game rich in its breadth.

should simply be part of value of the carrier ship. You could then (if you insisted on the complexity) have a different value for an after combat and out of supply carrier/tender. These rules could just as easily apply to hydrans (or the few other ships that carry 2-9 fighters). Frankly, the same thing could apply to units using drones, if, again, that is the sort of thing you want to track (personally, I would not bother for drones or ships that carry a few fighters or PFs, but would for carriers and tenders).

I also agree with Andy's comments in his last paragraph. It would make a more interesting game.

"In that vein, instead of trying to force fit maulers into the game (which in this could be represented by a one-use counter that modifies a cruiser squadron), add diplomacy, spying, R&D, and other strategic options. Instead of trying to make the combat rich in its depth, make the game rich in its breadth."

Those are elements that are sorely lacking, esp. considering that this is a strategic game. Early Beggings, a variant created by John Wong and since taken over by Tim Losberg, adds in a number of these elements, including colonization and exploration.

"I'm also thinking that perhaps "crippled" be a more severe penalty, something more akin to "disrupted" - i.e., half movement, can't engage in offensive action, lose ZOC. Make it more severe so that SELF-crippling/disrupting a unit is primarily done to save key units, not as part of an attrition strategy."

I can see that. It makes sense. I always thought that a crippled ship should not be able to block supply (they currently can't react)

"As all capital ships are command ships, I'd already kinda covered that ;-)"

I didn't read what you said that way, but if that's what you intend, I'm cool with that.

"About all you would lose is the ability to do next hex strikes"

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please clarify.

Paul,

"Frankly, the same thing could apply to units using drones, if, again, that is the sort of thing you want to track "

Drones only come into play in F&E as bombardment points (they increase the combat potential, but at an economic cost). Would you dispense with that, or try to streamline in/subsume it into the system?

I'd probably still keep fighters separate, but as you said, only for carriers/tenders, and I would not make replacements free. They'd get a counter per sqn, and you could purchase replacements at the appropriate time; some people feel that fighters dominate the game too much..making it cost to replace might balance things out a bit.

"I thought it was always one of the more figgly things in F&E. Single seat fighters w/ limited, if any, warp capability are able to move X-lightyears into an adjacent hex?"

In fighter strikes. The rule as published IS broken, but I came up with a fix for it that works pretty well. I don't know if SVC ever published it.

In my version, there was a chance of surprise, or the carrier/tender could get ambushed.

I see no reason for fighter/PF counters. They should be abstracted into the ship. Most CV/PFT have almost no offensive value outside of their fighters/PFs (Rom 3rd gen being the obvious exceptions). I really like where Andy is going with the disruption thing, too. Ships could be the hardest to disrupt, most expensive to return. Then PFTs, then carriers, progressively easier to disrupt and cheaper to return. I think the model has real potential to simplify attrition units without loosing too much of their value and flexibility.

I also agree that outside of returning a unit from disrupted status, there should be no cost for fighters/PFs.

Ive only played table top once and it was a small scenario. Ever since then Ive played using Vassal (similar to Cyberboard I guess) but even then the number of counters is insane.

So I do like the idea of making squadrons out of everything. I also like the idea of combining PFs/Fighters with the ships. Perhaps by bringing them along they allow you to make different types of attacks/defences or they simply bump up your offence, or maybe they give you a bonus to avoid being crippled.

I played SFB for 16 years before looking at F&E, and would consider myself very much an F&E novice. But I can say for a fact that the guy I play against (also a long time SFB/short time F&E player) would be FAR more interested in the game if it didnt take us months to get a single turn done.

Yesterday he sent me an email apologising for being hooked on Navy Field rather than playing on SFBOL because Navy Field battles take 10 minutes, while we spend 2 hours getting 2 turns of SFB done.

I like the idea of having no open space battles. No pinning wars. No reacting to other movements. And a whole bunch of other things which are silly when you consider battles would only ever be fought over resources, and its silly to suggest you could somehow intercept a fleet moving at 500 times the speed of light.

So it can be huge. Starbases. Minefields. Battleships and Carriers. Special function ships. PFs and Fighters. Whatever... But it needs to have a way to bring it all together in a way that the battles are fought fairly quickly, and in a way that still ensures clever tactics will beat bad rolls.

OK, at the risk of drawing heat, here's one of my main beefs with F&E (I do own the TFG Deluxe F&E, but never was able to find time or an opponent to play it).

It's the "Who Wears The Pants" factor. That is, it really bugged me when a new ship would be proposed for SFB, that seemed like a great addition to SFB, and the F&E guys hopped up and down and howled and killed the proposal for how it would impact F&E. There were times when it really seemed like the F&E crowd got the "last word" on what could and could not fit into the game. And, from what I hear, F&E'rs that felt the same way about SFB players.

Meanwhile, of course, FedCom gets to ignore F&E completely and lollygag along doing whatever the hell it wants, having 3 BBs in a battle line, what have you. Historical? Who cares? We're trying to sell product to the young guys! The SFB guys, tho, you guys have to follow "history".

Bleah.

Over time, gotta admit, that kind of built up some resentment of F&E from me and some others. Nothing personal against any of 'em, just how it came down.

Now, as for actually playing F&E... sure, I'd love to, if I had the time and a good opponent. But it seems to be a "big investment" of time and as Paul notes, there's currently no method for playing it electronically.

I'm actually a big fan of VBAM Games, and look forward to their spin on things. I've used VBAM with some success as a supplement to a B5Wars campaign, and someday could see running it as a campaign engine for the SFU.

Just my two cents - no hate meant to anyone.

GREEN!

;-)

PURPLE! ;)

This is actually a subject that interests me, as I always was a more than a little disillusioned with F&E. Basically, I always got the feeling (after buying the Deluxe F&E game) that is was too complex to be an accurate representation of a STRATEGIC scale game. It came across more as though it was scaled as "theater operation" but done on a strategic map.

So a much needed trim down on the complexity not only of combat but on many of the units already mentioned (fighters, PF, etc.) is necessary to get me interested in F&E. I created my own version of theater operation rules that better reflects the SFB ships abilities and inherent problems. It works well.

F&E also needed some things like R&D and randome events and other variables of a strategic nature. That would add a lot more flavor into the game without adding all of the complexity that it already has.

And on a side note, thanks for finally having a discussion I felt was interesting enough to partake in. Been following this board for over two months and you guys finally hit on something good. Also, thanks for a site free from the overbearing nature of the official boards.

You can play F&E using Vassal Engine. I play against a friend in another state and its great. The management of counters means its much easier that FTF as well.

Combined with excel spreadsheets for economics and you spend far less time managing the game, and a lot more time moving pieces and blowing things up.

I havent tried PBEM because that would be far too time consuming. But if you can organise time to be online at the same time as your opponent, then F&E definitely works.

Joe, a question about marine combat. Why are you keen for this to play a big part? I think if you go for reduced counters and run the game via squadrons, then something like marine combat should be used to modify a roll, rather than get its own roll.

BTW: for those talking about scale. A friend of mine decided to play F&E combined with SFB. He'd run every battle on SFBOL with specific rules for adding new ships when old ships are crippled/explode. I think this probably played a big part in him getting tired of how long the game takes :)

"Joe, a question about marine combat. Why are you keen for this to play a big part? I think if you go for reduced counters and run the game via squadrons, then something like marine combat should be used to modify a roll, rather than get its own roll."

The major reason is that it never made sense to me that a frigate could capture a planet. Devastate, yes, intimidate and threaten, yes. But capture?

At some point, you have to put boots on the ground. Andy and Paul were talking about R&DotTR; ground combat is a big part of that game.

Ultimately, a navy exists to deliver the marines and deliver supplies, and kill the other guy's navy and supplies. I think sieging a system would be interesting

"But a marine ship with even 100 times as many troops would still be a joke."

Agreed (which is why I always though marine frigates where kind of silly); although I think in a futuristic world, the percentage of soldiery to the general population would likely be much lower.

"But I guess this is where devastating the planet first comes in to play"

Yes. Also, in reality, one would capture a part of a planet, then use that as a launching point to conquer the world.

Capturing large would would be extremely difficult to capture unless they were devastated. But colony worlds and smaller worlds would be much more practical.

"So to control the planet they only need take New York, LA, and Washington, and ignore the fly-over states (and every other country which isnt America)."

That's basically the idea. Many countries have fallen without killing off the bulk of the populace.

Still, it should be much harder than it is in F&E today.

"So you could have Asteroids/Minor Planets/Major Planets/Capitals."

Yes.

"Each being massively more difficult to take. So Asteroids may change hands a lot as they are mined and exploited, and maybe even have shelf lives. Minor Planets are harder, though still able to take quickly. But Major Planets and Capitals may require multiple turns and lots of troop ships to take."

Right on the money. Capitals wouldn't be impossible to take, but damned difficult, and would take many turns to capture (and pacify)

"Dont you mean "important populace" :)"

hehe, yeah.

I wouldn't know where to put something like my rules on here, ikvsabre. It doesn't really fall into regular SFB, even though it uses those ships as a basis, and it doesn't fall into F&E rules either.

I can see this taking place within a star system, but out in the void, I don't see how this could happen unless both sides wanted it to, and I can't imagine why they would.

"1. Keep reaction - i.e., defending ships can react against ships in their ZOC. This would be creating scenarios in which you are basically tying down forces so they can't be used elsewhere. It does get into the whole pin-count thing, but I'm not "there enough" yet to say for sure this won't be needed."

That's how the rules exist currently, and it slows the game down tremendously.

"As soon as you have a world with a population of about 100k+, it would take most of the fleet to put enough boots on the ground to control the populace."

With the existing troop ships, yes. But I could see special purpose ships built for the task that could carry much more.

Think of how many troops landed on D-Day (the big one, there were several)

"his is how a Frigate can capture a planet. "I've just destroyed every military facility on the planet. You have no weapons that can damage my ship. You will send shuttles with supplies to point X every 12 hours. Any failure to comply, even a delay, will result in one of your cities being destroyed from space. Any questions?""

That doesn't ensure an effective means of getting the resources, and if landing a marine force is hard, imagine how hard it would be to extract any meaningful industrial output with shuttles would be.

"I think this is where an "approach battle" type battle would be appropriate. You send your defensive ships to meet the enemy at the edge of the solar system, rather than wage battle right next to your colonies."

That's the only battle that would make sense in "open space"; currently, that is considered in the same hex as the planetary system. That makes sense, because you are proactively protecting an asset. But a battle in a nominally empty hex makes no sense.

"This is where space combat at FTL speeds gets silly. Its also where you can ignore FTL combat and say that FTL doesnt work within a Sun's gravity pull so all combat must be in the solar system and at slower than FTL."

I was thinking something similar. Allow a small force to move in on a raid, but a large force could not do it, and would have to move in normal space from the edge of the system.

"We captured Japan, too, and didn't invade with the 2 million troops it would have taken. We just bombed two of their cities and they surrendered. We then put a few tens of thousands of troops on the ground to watch things."

And had we leveled Japan, we'd not have extracted any industrial output for a LONG time.

"In fact, there wouldn't even be the need for the type of large, standing armies that we have today"

Well that was my point..... without a huge standing army, it wouldn't take millions of Marines to get the job done...not unless the planet was heavily reinforced.

"but planetary control goes to whomever controls the space over the planet."

There are still severe limits to what a frigate can extract from the populace

"but I don't see how this game can work without ZOC,"

It would work very differently.

"Japan surrendered because they could do nothing but watch more of their cities destroyed (as far as they knew). "

You've threatened the planet to "surrender". Now how are you going to get all the resources? How do you know you are getting your cut? How do you know the planet isn't holding out, building new weapons, etc?

You can't enforce your will indefinitely from a frigate in space.

You'll note that after Japan surrendered, we DID occupy the country. We didn't just sit offshore and threaten nuclear annihilation.

We still needed boots on the ground to back up the threat of force.

"but with what was, for all intents and purposes, a token force."

For this. Once they emperor said that's it, the people were not likely to revolt.

"And again, we do have the "real world" example of how the Hydrans were conquered in the SFU."

But that's just it. It's not a real world example. It's fiction, so it will work any way the author wants, whether it makes sense or not.

"..do you really think adding planetary assualts is going to add anything to the game?"

Very much so, IMO.

Colonies are a good source of raw materials and perhaps R&D, but in my mind, real industrial output would come from larger worlds

"my primary goal is to remove the ability for my enemy to gain advantage from those planets (repair, resupply, economy). I can do that without sending a 10 milllion man invasion force."

I don't think a 10 million man invasion force is needed. But in addition to hindering your enemy's ability to wage war, it is highly beneficial to be able to improve one's own ability to make war. Being able to make use of resources in situ is, to me, highly superior to taking the scraps from a world at gunpoint. Capturing useful territory along with its workforce has been a major aim of wars since we have recording of wars. Otherwise, one would just exterminate the local populace and replace it with one's own.

"I'll add that you may think the Japan thing was purely cultural,"

I don't think its only cultural, but I think it's a big part of it. Various resistance movements in other parts of the world suggests that it is common, and that's even with occupying forces.

"but I doubt if even Americans would fight back in a similar situation"

In the most heavily army nation in the industrialized world???! In a nation where some people hold dear a motto "they can take my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands"?

I don't think Americans are any less likely to fight back than the Iraqi insurgents.

On a purely gaming level, you don't think marine invasions would be fun?

Remember Independence Day? Faced with an opponent we couldn't defeat, we were all for negotiating cessation of hostilities. It wasn't until we discovered that all they wanted was our deaths that we began desperate measures for resistance. i.e., we had nothing to lose.

The Germans were moderately effective with reducing resistance efforts in WWII by killing civilians in retaliation for attacks. Even that was usually a 10 for 1, or at most a 100 for 1 retaliation number. When that equation becomes "for every one of our men who is killed, we destroy a city", the will of the population as a whole to resist quickly goes away; individuals might be willing to take the chance, but when everyone around you who is not AS committed feels you're risking THEIR life, friends will be hard to find.

Historically, mankind has been relatively ok with changes in leadership; as long as their basic way of life is unchanged, most people don't care. In this case, if they have local leadership, they have their jobs, taxes aren't higher, if the ONLY difference is that instead of shipping out resources to their own empire, they go to the enemy, people may grumble, but they're not going to get millions of their countrymen killed to make a small point.

To answer your earlier question, Joe, VBAM is tabletop, and would probably lend itself well to PBEM I would think. Check out the line here: http://www.vbamgames.com/

"Yeah, in theory, getting more Econ Pts for capturing a planet is nice, but if I've got to spend a bunch of points to do that, ON TOP of neutralizing the planet, plus extra game time to do it, plus risk that my initial assault might fail (so not only are those points wasted, I've got to start all over with the time & money spend), then yeah, its not worth it."

...with space battles as well? You always have to spend resources to defeat the enemy, and risk units and risk defeat. Why is this any different?

Is it a matter that you prefer space combat to ground combat?

"Captured Province:"

Well, I wouldn't have provinces, which is another reason why I don't have reaction movement; nothing worth fighting over in the void.

I'm also envisioning the payoff for actually capturing a world to be significantly great than threatening it from space. I can't see how you can own a world you don't occupy

I could see both the "give me all of your stuff or we'll kill you all from space" and the "I'm going to stand next to you on the ground with a gun and make you give me ALL of your stuff " as viable, in the context of a player's strategy. One would yield more EP, one would be faster. Dependent on the player's style.

Thoughts?

I'd actually shrink the scale down, but yes on a large scale I understand the point you are making.

'ts a risk-reward thing. If you don't act against the enemy fleet, they WILL act against you. Better to fight on your terms than his. However, if you don't conquer a planet, just blockade it, your opponent gets no real benefit, other than tying up a squadron of ships. There's a far better risk/reward scenario for your opponent to try to retake back the planet hex than for you to conquer it."

It depends on what the payback for holding it is, compared to threatening from orbit

One detail I failed to mention is that I envision multi-planet systems being common, rather than just in capitals. So while there would be more planets, the number of notable star systems would not go up proportionally (although it would go up), so I don't anticipate the map getting 4-6 times larger. Remember too that map size, if you are only fighting over planets, is far less of an issue. All those border defenses in open hexes wouldn't exist, for instance... although I could see all significant planets getting at least a BATS.

"The goal, IMO, would be to have the ability for a team of experienced players to complete the General War in 10-12 hours."

Wow, I'm not sure that's even possible, unless the combat and economic systems were reduced to Risk/A&A levels.

I think making it possible to ACTUALLY play it in 25-50 hours (half of what the box currently says) would be a massive improvement; 4-8 hours per player turn are common currently (with 2 player turns per turn x 34 turns)

Joe: I don't think reducing the number of "important" hexes is a viable option. It would greatly reduce the replayability compared to even the current F&E map/econ system.

"Conquest as a way to acquire newly exploitable resources or territory really hasn't been the modus operandi since the early 19th century."

Or 1991 :-)

I guess I've never had a problem with "open space battles" in F&E because I fully understand that they are not open space but are "less important" space than spaces with minor planets, major planets, or bases. They ALL have colonies, asteroid mines and myriad other important features.

Me, I'm perfectly happy with the F&E Map the way it is. My problems have to do with the counter count, game mechanics, and lack of breadth.

I want a game which focusses on battles involving resources. You decide whether or not its worth fighting to defend it. The game will flow back and forth.

I dont want a game where you have pin fight after pin fight which do nothing to further the game.

Even 10-12 hours could be stretched to 20-24 hours and it would still be fine. At the moment its at least 120-150 hours to play a full F&E game and that is without much time wasting at all.

Doing what you said definitely would make those hexes more important, and might make for a interesting dynamic

That said, I disagree with this statement:

"Making them valuable from an economic perspective actually makes it a bit tougher on the defender "

"I consider this a positive thing."

I don't disagree that it makes it tougher on the defender, but I strongly disagree that making it tougher on the defense would be a good thing.

"With combat rules that involve most ships in each hex fighting (not the 12 of 200 vs 12 of 400 rule F&E has), big battles will naturally have more casualties."

Unless the ship balance was changed, that would be seriously detrimental to the alliance; what helps them survive now is kind of a Thermopylae effect; one side is vastly outnumbered, but the "terrain" (in this case, the command limits) makes it impossible for them to get overwhelmed, and they can use superior relative strength to attrite the enemy. I'm not saying it couldn't work or is a bad idea, but the counter balance would have to be seriously scrutinized and rebalanced.....
either that, or bases would have to be made a bit tougher.

EMPTY HEXES -
Generally, I prefer the idea of F&E "provinces" or of each hex on the map being worth something (even if small). That general preference is the countered by how much the added complexity adds to the fun of the game. To me, the deciding factor is what Andy noted - you do not want there to be one optimal defense/attack strategy. As soon as that happens (and I concede it can be very hard to avoid), every plays the same way and it all comes down to dice. (Sometimes the best way to deal with this is to let it happen and then release an expansion that changes the nature of the game, other times its to develop the game from the outset trying very hard to avoid this issue). Its not a complete answer, but I think it is the only important goal in deciding whether hexes need value - does it make the game more "difficult" (e.g. fun) so that it is worth the exchange in record keeping (not fun). If the game can be developed so that we can have valueless empty spaces, I think that is preferable.

ZOC -
This is exactly the way it should work. The essential elements will be Type (ship, base, scout, etc), Off/Def factor (at a certain ratio, Attacker ignores ZOC), Diplomacy (see below on comments about the "other stuff"), and Special (e.g. cloak, stealth bonus, Displacement Devices, Web, others?).

Marines -
Joe, to answer your question from yesterday, I think marines should be in the game, but I think they should be abstracted. The troop transport ships (which, as others have mentioned are really too small - maybe you should come up with a new unit - and the abstract it into a squadron of support ships - the Planetary Assualt Ship - mainly a huge huge troop transport, one that caries armies, not squadrons), abstracted, should play a roll. As I see it, capturing a planet is an abstracted process that starts when an attacker takes control of a planet hex. Then, based on a number of factors (some of which could be prerequisites - such as the TTS/PAS, above), including Marines, Technology, Diplomacy, and Espionage - the planet hex transforms for controlled, to occupied, to owned, to "native" (e.g. the population is now in full support of the new controlling Empire). This happens over a number of turns that come from a chart or formula factoring in the above listed factors plus (if deemed necessary, some small random factor). That is how I would do planetary conquest.

Other -

Part I - Tech/Dip/Esp.

There are one of two ways I see these handled in games, one is good, one is terrible. These factors (now labeled, collectively, as "Other") should not be random, they should, instead, generate very predicable results (that can have some, small, random component if need be). Example.

Big Klingon Force attacks Federation BATS.
Good Espionage Example:
Klingons spend X resources on Espionage at hex of attack. Before the battle commences, Klinks compare their Esp. Level with Fed counter-Esp level and consider factor based on econ spent by both. A result is found on the Esp. chart and lets say it looks like this - Def at -5 (+/- D6 div. 3 - 1).

Bad Espionage Example:
Same set up. Klinks roll D6 and consult their ESP chart. The result is that the Fed loses 5 Def.

Here is how I see these things all working:

Esp. - Factors, which involve expenditure of resources on both imp. Esp, generally, and applying Esp at a site. These Factors will/can effect space battles, diplomacy checks, dip and tech advancement, effectiveness of "Specials", etc. I see this as the most expensive, least effective, but most flexible "Other".

Dip. - Factors in conversion/counter-conversion of controlled planets. It has no other effect, but as this effect is very powerful (the rapidity with which one gains and loses resources from controlled planets would be significant).

Tech. - Similar to Esp, but always passive. No ability to spend resources on specific targets on a particular turn. These passive effects would be widely ranging. Factors to conv./coutner-conv. of planets, countering/applying Esp., effectiveness of "Specials", etc.

If you want you could start with generic races with similar ships and allow the diversity through tech trees. Some players may like offense so go down that path. Others may like defence. Some may like masses of ships to zerg, others may like less ships but more technically capable.

Though you would need to ensure it was perfectly balanced. But that is always going to be an issue with any game.

The big problem with F&E is it was made to suit a timeline which saw one side start strong, but the other side eventually overtake them.

With this game it can be set up so that both start even and neither side is forced to attack or defend.

1) Take a look at the Columbia Games 'block' games. You get a piece of wood cut in a square (you could also do a hexagon or octagon) with a sticker on one side; the wood is thick enough to stand up on end.

Each damage step rotates the block one place counter-clockwise. I'd do blocks for cruisers, blocks for small boys, and blocks for dreadnoughts.

2) I'd also take a look at Richard Borg's games - Command & Colors Ancients in particular, for the use of specialized dice for attack factors. For example, let's assume four sizes of fleet units: Capital ships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates. Let's assume custom-made d12s.

On those d12s, we have results of:

2 damage steps (We'll call this 'XX')
1 damage step (We'll call this X0)
Forced to retreat (We'll call this UR)
Enemy forced to retreat (We'll call this ER)
Null (We'll call this NN)

Let's say that the dice are as follows:

Capital: XX/XX/XO/XO/XO/XO/XO/ER/ER/UR/NN/NN
Cruiser: XX/XO/XO/XO/ER/ER/ER/UR/UR/NN/NN
Dest. XO/XO/XO/ER/ER/ER/UR/UR/UR/NN/NN/NN
Frigate: XO/XO/ER/ER/ER/UR/UR/UR/UR/NN/NN/NN/

Assume for the sake of argument that we're using square blocks. Each block represents a squadron; specialized blocks could indicate carrier groups.

You move a group of blocks around the map, with the blank side facing your opponent. When they get into the same hex, all forces are revealed, and the strength shown. Strength reveals how many of which class of dice you throw.

The attacker rolls dice for their units, the defender rolls dice for their unit. For every ER or NN result the defender gets, one point of attacker damage is lost. After that, any points generated reduce the defender's strength by one. If the total of attacker ER totals and defender UR totals ever exceeds the current combat strength of the block, the block retreats from the fight.

The attacker declares what squadron is attacking, the defender declares what squadron is defending after seeing what the attacker declares, and combat is resolved squadron by squadron.

"Raids/Province Control: I suspect that with the change in scale from ship to squadron and the changes to the movement/combat system (ZOC, no reaction), that capturing provinces would be less of a risky proposition. As it would mean committing more resources both to take and to take back, it would likely occur more as part of the overall assault strategy rather than a, "I've got an extra Frigate, what can I do with it?""

If I were doing a new game, not tied to SFU, I still don't think I'd do provinces, BUT if provinces exist, then I like the idea that it is an effort, rather than an afterthought

I'm thinking that you buy squadrons of units - the Feds would buy a squadron of DDs, a squadron of FFs, a squadron of CAs, etc. For carriers and PFs, it would be a CVL carrier group, PFT group (which we'll have to make up to some degree - either 1 PFT and 2 FF escorts or 3 PFTs or some combination). For the Feds, you can likely switch the Klingon border -Gs and the Rom border -Ls interchangebly.

At first brush, its only the Hydrans that you've have to worry about different squadrons of the same class, as the Fus and Hel versions are so different (Hel more attack firepower, but Fus gains some of the carrier benefits of easier/cheaper disruption recovery).

In general, I'm thinking each squadron is, by default, 1 leader version and 2 standard versions. You could then buy "class-specific" upgrades, such as Scout, Marine, Bombardment - represented by a counter that goes on top of the squadron. Each squadron could have only one upgrade as it represents replacing one of the standards with the variant, albeit in a very abstract manner (i.e., I'm actually thinking no change to unit attack/defense, they just gain the benefits of having that "upgrade".

I'm thinking maybe too that any "upgrades" are lost if a unit is disrupted.

Size class 2 ships could either be done as separate builds (1 ship to 1 counter) or we could do a "Dreadnaught group" with 1 DN and 2-3 escorts, similar to carrier groups (which will naturally have some of the SC2 ships).

So basically you guys still want a large quantity of pieces to be available in the game, a large variety of options for ships to be available, and essentially more complexity.

Kind of a like a World In Flames version of SFB. (Not sure if any of you are familiar with that game)

"Joe, one of the big reasons a bunch of us don't play F&E is because of the large number of counters. Having ships as small as cruisers as separate units goes a long way to defeating that purpose; that's why I'm even half proposing having DNs be in DN groups (with escorts), not as separate units."

Cruisers are in short supply in F&E (unless you are the Klingons). And they are the basic ship. We don't see BBS in F&E until T15 at the earliest, and we only see 3-4 tops in a game. DNs are in VERY short supply. Most empires start with only 2, and produce at most 1/yr

Over half the ships currently in the game are FFs & DDs

I can see putting CWs in sqns, but to me, CAs in sqns would not be granular enough. (CWs aren't capital ships)

You're still looking at a 65% reduction in counters, leaving CAs, DNs and ultrarare BBs as singles.

The Kzinti's start with 20 CAs
The Hydrans with 17
The Lyrans with 19
The Feds with 24
The Roms 22, counting SUP-As
The Klingons with 28 D7s, 21 D6s (which are technically CLs, and not CAs)
Gorns with 9 (excludes the 15 CLs, which would not be individuals)

This counts CCs, but does not count mothball fleets or the Klingon IWR

139 ships.

Fewer counters could be good, but do you want a R&Dot3R type strategy game, or Risk? It's not like that game has 10 counters.

I have a question about the "too many counters" feeling. Is it too may counters, or too much fiddling with counters?

"Too many counters means too many counters."

I"m' trying to ascertain what metric you are using to judge "the right amount" of counters. I'm not saying your are wrong, I'm trying to understand

Having a counter for every heavy cruiser is going a little overboard. I could maybe see it for a dreadnought (even though I'd rather not even have that). I'd almost certainly allow a battleship to be an individual unit, as they possess enough power in themselves to match a squadron of other ships.

I was rattling about some ideas for types of units and randomly came up with these for a more strategic sense that isn't so detailed as to be worried about individual heavy cruisers or even dreadnoughts.
Destroyer Squadrons - light ships like destroyers, heavy frigates and some light cruisers
Strike Squadrons - strike cruisers, war cruisers and usually a mix of some lighter ships
Battle Squadrons - heavy cruisers, battle cruisers and a mix of lighter ships
Carrier Groups (Light, Strike, Heavy) - varying levels of fighter power and inherent power of carrier group escorts
Convoys - just the freighters and possible escorts
Invasion Squadrons ( troops for taking planets) - troop transport ships, war cruisers, light cruisers
PF Groups - PF Tenders with the PF power and possibly an escort ship or two
Patrol Detachments ( scouts/light combat) - less of a combat unit, more for scouting, would only have scouts and maybe some fast vessels...possible use of fast cruisers

That boils things down to 10 different pieces that could be used. Combining them into a named fleet allows a coalescing of power into one location. Otherwise it's individual groups flying around waging very small battles. Combine it into a fleet (Federation 3rd Fleet, for example) you could have it be made up of 4 Destroyer Squadrons, 1 Heavy Carrier Group, 1 Invasion Squadron, 3 Strike Squadrons and 5 Battle Squadrons. Then, as the fleet engages an enemy, it has all of that power to utilize against a smaller enemy force (unless it's going against an enemy fleet) and when the fleet takes losses it's either losing steps in the power levels of squadrons or it's losing a squadron or two but still has a lot more power left in the overall fleet.

I feel that a situation like that would be more strategic in its use and not be too heavy on counters and not be too fiddly with "which cruiser did I lose" or whatnot.

(("Having a counter for every heavy cruiser is going a little overboard. I"

Uh, that's what there is now.))

I know that's what there is now. That's one reason why I don't play F&E. Too much stuff. It's a theater level game in terms of units and strategic level game in terms of scope of range, amount of income and number of ships. That just isn't what I consider worthwhile.

If I wanted the unit breakdown the way it is now in F&E, I'd want the game to revolve around the events on one battlefront. For example, between the Federation and the Klingons. That front. I'd lop the map off a few spaces back from the front, cut off the map above the Klingons and "east" of the Tholians. I'd just have everything take place between the Feds and the Klingons using the piece combination and combat resolution they've currently got in the game.

I feel that, based on what *I'd* want in the game, the amount of units would need to be drastically cut down, the combat would need to be changed substantially, and there'd need to be other more strategic concerns to be included to offer more than just a simple who-can-outspend-who endeavor.

((". I'd almost certainly allow a battleship to be an individual unit, as they possess enough power in themselves to match a squadron of other ships."

And there are only 3 or 4 that appear in the entire war.))

This is precisely one of the reasons why I'd allow individual units for them. Very few added pieces to deal with.

(("and not be too fiddly with "which cruiser did I lose"

That is not an element of F&E now.))

It may not be now, and the reason I mentioned it is because I wouldn't WANT it to become an issue.

I'm just looking for alternatives to the general monstrosity that is F&E. It's not a game that can be played in one sitting, let alone two sittings (from what I've heard, since I've not actually played a full game of it). I'd like it to be trimmed down substantially, for combat to be sped up, for there to be other options besides combat, combat, combat (yes, I know it's a combat game, but I'd still like a little variance of some sort) and for the rules to not have the terminology "coefficient" anywhere in them.

But hey, that's just me.

Would be dealing with losses. As I mentioned, there aren't nearly as many CAs/CCs as thre are for the smaller classes. Having to take a whole sqn of cruisers as damage would likely result in cruisers becoming irrelevant, as they are produced in much smaller numbers.

Doesnt mean you need to have it for F&E. Does F&E (or an F&E style game) need to single units doing one-off things?

Sure, you can keep raids and let raiding ships do those things. But the game shouldnt ever really come down to 1-on-1 battles. But I really dont think you need to worry about single ship combat type encounters.

Certainly dont need carriers or escorts as single counters. I dont think CAs/BCs (except perhaps Lyrans who are more BCH) should be. The only ones in my mind would be the fleet leading ships like DNs and BBs. Maybe Fast Ships, maybe X Ships, maybe special ships, or maybe they can be dealt with separately.

You want the ability to move the big ships around to create new fleets. So you have 3 or 4 "squadron" counters of different kinds being led by the DN/BB.

You could go for "Troop Ship" squadrons for special attacks against planets. "Mauler Ship" squadrons for special attacks against bases. "CW" squadrons for cheap repair bills, "CA" squadrons for a bigger punch, "FF" squadrons for absorbing damage/allowing the main fleet to retreat, etc.

If the game came down to having POL v POL battles using single ship combat rules then it would be just as bad as the current F&E.

To fix this there should be a minimum number of ships required to garrison a planet. Maybe 3xFF for one of your own. 3xCW or 6xFF for a captured planet.

A few big battles a turn and a few small battles a turn would allow a lot of options for offence and defence so you wouldnt be losing a lot of flavour. Just a lot of mind numbing pointless battles (given pinning battles are already being taken out - which is a good thing).

I'd just like to point out that if we STILL need Fleet Markets, we've failed.

I'd write more, but I think that statement stands pretty well on its own.

Some random comments, in no particular order.

I'd prefer not to have generic "invasion units", etc. I'd like to keep some of the flavor of the SFU by having both names and combat characteristics based on the SFB units. i.e., a LN squadron will have different characteristics than a Lyran DD squadron. I think we'd be ok making the squadron upgrades (scout, marine, etc.) generic in both cost and ability (i.e., a Scout upgrade to a DD squadron cost X and has Y effects), but I'd like the core racial flavor maintained. [Modular Rommies would likely have their own cost chart for ugprades]

Conversions. Some conversions would be handled by the new "upgrade" mechanic. Others (Lyrans DD to CW for example) would be limited at least a bit. Keeping SC2 units (and perhaps BCHs as well) as single units will help (though even if as squadron counters - flag plus escorts, the overall "counter" conversion would still work). For some others, we could create some "combo" rules. i.e., CA + FF + x points = CV + CA.

Tugs. I'm thinking Tugs should be separate, though wouldn't be hurt by the Escort mechanic (i.e. TUG = Tug+FF+FF).

Pols. No counters at all. Their presence can be built in to rules, such as province capture and control, defensive ability of planets, etc. Perhaps built into CONVOY counters as well (i.e., CONVOY = 6 x F-L, 2 x Pol).

----> "Conversions. Some conversions would be handled by the new "upgrade" mechanic. " I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate?

Some conversions are converting a stock ship to a variant. That would be handled the new Upgrade mechanic. For example:
-spend X to buy a DD Scout upgrade. This allows you to add a "Scout" counter to any DD squadron at an appropriate upgrade facilility.
- would also work for Marine, Bombardment, also perhaps SFG, Mauler.

General idea is that Stock squadron = Leader + 2 standard, whearas Stock + Scout = Leader + Scout variant + standard.

----> "Others (Lyrans DD to CW for example) would be limited at least a bit." Would whole sqns upgrade at the same time?

Yes. Class upgrades would be squadron at a time. We'll have to look at balance here, but that's the "starting point."

----> "I think we'd be ok making the squadron upgrades (scout, marine, etc.) generic in both cost and ability (i.e., a Scout upgrade to a DD squadron cost X and has Y effects)," Would that be allowed multiple times, or once for each modification per sqn? Or one mod per sqn of any type? I can see the former two being difficult, and requiring lots of special counters

One upgrade per squadron. At its core, a squadron has a leader and at least one standard. The third ship can be a standard model or one of the variants.

---->"For some others, we could create some "combo" rules. i.e., CA + FF + x points = CV + CA." Did you mean CV + FFE?

No. I'll use brackets to denote counters. It would be [CA] + [FF] + x points = [CV] + [CA]. Or, in other words, the Frigates get rolled up to become the escorts for the CV, which is a converted CA. The cost involves the upgrades and replacing the CA hull in the [CA].

----> "Tugs. I'm thinking Tugs should be separate, though wouldn't be hurt by the Escort mechanic (i.e. TUG = Tug+FF+FF)." It could get tricky, although it might be best to limit what tugs can do, or make CV tugs a modification/conversion, with a CVT getting a sqn of FFs as escorts, and the group together would get one counter.

That all points me to having each [Tug] be a Tug + Escorts. It makes them more durable for standard missions and provides ready made escorts for CV groups. For mission specific pods, I would just use the same mechanic that squadrons use; i.e., scout counter, carrier counter, marine counter, battle counter, etc., though with costs unique to the Tug and with more flexible rules around deployment (similar to the rules for modular Roms). [i.e., standard squadrons can get an upgrade marker only when at X locations whereas modular Roms and Tugs can get upgrade markers at X and Y locations]

-----> I'm all for that. I consider POLs to be noise. At most, you could have generic POL counters to use during combat to account for the POL

I'd even go one further and build them in, abstractly, to the values of bases and planets.

----->What about CAs? I didn't see a response on that score.

I've nothing more to add at this point. I still don't see a strong argument for having them be single counters. At this point, the only driver, to me, would be if they needed to be separate for their command rating to be spread around more battles, and at first blush, seeing the fleet sizes and expected counter count and make-up, I don't see that being a big need.

On the CA/command ship issue, with command rating no longer being a determining factor for how many ships you can use, I don't see it as being as critical. As combat will now be (pretty much) every ship in the hex fighting, we'll have to give different advantages for command rating - perhaps it effects how many ships you can keep out of combat? perhaps it effects the combat results if you have a higher rating than your opponent? We have time to work out the details, but I'm not envisioning being led by a CL squadron instead of a CA as being anywhere near the determinent that it is for current F&E. Yeah, perhaps an extra unit gets disrupted if you lose, or perhaps you can't coordinate your (abstacted) pursuit as well, so one fewer enemy units gets disrupted, but it won't create the type of key advantage that CR does in F&E's combat system.

Yeah, I'm still in Baltimore.

Yeah, with squadron level counters, build rates will have to change. Perhaps instead of 1 CA/turn, it becomes 1 [CA] per year. We'll just have to work it out.

1. yes, on some level
2. adding counters to account for them defeats the purpose to some degree.

re: build rates
I'm not sure I like that solution. Actually, I know I don't.

One big problem is the SFU timeline which says the Coalition built up huge numbers then attacked and nearly beat the Alliance, then the Alliance built up their numbers and counter-attacked and nearly beat the Coalition.

If you stick to this then you are going to encounter all the F&E problems where one side vastly outnumbers the other.

If you start from a more neutral position where either side (or both) can be the aggressor and sides start much more even then either side can do well quickly.

Though then you get an issue with having an even number of ships, one side playing aggressively and throwing a lot of ships in to attack, losing, and then having nothing to defend against the counter-attack. So maybe you also need to tone down the defensive capabilities of bases/planets/PDU/monitors/etc.

If 70% reduction in counters is able to reduce the time required to play the game by 70%, then I would love it.

If people are worried about game play and evenness... how even is the current game? Does the Coalition win more than the Alliance? How often at Turn 12 or Turn 14 do you know for sure how things will be at Turn 28 if you decide to stick it out?

The idea of spending an extra 80 to 100 hours on a game which was most likely over a lifetime ago (given how long it takes to play a game) probably keeps people away. Or even if they play, they probably call the game at T12 even when it may not be a forgone conclusion, simply because they dont want to waste months and months on a small chance of being wrong.

So ultimately F&E is a game of Klingon invasion, aided a little by the Lyrans, and perhaps a lot by the Romulans. If it goes well, or, if it goes bad, it still ends long before the Alliance starts a counter-attack, and long before you get to play with X Ships and PFs.

Im not so fussed about counter reduction by itself. But if this, combined with new rules on combat make for a much quicker game, then Im all for it. Afterall, how much easier to playtest would the game be? It would be near impossible to do a worse job balancing things if you knew for sure that you could play a game right through in a few long weekends.

A game Im playing with a friend we have basically abandoned. Literally 12 months of playing once a week or once a fortnight, but trading plenty of emails, and we are at T5 where the Coalition really havent done much damage to the Alliance at all. Possibly a big part of the delay is my friend who is Coalition takes a huge amount of time to decide his attacks while we are both playing, rather than in his own time. But even if he were a speed demon, given the amount of time we have we'd at most be at T10.

So... if we continued from T5 the Coalition may get lucky, or the Alliance may make some mistakes, but even to get to T10 and see how the Roms can influence things would be a big time drain. If not much changed, the thought of going on for another 15 or even 20 turns to find the eventual winner would seem insane.

And this is the thing. F&E may be the most brilliant game ever made, but if noone ever plays it to the end, then how would we know?

So if a cut down version is 80% as good, but playable in a fraction of the time, then to me this makes the game far, far better than F&E.

I get the feeling most people would feel the same way. Perhaps the guys who dont mind playing til the better end would prefer F&E, but I suspect they are in the minority.

We take ages working through things because we havent played much. So there is a lot of reference to rule books, a lot of discussion on whether something is legal or even whether something is a really stupid thing to do (no point spoiling a year long game because of one or 2 obvious bad tactics), etc.

All of this adds up. Especially when we would only play for 1 or 2 hours at a time. If we could play for longer periods of time I suspect we would also get a lot more done. Every time we play we need to think about where we were at last time around, because it will have been a week or 2 since we last played.

So maybe we are the exception, or maybe there are plenty of people who play like this, and the ones who can crank out a game in a few months are the exception. I know that attacks on SBs would often take a couple of sessions for us to complete. I have no idea how long an attack on an actual Capital SB will take, but assume it would be a huge time sink.

As for his position on T5:
He has lost a huge number of ships because he tends to destroy rather than cripple once he has a turn worth of repairs, has taken out 1 Hydran SB, 2 Kzinti SB, but not touched either Capital. He is currently attacking the Kzin Capital but only with enough ships to be able to take out the outer planets, so its possibly another 2 turns or even 3 turns before the Kzintis fall.

The Alliance have also lost a lot of ships, but very few large/important ones. Sometimes I would offer up a line of BC with Carriers to encourage him to direct on a BC if I was going to let my damage fall. Other times the most I would offer is a CL or DD or even FFK with a huge amount of fighters so that neither option (letting it fall or directing) were that appealing.

He also had some shocking luck with mauler shock rolls. I think he had 3 out of 4 crippled in one turn (or it may have been 4 out of 5).

I have a feeling that should we play again I will play Coalition as I can spend more time thinking about attacks, and working out defences is a lot easier. This will at least enable us to get to the Gorn stage of the game to get a good feel for the mid-game.

However, if a set of rules which sped the game up a lot were available, we'd jump on that in a second.

I decided to make a list of "reduced counters".

Single Counter: BB, DN, CC, Hvy Scout, Lt Scout, Mauler, Stasis, PFT, Tug, LTT, CF, DNF, FCR, FRD, BATS, SB, MB
Squadron Counter: BC, CA, CW, CL, DW, DD, FF, Troop, DB, CVA, CVS, CVL, CVE, PF

Still doesnt account for X-Ships though perhaps they can be limited in number more so than currently allowed. And perhaps follow the same set up with single counters and squadron counters.

This is still going to give you a huge number of counters, even though Ive left off a lot of newer ships (NCA, variants, etc.) which I dont think are needed. If an NCA has the same combat factor as a CA but is cheaper, why not just make it cheaper to build/repair CA from a certain year.

I really dont think a lot of the variants add a lot to the game. If some do, then maybe give them their own counter(s). But to me they come back to adding tactical flavour to what should be a strategic game.

I think the issue Andy was trying to address is not specifically the number of unique counter types, but the raw VOLUME of counters on the map.

and of course, these don't even move:"BATS, SB"

These don't enter until late "BB, PFT, "

and most of the rest are very limited in supply, save perhaps the scouts.

"Is management of economics a key focus?"

It's often a component of strategy games, and has been for most space strategy games.

"I hate the idea that 100 ships can meet 100 ships in a pinning battle and end up leaving with a few cripples on one side"

I hate the idea of having such a pinning battle in the first place ;-)

"I hate the idea that 150 ships can attack a Capital hex and limp away with 80 cripples but only 10 or 12 ships destroyed."

Why?

"To me this just doesnt seem realistic (again that word)."

I refer you to the battle of Jutland.

"I like ships actually blowing up."

That's what directed damage is for.

"But 150 ships taking on a Capital is a very different beast. There should be a huge number of ships blowing up. "

That would not be the case even under the SFB command limits. I agree that it would be more interesting to have more forces available on each side for active combat. I think coming up with a combat system that allows this, AND doesn't take 20 times longer, is difficult (although not impossible)

WRT directed damage, youve said yourself this is often not a clever tactic. So I dont think the answer to having more ships blow up is to encourage directed damage.

Unless youre going to change the way it works.

"Not to mention it was mostly fought at night during WW1 when they didnt even have limited radar, let alone the ability to accurately fire 150,000 km."

The scale in distance is not relevant. The issue is that a small number of dead ships was viewed as a big deal.

"WRT directed damage, youve said yourself this is often not a clever tactic. So I dont think the answer to having more ships blow up is to encourage directed damage."

I was referring for your desire to have more dead ships. Just because someone finds it satisfying, it doesn't make it realistic, or a good strategy. To me, the idea is to win. I don't really about how many ships I kill, at least not directly (no pun intended)

"I dont understand why you can only send 12 to 15 ship equivalents against a hardened position at any one time"

That's there only for play balance, because one side has enough ships to overwhelm the other. If a way can be found to better balance the game, command limits would be less of an issue.

For combat, I am completely NOT seeing a 150 vs 150 battle end up with a couple dead and a dozen cripples. I am not envisioning multiple rounds of combat, but a single combat with varying degrees of intensity, but with most of the ships from each side involved. Many more dead and much of the losing force disrupted. Even the lowest intensity fight would be far more deadly than a similar one round battle in current F&E. Yes, "pinning battles" would still exist, in the framework that if you can cancel the ZOC of an enemy force, you can move past it to attack another target, but I don't ever envision 150 ships (50 squadrons!) sitting in a hex that's not the primary target.

Also, as far as the overall game is concerned, I'm thinking it may be better to have even the Eastern races be active participants. Their economies are at peace and they still need to spend on regular builds, but they will have some ability to perform research, diplomacy, and espionage. Perhaps enough self-diplomacy on the part of the Gorn player will allow them to enter the war prior to being invaded by the Romulans? Perhaps Fed espionage can help the Kzinti's hold out a bit longer? Granted, it wouldn't be major roles, but far better than "come back in 2 hours." It also allows for more variety in start turns for those races, allowing for more replayability.

If you can pin something 1 hex away from your planet/base/capital and cause a 1 turn delay to an invasion, then you're going to do it. So I agree with Joe. If you can pin, you will pin.

As for involving the later entrants, I can see some benefit to this if you are playing a multiplayer game. But for a 1-on-1 you are adding extra work which Im not sure is needed.

more dead ships?

If you can resolve casualties the way you want, I can't imagine why people would kill off more of their own ships if they can avoid it.

And as mentioned earlier, unless the Alliance ship numbers were increased, enforcing ship kills would make the game impossible.

I really like Andy's conversion method. I'd see a scout counter for instance looking like this: SCOUT -10/+5. So the Scout conversion counter would subtract 10 from offense, add 5 to defense and come with whatever capabilities were entitled to "Scout".

The alternative is also fine, but I think adds to production costs. You have a CW counter with no conversions. One with a scout. When you do the scout conversion of a CW in a group you replace the CW counter with the CW scout counter.

Joe,

I think what Paul is trying to say is that you are thinking tactically in a Strategic level game. On a Strategic level, a DN would never, ever, ever be by itself. If it was moving from one theater to another, or from one fleet to another, it will always have its escorts. Therefore, the is no reason to have a single DN counter.

As for Andy's vision of more deadships, I think I understand it. My understanding of what he envisions is that damage taken isn't based on the combat strength of counters like it is now, i.e. I do 25% of 100compot so you have to take damage equalling 25 pts of compot.

Rather, what I think he is envisioning is something similar to the new single ship combat system where results are in steps or ships killed. I have 100compot, roll a 6 which equals 15 steps of damage. A step is resolved by killing a Sqn/disrupting a Fleet.

For DNs, while I applaud Paul's thought patterns on keeping things at the strategic level, the fact that fleet formation are more adhoc leads me to think that we'd have to stick with [DN] counters representing a DN + 2-3 escorts.

For combat, I haven't completely thought things out in my head yet, but here are some basic thoughts.

Combat in a hex is generally speaking, all of the ships getting involved in multiple single ship and squadon actions over the 6 months with perhaps a couple of major fleet engagements thrown in. Basically, I think that a whole SFB campaign game could be based around the maneuvering and combat of a single F&E hex during a single F&E 6 month turn.

Instead of multiple rounds of combat, the entire combat would be resolved in a single set of rolls.

I think we'll still want to have Battle Intensity - I think the existing F&E system for this should be portable for this new system.

I'm still working on this part, but I'm thinking, initially at least, that we could go with % damage scored, as F&E is now, with NO directing. The key to making this work is the system around it. Anecdotally, I believe that this, combined with some other rules will keep things under control.
- ships have 3 statuses: operational, disrupted, or dead. Disrupted is very different from Crippled, with an even greater reduction in combat ability, but a cheaper "repair" cost (as its more of a "rally" cost).
- if the defender loses the fight, some of the surviving units will get disrupted (on TOP of damage results). Things like command rating of fleet, severity of defeat, etc. will factor into this
- if the attacker loses the fight, some of the surviving units may get disrupted (as above)
- if a disrupted unit gets disrupted again, it is destroyed. This is a key rule. For the "disruption through defeat" I am thinking it's either random squadrons or each squadron has a chance of disruption. The intent here is to make "self-disruption" during combat a more risky proposition.
- I would see command units ([DN], etc.) being more resistant to disruption through retreat.
- I would see ships defending a base/planet that get pushed back having a higher likelyhood of remaining in "good order"
- A squadron that gets disrupted loses its Upgrade - yet another reason to avoid self-disrupting.

[random thought - the flagship command rating could be a base disruption saving throw or somesuch in those situations..haven't thought that through - purely stream of consciousness]

Basically, with the size of the hexes, a squadon that is disrupted is scattered, unable to coordinate their movements. They would be easier to hunt down and kill and would be less/non effective in the attack. I would see this as being a bigger and more common issue than crippled ships (which likely would not survive range 25 of their enemy). THIS, IMO is the importance of command ships and command rating, as well as special things like "Admirals" and the such.

Specials:
- Scouts. Impact the ZOC/pinning ratios (i.e., if you have a scout, then it takes more to pin you; if you have a scout, its easier to pin). I'm not sure if direct combat capabilities are required, but certainly the presence of scouts in a HEX would benefit you in the combat (allows for easier coordination, etc.). I could see scouts reducing the disruption rate of losing fleets.
- Marines. Besides their "conquering" ability, I'm thinking if the Battle Intensity (BI) is at a certain rate or higher, they gain a combat bonus (both off and def).
- Maulers. If BI is a certain (very high) level, they get an offensive bonus; against fixed/slow targets, the required BI is lower.
- SFG. Similar to Mauler

I'm not sure if any of the upgrades would impact the actual off/def attributes of their squadrons. You can pretty much use the capabilities of the *special* to compensate for the reduced weaponry - i.e., it's probably not worth the extra trouble.

Apologies for the babbling. I'm sure there's question...

->>"the fact that fleet formation are more adhoc leads me to think that we'd have to stick with [DN] counters representing a DN + 2-3 escorts."

That's about as joined as I think one could make it without introducing other problems.... having to add "1 out/2 out" counters would have defeated the purpose of joining ships together to save counters.

->>"Instead of multiple rounds of combat, the entire combat would be resolved in a single set of rolls."

Sounds like parallel rounds (as opposed to consecutive rounds, if I read you correctly.

->>"For the "disruption through defeat" I am thinking it's either random squadrons or each squadron has a chance of disruption"

This sounds like a lot of die rolls... I'm not sure this is faster.

->>"Apologies for the babbling. I'm sure there's question..."

Nothing wrong with a stream of consciousness post. Sometimes it helps to put the ideas out there so you can mull them over later.

For the game I'm working on, I was actually thinking of a more operational combat system. As my focus is to reduce the accounting and increase the action, I figured there would be more time for more interesting combats. I would also favor using all the ships in a hex, as opposed to a single battleline. I figure that a good operational system would have fewer discrepancies with a tactical game, and be fun for guys that like tactical games, with out the "fiddliness" of dealing with 4 pages of docking rules, etc. Get your income, buy your ships, move, fight, fight fight, move fight fight fight, move fight fight fight, end of turn. Rinse and repeat. Simultaneous turns.
Comments welcome; note this last bit is for "New Space Game", not "Reworked F&E"

"You can skip all that and start even if you want. But still keeping races with different flavours."

You are correct, F&E in many ways is saddled with this GW dynamic that has to work, not matter what. While the GW is very interesting itself, it prevents making changes that many people might want, simply because it would completely destroy the GW game balance, and ADB can't afford to shelve F&E until it was worked out, nor are there the resources to support the current model and develop and properly test another.

Having played many hundreds of hours of F&E, the biggest time-wasters IMO is pin counting, bar none.... which is why I would prefer a system where it wasn't needed. That'd save nearly half of the unproductive time (time not spent scheming, building, moving, and/or crushing your enemy). Squadrons help in that there is less to count, but it still would eat up time.

Can you pin 50 cruiser hulls with 100 or 150 frigates? That would still be very much worth it.

As Joe has said, it all needs to go or people will still work out a way to make it work. And once they do that, the time sink opens up again and games take forever.

Economics, Build, Move, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, Retreat or Reinforce, Repair.

That should be the game. And all fighting should be over resources which matter.

"No, I'm thinking pinning is based on attack rating, not hull count, so pinning 150 cruisers would take 750-900 frigates."

Than a simple ship count. Now we have added addition to the process

I don't yet have an opinion on whether the mechanic is good or not, but slower, I doubt it. You only count when in doubt. At ratios of 2:1 and 3:1 how often will things really be in doubt?

is as compared to a game without pinning. In which case that is clearly right, but as I said, I think with the ratios being proposed, would happen infrequently enough that there would not be significant slowing. It is very clear your proposed system is a lot faster than the current one, but I don't think anyone has suggested keeping the current system.

""PLUS you have to add the "pinning weight" of fighters and PFs. "

Right, and that addition is slower than straight counting."

Joe,

I think what Andy is saying here is if I have 36 fighters in the hex, under the current system I have to count 36 fighters divide it by six to get pin count. Andy's hypothetical Hydran fleet of 30 ships would be (just pulling numbers out of my ass) 30 ships + (100ftrs/6 = 16.66) = 46.66 SE for pinning purposes v. 225 attfac + 100 ftr fac = 325 attfac needed to break the ZOC.

I can tell you, as a mathematical retard, andy's way would be faster for me.

I'm starting with the 30 ships, defined in both methods.

[Pal] Pal + 2 HN
[RN] LM, 2xRN
[HR] Apa+2xHR
[HR] Apa+2xHR
[DW] DWL+2xDW
[DW] DWL+2xDW
[LN] WAR+2xLN
[LN] WAR+2xLN
[CU] CRU+2xCU
[HN] SAR+2xHN

Current Method.
Add up the 30 ships, some of which will be in 3-ship squadrons (and only together in the stack if you're a super-veteran F&E player like Joe).
Then, add up the fighter factors present on 22 of the 30 ships, and divide by 6

My Method.
Add up the attack factors of TEN counters (the fighter factors are not separate, they are built into the counters values)

As far as the "hey, you can't look at the pile and judge" argument. C'mon, Joe. That already has to be adjusted by the presence of multi-ship counters, especially on the Klingon side with, IIRC, their 6-ship D5 division. When you're looking at needing at least a 2:1 ratio, you can as accurately judge, with experience, whether your stack has the chops as you can in the current method.

Plus, with the current method, when the pinning actually matters, you still count to the last counter, to make sure you only use as much as you need. The change in rules will make that occur LESS often, both because of the increased ratios needed and because Frigate hordes no longer become the pinning units of choice.

In my system, I'd envision a case in which the attacker wants to pin/cancel the ZOC of the units in a particular hex so asks his opponent for a combat value while he begins to figure out what units he needs to send. In practice, the attacker will be adding up the values as he moves units.

Additionally, with no reaction movement, there's not the need to as carefully plan out the order of your moves, or your pinning actions. You'll never have to do a "virtual pin count" for multiple hexes of units at once (those in the hex and those adjacent that will react in). The enemy's battleline will be strategically static, allowing you to fight where you want to fight (which from a general attrition perspective could still occur), and worry about pinning only where you have a key target hex blocked out.

with the factors included (I adjusted them to replace counters we don't have):

[Pal] Pal + 2 HN = 17-20 (6)
[RN] LM, 2xRN = 20-24 (11)
[HR] 3xHR = 16-21 (9)
[HR] 3xHR = 16-21 (9)
[DWF] 3xDWF = 16-18 (3)
[DWH] 3xDWH = 18-18
[LN] 3xLN 12-18 (6)
[LN] 3xLN 12-18 (6)
[CU] CR+2xCU = 13-13
[HN] CR+2xHN = 11-13

Now tell me how long it takes you to add the numbers, without using a calculator. I added up those 50 fighters in under 10 seconds. Adding up the ship factors takes longer... certainly longer than counting to 30.

Stacked in singles, I'd have this:
Pal, LM, [2xRN], [3xHR], [3xHR], [3xDWF], [3xDWH], [3xLN], [3xLN], [2xCR], [2xCU], [4xHN]

Counting those stacks is easy.

"You said adding up the fighters on 7 counters took less than 10 seconds. THAT'S MY POINT. It might take you, what, 12 seconds to count up numbers on 10 counters?"

The largest number I had to add was 6. When the numbers end up in the 100s, people tend to go slowly.

"And how many casual F&E players have you played with, Joe?"

Far more than you.

":en W. and Jason S. *might* use the method you do, but I'm not aware of any of the other casual F&Eers in BG Baltimore who give much thought to how to stack their counters at all beyond putting the "important to know where they are" units on top."

Then you haven't been looking. I've played with all of the guys from that area that make it to Origins, and they ALL keep their counters organized. What I do is nothing special. Give me a huge break. Knowing that they have to have an idea what's in a fleet, no one who has played more than once would stack unlike counters on top of one another. At most, they might put singles on top of 3x counters, but that's about the only variation I've ever seen.

"I've played FAR less than you and I've seen at least four players who stack it differently than you."

And how did they stack their counters? I seriously doubt you looked closely enough to have any idea how their counters were stacked, Andy. I don't do anything special. Some people stack higher than others. But besides that, I've never seen anyone just randomly stack their counters. And other than stacking like counters together, there is no other way to do it. (like or unlike covers all possibilities. You'll excuse me if I think you aren't being sincere

"The numbers don't have to match the F&E numbers. We don't necessarily need a [D5] to have the values of the current F&E D5L + D5 + D5. Perhaps our new [D5] is 7-6."

The granularity in F&E is poor enough already. I don't think we should make it worse