F&E: More on "the Coalition always wins"
Tarquelne
start your program on the very first turn. A pair of bases will be expensive, but you'll probably need them if you want to
succeed in getting a base up. Don't try to make bases anywhere but the capital. If you can't get the starbases up settle for
BATS. No they aren't as good, but they are far easier to build in the face of Coalition opposition, and are still useful. (2
BATS costs 82% as much and have a combat potential 75% as great. Not as good as a SB, more vulnerable to directed
damage, but certainly _useless._) In pursuit of building your bases go ahead break several of the other rules. The
Coalition can only destroy your starbases 1 SIDS at a time, and a huge combat potential in your capital could cripple the
Coalition's effort against the Federation.
2) Frigates: Note that the point of building scads of frigates is NOT to attack the Coalition, but to try to keep as many
Coalition ships away from your bases as possible. Of course, if you do use them as an "anemic" fleet to attack the
Coalition use them against important, but low defense targets: FRDs.
3) Casualties: Do cripple lots of ships! Cripple ships instead of taking damage on bases. The bases slow the Coalition
down, and cripples can be repaired far, far easier than bases can be replaced. Treasure each instance of the Coalition
directs damage at one of your ships - thats directed damage that didn't do a SIDS or cripple a base.
4) Pay close attention to the supply and retrograde rules. Keep a scattering of ships through your space for a "defense in
depth." Judicious reactions from these ships, plus the use of reserve fleets (you are maintaing reserve fleets, right?) can
cut off a Coalition fleet's retrograde path. This takes good, prudent planing if it isn't to become "destruction in detail"
rather then defense in depth - be careful. Cleanly overcoming such a defense will require the Coalition to spend ships
doing something other than raiding your capital and destroying your bases. Not slowing down to deal with a good deep
defense makes the Coalition risk leaving a fleet out of supply and in enemy territory on the Alliance turn. Not a major
disaster, but it will slow down the offensive, and thats all the Hydrans and Kzinti want to do.
The strategy can be especially effective for the Hydrans, who can burn fighters when their picket ships are forced into a
battle.
5) Directed damage revisited: There are a few times when you want to use directed damage: Command ships and scouts.
While the Coalition can easily outproduce the Alliance in most ship types early in the game, their command ship
advantage isn't very big. Pick these off and you leave the Coalition with a tactical disadvantage against the Federation.
As far as scouts go, a hefty EW advantage can take much of the sting out of a Coalition assault. The Alliance has the
home field advantage here with the EW power of BATS and SBs. Pick off the Coalition scouts and put a -2 modifier on
the Coalition die rolls. This probably won't mean that your bases hang on any longer, but it will preserve your fleets
better.
6) Don't be afraid to go on the offensive: Don't be intimidated by the Coalition. They only have about a 2-to-1
advantage over the Alliance. Thats not so much that you can't make a few directed strikes. If you see a vulnerable FRD,
planet, or BATS, take it out. The Coalition has lots of FRDs, planets, and BATS, but every one you destroy is one more
that can't be used against the Federation.
7) Be even more decisive than the Coalition: Pick a single strategy for both the Hydrans and the Kzinti and stick with it.
You can't win outright, you have to somehow cause a crack to appear in the Coalition war machine, something that the
Feds can use to break them open. This being the case, the early Alliance needs to exert the small amount of influence it
can muster consistently. If you overbuild frigates one turn, pick off 3 Coalition DNs the next, and invest in static
defenses on the third the Coalition will just take your efforts in stride and smash you. Not that you should never switch
strategies, but the Hydrans need to cause a lasting effect, and you'll only do that if you overwhelm some aspect of the
Coalition's logistic/economic setup. You can't overwhelm them all, in fact you'll have the fight of your life overwhelming
one, but it can be done. Keep trying new strategies until you find one the Coalition player can't happen. (Lucky for you
this is a game.)
8) If all else fails: Convince the Coalition player to accept a balance factor favorable to the Alliance. Do it!! If the
Coalition really has an advantage then the Alliance deserves a balance factor or two. Use it, give the Coalition a headache,
and make them want a smaller balance factor next time. Count that as a victory.
9) Remember, all those Hydrans and Kzinti didn't die in vain. Any effect a _successful_ Hydrans and Kzinti war effort
will probably take quite awhile to manifest itself. You'll only know how effective the H and Ks were when you see the
Federation weather to Coalition assault.
Tarquelne
<os...@apk.net>
I know how God can make a rock so big He can't move it.
************************
Use the address above to reply - not the anti-spam "Reply-to" address
ForlornH
>always build/upgrade bases in pairs, and certainly
>start your program on the very first turn. A pair of bases will be
>expensive, but you'll probably need them if you want to
>succeed in getting a base up. Don't try to make bases anywhere but the
>capital. If you can't get the starbases up settle for
>BATS. No they aren't as good, but they are far easier to build in the face
>of Coalition opposition, and are still useful.
I assume you mean for the Hydrans and Kzintis. I don't really see the use for
another base in the Fed capital.
>(2
>BATS costs 82% as much and have a combat potential 75% as great. Not as good
>as a SB, more vulnerable to directed
>damage, but certainly _useless._) In pursuit of building your bases go ahead
>break several of the other rules. The
>Coalition can only destroy your starbases 1 SIDS at a time, and a huge combat
>potential in your capital could cripple the
>Coalition's effort against the Federation.
Entirely vulnerable to directed damage. I prefer to use PDFs but that has
changed a bit since Marine Assault was put out. Those D6G's can cause PDFs a
world of hurt.
>
>2) Frigates: Note that the point of building scads of frigates is NOT to
>attack the Coalition, but to try to keep as many
>Coalition ships away from your bases as possible. Of course, if you do use
>them as an "anemic" fleet to attack the
>Coalition use them against important, but low defense targets: FRDs.
I had thought this was obvious. The Fed production schedule was designed to
stop the Klingon's numerical advantage. One the Klingons and Romulans can no
longer move through Federation space with impunity is the point when the tide
begins to turn. The fact that the Feds can crank out command ships in decent
supply (DN, CVA, and as many CVSs and CCs as they can get converted per year)
makes fighting the Klingons quite a bit easier. As I have said many times
before, the Klingons NEVER have enough command ships.
>
>3) Casualties: Do cripple lots of ships! Cripple ships instead of taking
>damage on bases. The bases slow the Coalition
>down, and cripples can be repaired far, far easier than bases can be
>replaced. Treasure each instance of the Coalition
>directs damage at one of your ships - thats directed damage that didn't do a
>SIDS or cripple a base.
This depends on circumstances. Sometimes it is difficult to be able to
retrograde to a base and crippling ships is a viable option to ensure their
destruction at a later time. In capital assaults I AM going after bases and
PDUs and don't particularly worry about crippling the ships. Those PDUs will
hurt me more.
>
>4) Pay close attention to the supply and retrograde rules. Keep a scattering
>of ships through your space for a "defense in
>depth." Judicious reactions from these ships, plus the use of reserve fleets
>(you are maintaing reserve fleets, right?) can
>cut off a Coalition fleet's retrograde path. This takes good, prudent
>planing if it isn't to become "destruction in detail"
>rather then defense in depth - be careful. Cleanly overcoming such a defense
>will require the Coalition to spend ships
>doing something other than raiding your capital and destroying your bases.
>Not slowing down to deal with a good deep
>defense makes the Coalition risk leaving a fleet out of supply and in enemy
>territory on the Alliance turn. Not a major
>disaster, but it will slow down the offensive, and thats all the Hydrans and
>Kzinti want to do.
>The strategy can be especially effective for the Hydrans, who can burn
>fighters when their picket ships are forced into a
>battle.
Again it depends. Sometime directing damage against something, even a Hunter,
is all you're going to get, especially against the Hydrans. Sometimes if you do
this, the Alliance player can be lured into staying around a battle longer than
he really should.
>
>5) Directed damage revisited: There are a few times when you want to use
>directed damage: Command ships and scouts.
>While the Coalition can easily outproduce the Alliance in most ship types
>early in the game, their command ship
>advantage isn't very big. Pick these off and you leave the Coalition with a
>tactical disadvantage against the Federation.
>As far as scouts go, a hefty EW advantage can take much of the sting out of a
>Coalition assault. The Alliance has the
>home field advantage here with the EW power of BATS and SBs. Pick off the
>Coalition scouts and put a -2 modifier on
>the Coalition die rolls. This probably won't mean that your bases hang on
>any longer, but it will preserve your fleets
>better.
The Coalition's command ship advantage is ensured by only one thing: Lyran CAs.
A successful Coalition player will manipulate his battle groups so as to get
the maximum use of this wonderful ship as the Klingons simply don'r have enough
command ships to go around and the Alliance takes great glee in killing them
(especially D7Cs). The Fed Klingon front is where the Alliance should have
constant superiority in command ships (the Romulans have the edge because of
all those KEs wandering around).
As for scouts, the Hydran and Kzinti scouts are damn near worthless until they
get their CWS class ships. As a Fed, every DD should end the game as either a
DE or an SC. When playing the 2nd Fed-Kzinti War, I'm overbuilding Fed SCs.
>
>6) Don't be afraid to go on the offensive: Don't be intimidated by the
>Coalition. They only have about a 2-to-1
>advantage over the Alliance. Thats not so much that you can't make a few
>directed strikes. If you see a vulnerable FRD,
>planet, or BATS, take it out. The Coalition has lots of FRDs, planets, and
>BATS, but every one you destroy is one more
>that can't be used against the Federation.
The Coalition can be caught napping playing games with their retrograde points.
They have to keep their FRD's particularly secure once the Feds start pumping
out all those small ships.and can pin forward forces. I once fried three
Klingon FRD's in one turn because he did not realize that I could pin him to
death. Got a crippled C8 too...
>
>7) Be even more decisive than the Coalition: Pick a single strategy for
>both the Hydrans and the Kzinti and stick with it.
>You can't win outright, you have to somehow cause a crack to appear in the
>Coalition war machine, something that the
>Feds can use to break them open. This being the case, the early Alliance
>needs to exert the small amount of influence it
>can muster consistently. If you overbuild frigates one turn, pick off 3
>Coalition DNs the next, and invest in static
>defenses on the third the Coalition will just take your efforts in stride and
>smash you. Not that you should never switch
>strategies, but the Hydrans need to cause a lasting effect, and you'll only
>do that if you overwhelm some aspect of the
>Coalition's logistic/economic setup. You can't overwhelm them all, in fact
>you'll have the fight of your life overwhelming
>one, but it can be done. Keep trying new strategies until you find one the
>Coalition player can't happen. (Lucky for you
>this is a game.)
The Coalition's supply/repair network certainly CAN be overwhelmed,
particularly starting on the turns when they start feeling economic exhaustion.
Then the Feds turn into monsters because they won't be feeling it for years.
The Klingon/Lyrans usually have two paths into Fed territory, and the Romulans
have one depending on where they want their offensive to be. Overwhelm one and
cut it and you can break an entire section of the front.
>
>8) If all else fails: Convince the Coalition player to accept a balance
>factor favorable to the Alliance. Do it!! If the
>Coalition really has an advantage then the Alliance deserves a balance factor
>or two. Use it, give the Coalition a headache,
>and make them want a smaller balance factor next time. Count that as a
>victory.
Best Alliance balance factor is no Lyran trimarans. All those BCs running
around are a damned nuisance.
>
>9) Remember, all those Hydrans and Kzinti didn't die in vain. Any effect a
>_successful_ Hydrans and Kzinti war effort
>will probably take quite awhile to manifest itself. You'll only know how
>effective the H and Ks were when you see the
>Federation weather to Coalition assault.
Something often forgotten. It is important for the Alliance players not to get
discouraged by high Hydran and Kzinti casualties.
Rich Goranson (Lord Stephan Calvert deGrey)
Buffalo, NY (Barony of the Rhydderich Hael, Æthelmearc)
Diplomacy addict, FFRF member, Expos fan and medieval re-creationist
"I could have conquered Europe, all of it, but I had women in my life." - Henry
II
Tarquelne
:>another base in the Fed capital.
Right.
:>>(2
:>>BATS:
:>Entirely vulnerable to directed damage. I prefer to use PDFs but that has
I don't know about that. . . 30 points of damage will cripple a BATS, or destroy 3 battalions and leave those
fighters homeless. If the attacker concentrates on the planets first there won't be a home available, and the fighters will
be lost. So, those 30 points, if used on a base, reduce the Alliance combat potential by 12 points (crip base + fighters). If
used against a planet the the combat potential is reduced by 27 points (3 bat. + 18 fighters).
The three PDUs probably cost 21+ to create, quite likely 24 points. The BATS only cost 22 - so its about even there.
:>changed a bit since Marine Assault was put out. Those D6G's can cause PDFs a
:>world of hurt.
Yes, plus ground attacks vers. planets. BATS aren't really worth using a G against.
However, PDU's are better if the Coalition attack isn't truly overwhealming - huge attacks may take out PDUs in groups
of 5, but smaller attacks won't be able to kill more than 2 or 3 per round, especially after taking some damage. It
depends.
:>>3) Casualties: Do cripple lots of ships! Cripple ships instead of taking
:>>damage on bases.
:>
:>This depends on circumstances. Sometimes it is difficult to be able to
:>retrograde to a base and crippling ships is a viable option to ensure their
:>destruction at a later time. In capital assaults I AM going after bases and
:>PDUs and don't particularly worry about crippling the ships. Those PDUs will
:>hurt me more.
Actually, I was advising Alliance players to cripple ships rather than taking damage on a base or destroying small ships.
(I could have put that better.) But you make a good point - if the Coalition's repair capacity is already overworked it is
fun to utterly decline to direct damage - the Coalition player is forced to either destroy ships himself, which galling, or
add to the repair backlog.
:>
:>As for scouts, the Hydran and Kzinti scouts are damn near worthless until they
:>get their CWS class ships. As a Fed, every DD should end the game as either a
:>DE or an SC. When playing the 2nd Fed-Kzinti War, I'm overbuilding Fed SCs.
Yep. The Hs and Ks should use those CW class scouts.
:>The Coalition can be caught napping playing games with their retrograde points.
:>They have to keep their FRD's particularly secure once the Feds start pumping
:>out all those small ships.and can pin forward forces. I once fried three
:>Klingon FRD's in one turn because he did not realize that I could pin him to
:>death. Got a crippled C8 too...
Ha! Bet that was fun.
To anticipate the "Coalition Always wins" apologists: I might be willing to grant that a perfectly executed Coalition
offensive is impossible for the Hydrans and Kzinti to resist strongly enough to save the Federation. However, it is the
goal of the Alliance player in the early war to make executing a "perfect" offensive unlikely. If the Alliance players use
all the options available, hum annoyingly, and don't allow the Coalition players to spend days planning each turn, then
the perfect offensive will be difficult for the Coalition to achieve.
Tarquelne
break through any fleet trying to stop them. I just don't see this. The only way you can stop an enemy fleet from
reaching the hex it wants to get to is put more ships in or on the way to that hex than the enemy has. How can the
coaltion protect its entire front? An uncovered front can lead to a successfull Hydran expedition, especially if the Kzinti
use their share of the uncovered front to drive a fleet down into Klingon space. I'm perfectly willing to believe that the
Coalition can always capture the H and K capitals early on, but I don't believe they can just stroll in, pinning all the
Alliance fleets, all without ever taking significant damage. How do you flood enemy ships so that you don't need to
worry about supply lines, pin any fleets outside the capital that coud have gone to help, AND have enough ships to
damage the capital faster than you're damaged?
Also: What turn do you plan on first raiding the Kzinti capital? What turn do you usually capture it?
This is asking alot, but a fairling detailed description of the first few turns against the Kzinti would be a BIG help - I just
don't understand your arguments.
PDB6
Tarquelne wrote:
"1) The Alliance may very well be able to float a starbase or two if they
always build/upgrade bases in pairs, and certainly
start your program on the very first turn."
The Kzintis can't do this because they don't get a second MB (unless they build
one...) in the capital until turn 2, and the Hydrans can't really do this
because then need to get the FRDs off map. Regardless, the money it costs to
build 2 SBs will be _so_ completley deleterious to the Alliances long term
effectiveness, and 2 Bats won't really help all that much. That, and the
Coalition can jump into the Kzinti/Hydran capitals it will and direct any base
upgrades if they feel the need. You are much better off building extra FRDs
(to take off map) and fortifying the capital with PDUs. Bases are simply not a
good option.
"The Coalition can only destroy your starbases 1 SIDS at a time, and a huge
combat potential in your capital could cripple the
Coalition's effort against the Federation."
The Coalition never needs to use SIDS on SBs. They build huge fleets of 6 or 7
DNs/BCs/ and 6 or 7 CWs, along with drone bombardment and just shoot the
Kzintis and Hydrans until they run out of fighters. Then they start running
out of ships. Then they have to blow up the SB, or blow up their entire fleet,
which is _far_ worse for the Alliance in the long run than losing the SB is
now.
"2) Frigates: Note that the point of building scads of frigates is NOT to
attack the Coalition, but to try to keep as many
Coalition ships away from your bases as possible. Of course, if you do use
them as an "anemic" fleet to attack the
Coalition use them against important, but low defense targets: FRDs."
You can't get to the FRDs. They are protected by an metric infinite number of
Coalition ships. Even if you funnel your entire ship building budget into FFs,
you still won't have enough ships to A) keep the Coaliton out of your capital
(which is the only place where it matters that the Coaliton gets) and B) get
past the Coaliton pinning fleets on the offensive.
"3) Casualties: Do cripple lots of ships! Cripple ships instead of taking
damage on bases. The bases slow the Coalition
down, and cripples can be repaired far, far easier than bases can be replaced.
Treasure each instance of the Coalition
directs damage at one of your ships - thats directed damage that didn't do a
SIDS or cripple a base."
Bases don't slow the Coaliton down. The have zero need to kill them.
Starbases don't block supply. They don't help the defense of the capital.
They don't do anything but give the defendeing fleet a huge combat offensive.
If the Coaliton is spending effort killing Alliance bases that have fleets
defending them, the Coalition is not playing correctly. If the Kzintis or
Hydrans have fleets on SBs, pin them with ships that can't reach the capital,
fight one approach battle, and retreat. If they are not defended, attack them
with FFs if you feel ornery. In any situation where the Alliance has the
option of fighting behind a base and crippling ships to keep the base alive,
the Coalition is doing something wrong.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"Son, you don't have bad luck. The reason bad things
keep happening to you is because you're a dumb ass."
-Red Foreman
PDB6
Tarquelne wrote:
""4) Pay close attention to the supply and retrograde rules."
Correct. It is nigh impossible to put the Coalition (in Kzinti or Hydran
space) out of supply, even if the SBs are still alive. Big fleets, reserve
fleets, and clouds of FFs mean that pretty much every hex in Alliance space is
a valid supply route. Even with the SBs.
"5) Directed damage revisited: There are a few times when you want to use
directed damage: Command ships and scouts.
While the Coalition can easily outproduce the Alliance in most ship types early
in the game, their command ship
advantage isn't very big."
This is a very common misconception. With the Lyrans making 2 command 10 ships
every turn for the first 4 turns (a build and a conversion) and the Klingons
having enough DNs/BTs to take up the slack, there is rarely a need for the
Coalition to worry about comand ratings. The only ships really worth directing
are Maulers, as every Mauler that survives the Kzinti capital means an extra
one to kill the Hydrans. Every Mauler that survives the Hydran capital is one
more to mangle the Feds (who actually _do_ have to worry about running out of
Command 10 ships...)
"6) Don't be afraid to go on the offensive: Don't be intimidated by the
Coalition. They only have about a 2-to-1
advantage over the Alliance. Thats not so much that you can't make a few
directed strikes. If you see a vulnerable FRD,
planet, or BATS, take it out. The Coalition has lots of FRDs, planets, and
BATS, but every one you destroy is one more
that can't be used against the Federation."
While correct in theory, it's just not going to happen. FRDs will all be in
one place guarded by huge fleets (with which to pin attackers), as will the
important bases. The Hydrans can have a field day (in theory) on Lyran bases
(depending on how the Lyrans set up), but this will have no long term effect on
the Coalition offensive.
(I skipped point seven. Point seven was perfectly sound advice :-)
"8) If all else fails: Convince the Coalition player to accept a balance
factor favorable to the Alliance."
This is my whole point. I would just like it if there was an accepted "How to
actually balance the game" set of options (like in A+A, for instance), as thre
game is really just too long to try one, play it out, discover that it doesn't
work (again...) and try another one.
PDB6
Tarquelne wrote:
can pin any fleet attacking them, and
break through any fleet trying to stop them. I just don't see this."
The Coalition has, on turn 3, in Kzinti space, more ships than the Kzinti. It
doesn't have that many more ships in Kzinti space than the Kzinti, but enough
that they can easily pin any offensive the Kzintis attempt to make. Turn 4,
between the Enemeies Blood fleet, West Fleet, Southern Reserve Fleet, turn 4
builds, and a few random FFs from the north, the Coalition has more ships than
the Hydrans do. Both fronts have enough ships to pin any offensive that either
the Kzintis or Hydrans might attempt, and consequently, any such offensives
will fail. The Coalition will not fight on the Alliance turn, as it will just
weaken their offensives. They react, pin, fight one round at low intensity,
and retreat. By turn 7, both capitals will have fallen, at which point they
can losen up on ships in Hydran space to increase the pressure on the Feds.
"An uncovered front can lead to a successfull Hydran expedition, especially if
the Kzinti use their share of the uncovered front to drive a fleet down into
Klingon space."
There is no uncovered front. The Klingons/Lyrans have enough ships to pin any
Kzinti offensive, and while the Hydrans, if clever, can get sort of far into
Klingon space, they can't get past the Klingon Capital, as the Home fleet is
immediately released when the Hydrans cross the border, meaning that they gst
to react to the expedition, and get to attack the Hydran capital a turn
earlier.
"I'm perfectly willing to believe that the Coalition can always capture the H
and K capitals early on, but I don't believe they can just stroll in, pinning
all the Alliance fleets, all without ever taking significant damage"
It certainly isn't a stroll, and they take very significant damage attacking
the homeworlds, but my marshalling their repair capacitites, they pretty much
fix everything important every turn, and send it back to the capitals. By turn
5 the Kzintis fall. The Hydrans fall on 6 or 7.
"How do you flood enemy ships so that you don't need to
worry about supply lines, pin any fleets outside the capital that coud have
gone to help, AND have enough ships to damage the capital faster than you're
damaged?"
It is virtually impossible to cut someone off of supply in Kzinti space. The
Coalition has, like, 8-10 FRDs in hex 1307 with enough ships in between there
and the Kzinti capital to prevent any attacks there. All shgips hit the
capital, shoot until crippled, retrograde to 1307, get fixed, and come back.
PDB6
Tarquelne wrote:
do you usually capture it?
This is asking alot, but a fairling detailed description of the first few turns
against the Kzinti would be a BIG help - I just
don't understand your arguments."
I have expalined a lot recently, but heck, here is a semi detailed description
of how the (basic) general war goes around here:
T1. The Kzintis set up propperly (i.e. most of the Duke is in 1003 with a
scout), so the Lyrans don't bother attacking much, as it will cost them too
much. The Lyrans park every ship they have in hex 0803, possibly attacking a
BATS or two if feeling saucy. The Kzintis fight a few rounds at 0803, but the
Lyrans have them out manned, so the Kzin give it up to avoid too many
casualties. On Kzinti 1, the Kzintis can't afford an offensive (as the 20 or
so extra Lyran reserves which can't currently reach the capital will be able to
after they reserve in). The kzintis set up with token fleets on the bases and
plenty of ships in the capital, as now the bulk of the Klingon and Lyran fleets
can reach the capital.
T2. The Coalition viably threaten the Capital, so the Kzintis have to worry
about it. The Coalition kills weakly defended border BATSs, contests provinces,
pins fleets on SBs, captures a minor planet or two (that are undefended), opens
up supply with FFs, and probably gets pinned outside the capital. They don't
fight much against the main Kzinti fleet elements and set up for three. They
defenitely don't try and blow up the SBs The Kzinti offensive consists of
trying to get to something (FRD? Planet?), getting pinned, and seeing the
Coalition reserve the TBS and T2 builds even closer to the capital but not
getting shot up much.
T3. The Coalition rushes the Kzinti capital, going straight to Kzintai Major.
The PDUs get killed. The Coalition loses Maulers and gets alot of CWs crippled.
The Coalition retreats, keeping supply open. The Kzintis again attempt an
offensive, and fail. The Hydrans attack the Lyrans (as attacking the Klingons
is usually suicide). They blow up a base or two. Possibly the SB (depending
on where the Lyran set up), but the Lyrans still have the MB in hex 1013, so
they are always in supply at the Hydran capital).
T4. The Coalition goes for the SB at Kzintai major. They shoot a lot with a
huge fleet. Eventually, the Kzintis decide to stop losing ships take the SB,
or they get their entire fleet crippled. The Coaliton retreats to the repair
station. They possibly kill a Kzinti SB or two with cripples, FFs, and stuff
that can't reach the capital (as most Kzinti ships are at the capital) In
Hydran space, the Coaliton floods Hydran space, killing anything easy and
setting up for 5. The Alliance offensive is mostly moot, as they are pinned,
fight a single battle round, and the Coalition retreats.
T5. The Coalition Flies through the Kzinti capital and devastates all the
planets there. The two fleets start shooting, but the Coalition has a bigger
and stronger fleet. At some point, the Kzintis decide they have lost enough
ships and they abandon the capital. The Hydran capital gets attacked in the
same way as the Kzinti capital. The Base that is being built there gets
directed out of existance. The PDUs are shot. The Coalition strategics the
FRDs mostly to Hydran space.
T6. The Hydrans keep getting shot. Depending on how things go, they abandon
the capital this turn or next. In Kzinti space, depending on how many ships
the Kzintis lost the turn before, the Kzintis might take back their homeworld,
but it doesn;t really matter, as they have lost their shipyard. The Klingons
set up for the Fed assault.
T7. The Hydrans lose their capital (if not already) and the Fed border is
overrun(which is a whole other story).
Ken
>
> T2. ... The Kzinti offensive consists of
> trying to get to something (FRD? Planet?), getting pinned, and seeing the
> Coalition reserve the TBS and T2 builds even closer to the capital but not
> getting shot up much.
I agree with everything up to this point. The Kzinits attack only if
guaranteed clear superiority and the potential of killing coalition
ships is just too good. The impact of allowing Coalition Reserves to get
in range of the Kzinti capital must be factored into any such decision.
>
> T3. The Coalition rushes the Kzinti capital, going straight to Kzintai Major.
> The PDUs get killed. The Coalition loses Maulers and gets alot of CWs crippled.
> The Coalition retreats, keeping supply open.
OK.
>The Kzintis again attempt an offensive, and fail.
No they don't - unless they can't fail. Exposed small fleets can be
attacked. That "one round of battle" plan means that the Coalition will
lose cripples in retreat. Neither the Kzinits nor Hydrans take on the
Coalition megafleets except under the heavy guns of the capital system.
The Kzinti fleet must be preserved for the capital defense. The more
ships that survive, the longer the staying power in the capital. The
Kzintis (and Hydrans) can do the worst damage to the Coalition by making
that capital assault last as many rounds as possible, where the added
compot of the capital defenses really takes a bite out of the assaulting
Coalition fleet.
> T4. The Coalition goes for the SB at Kzintai major. They shoot a lot with a
> huge fleet. Eventually, the Kzintis decide to stop losing ships take the SB,
> or they get their entire fleet crippled. The Coaliton retreats to the repair
> station. They possibly kill a Kzinti SB or two with cripples, FFs, and stuff
> that can't reach the capital (as most Kzinti ships are at the capital)
OK.
> In Hydran space, the Coaliton floods Hydran space, killing anything easy and
> setting up for 5.
OK, provided "anything easy" is bases or planets that cannot be
defended. The Hydrans should not leave any ships exposed.
> T5. The Coalition Flies through the Kzinti capital and devastates all the
> planets there. The two fleets start shooting, but the Coalition has a bigger
> and stronger fleet.
But the Kzintis have a bigger compot. You know what they say about
Kzinitis
with big compats. :)
> At some point, the Kzintis decide they have lost enough
> ships and they abandon the capital.
After all those DNs, BCs and CAs and D6/7s take a severe beating. When
the coalition goes with a pure quality line, the Kzinitis stop directing
damage and let the Coalition eat those huge damage results. Coalitions
ships don't just get crippled - they die.
> The Hydran capital gets attacked in the
> same way as the Kzinti capital.
No way (at least not yet). The Coalition will have the good stuff in
Kzinti space. What's left for the Hydrans, though numerically superior,
is qualitatively poor. The lower Coalition compot means an even more
favorable casualty ratrio for the Hydrans than the Kzintis enjoyed.
Reinforcements of Coalition heavy ships must be sent after the Kzinti
capital is toast. Don't get me wrong. The Hydrans can be hit and the
capital taken. But this is a turn 6 or 7 affair.
> The Base that is being built there gets
> directed out of existance.
Not if it's a starbase. That's why both the Kzintis and Hydrans should
try to build up another starbase at the capital. One will fail (the side
that gets killed first) - the other should succeed. Granted that the
Coalition can attempt to raid the SB under construction [I probably
would]. But staying a few rounds just to kill the base means taking a
capital assault level of ship casualties in exchange for one base and
Hydran fighter casualties (i.e. nothing).
> T6...(snip)
> T7...(snip)
No problem here. OK. So now the Hydrans and Kzinits have lumbered off to
the colonial regions. But...
1) By this time the Coalition will be heavily beaten up. Many Coalition
command ships and maulers will be dead. Huge piles of ships await
repair. The Federation will still be attacked, but the numbers should
not be sufficient to get very far before the tide turns.
2) The Hydrans must still be guarded SE for SE or they will come back.
This is
usually not too difficult since the Hydran economy is permanently crap.
But the garrison must be left.
3) The Kzinits will be back. The Feds will fund them via the offmap
route. Essentially, Kziniti ships are now the Federation northwest
fleet.
Don't get me wrong. If *I* as the Coalition player intended to take both
capitals, I bet I would do it as you with little variation. In fact my
early experience led me to believe also that the Coalition was
invincible. And if I felt I was playing a weaker Alliance player, that's
still what I would do.
I held the belief in Coalition supremecy until I saw the Allies played
correctly. [I apologize if this sounds condescending - no offense
intended. This has been a great discussion.] If the Allies avoid
needless ship losses in non-capital battles, and make the most of their
superior compot at the capitals, enough attrition losses can be
inflicted on the Coalition to save the Feds. I agree with Tarquelna that
the Kzintis and Hydrans can inflict enough pain on the Coalition to
leave the Federation facing a damaged and insufficently strong Klingon
attack.
Now what would I (as the Coalition) do against a good Alliance player?
Take out the Hydrans. Threaten the Kzintis but not actually assault
their capital - pin them at the capital, and destroy everything else.
Use early Klingon advantage against Feds to clear the south and link
with Romulans [Once the Orion goes neutral its hard for the Feds to
react in the southern regions]. A SB will be needed to complete the
supply chain. With Klingon money, the Romulans can afford both repairs
and to build their full complement of ships, something they will have a
hard time doing otherwise. Then hold on for dear life. Six months of
real-life time later, I might have a draw.
And for the love of Kaless (sp?), NEVER, EVER attack the Tholians!
To my recollection, this all got started by a request for play balancing
options to offset the Coalition advantage. Clearly I disagree with the
premise. But if any play group feels this is necessary, I suggest
altering the starting OBs or economic values. Perhaps let the Feds come
in earlier or increase their gearing rate. Special rules altering game
mechanincs are not needed (not for this purpose).
Ken
(aka, Koors, Klingon in exile).
--
remove 'nospam' to reply
Tarquelne
:>> huge fleet. Eventually, the Kzintis decide to stop losing ships take the SB,
:>> or they get their entire fleet crippled.
Actually, I don't see much wrong with the Kzinti's allowing thier whole fleet to get crippled when it comes down to the
final battle for the hex.
And I don't think they should just "take the SB" - make the Coalition do it via SIDS, or stay in the fight until the
Coalition has crippled all the Kzinti ships. The Kzinti's don't need to maintain a fighting fleet at this point, they should
just make the Coalition victory as expensive as possible - that means fighting it out in the capital hex.
:>
:>But the Kzintis have a bigger compot. You know what they say about
:>Kzinitis
:>with big compats. :)
Hey, this is a "family" newsgroup!
:> I agree with Tarquelna that
Thanks, but actually "Tarquelna" is my sister.
:>Now what would I (as the Coalition) do against a good Alliance player?
:>Take out the Hydrans. Threaten the Kzintis but not actually assault
:>their capital - pin them at the capital, and destroy everything else.
That'd be interesting. Lets leave the "Coalition always wins" question a moment and take a look at that. Can the
Coalition avoid a costly capital assualt and just sit on the Kziniti, so preserving more energy for the attack on the
Federation? (Maybe have the Lyrans go full bore after the Hydrans and Kzinti's while the Klingons act very
conservatively until the Federation invasion.)
On altering OB's/economic rates for play balance: Any specific suggestions? (ie, x points per CA hull, y points per FF, z
points per CW production)
ForlornH
>moment and take a look at that. Can the
>Coalition avoid a costly capital assualt and just sit on the Kziniti, so
>preserving more energy for the attack on the
>Federation? (Maybe have the Lyrans go full bore after the Hydrans and
>Kzinti's while the Klingons act very
>conservatively until the Federation invasion.)
>
I was always under the impression that the Coalition NEEDED a strong Lyran
presence in Federation space primarily for the command ships. I have commonly
used the Tug-P's as supply conduits through Klingon space and maybe a mobile
base/BATS for the forward point. That Klingon BATS on the three power border is
a good place for it. This is where the spare BCs go as well as a bunch of CWs
and DWs to make sure you have a legal battle force. The Klingons usually can
provide the specialty ships that the Lyrans have a hard time providing (like
maulers, carriers and decent scouts).
>On altering OB's/economic rates for play balance: Any specific suggestions?
>(ie, x points per CA hull, y points per FF, z
>points per CW production)
>
Make the Lyrans pay an extra buck for a CA hull. Their production schedule is
poor considering their resources and the amount of action they must take. They
will usually have the extra cash to spare. Make the Klingons pay 16 bucks for 3
D5s and designate one specifically as a D5L (CR7) instead of just having the
generic squadron leader. Reduce the Romulan WE/KE conversions to one a year.
That enough?
PDB6
"I agree with everything up to this point. The Kzinits attack only if
guaranteed clear superiority and the potential of killing coalition
ships is just too good. The impact of allowing Coalition Reserves to get
in range of the Kzinti capital must be factored into any such decision."
You are completely correct here. I was only describing the Kzinti turns as
"attempting an offensive and failing" to facilitate the idea that the Kzintis
can't really preform offensives. If they try, they get pinned, allow Coalition
reserve fleets to get closer to the capital, get shot up, and accomplish
nothing. As the Kzintis, I rarely try offensives, as it just gets me killed.
It is all about keeping the capital alive.
"OK, provided "anything easy" is bases or planets that cannot be
defended. The Hydrans should not leave any ships exposed."
Anything easy consists of planets and bases that are not defended. It looks
like you have come into this discussion a bit late, so I will explain that all
of my tactical points about the Coalition revolve around:
-Only attacking things that are important.
-Not fighting at defended bases (other than the Capital, as they have to)
-Not fighting on the Alliance turns (pinning, fighting one battle at low
intensity, directing something, and retreating)
"But the Kzintis have a bigger compot. You know what they say about
Kzinitis
with big compats. :)"
Not after the PDUs and bases have been destroyed. The Coalition has a fleet of
6-7 DNs and 6-7 CWs backed by drone bombardment. The Kzintis have a fleet of a
DN, 3 CVs and a couple BC/CCs. Until they run out of fighters and CA hulls.
The Coalition has close to infinite CW hulls to take damage on, where the
Kzintis run out of actual ships pretty quick once the fixed defenses stop
taking damage.
"After all those DNs, BCs and CAs and D6/7s take a severe beating. When
the coalition goes with a pure quality line, the Kzinitis stop directing
damage and let the Coalition eat those huge damage results. Coalitions
ships don't just get crippled - they die."
The first few attacks at the capital consist of a Mauler and chum, but enough
chum to soak up the damage, The Kzinti pretty much need to direct the maulers
(out of long range preservation for the alliance as a whole), so there is 38
(?) damage right there. Yeah, when the Kzinti have 20 PDUs, a SB, and a fleet,
the entire Coalition fleet gets crippled in one shot, but this only happens 4
or 5 times, and then the Kzinti advantage becomes much less pronounced than one
might think.
Tarquelne
:>chum to soak up the damage, The Kzinti pretty much need to direct the maulers
:>(out of long range preservation for the alliance as a whole), so there is 38
:>(?) damage right there. Yeah, when the Kzinti have 20 PDUs, a SB, and a fleet,
:>the >>>entire Coalition fleet<<< gets crippled in one shot, but this only happens 4
:>or 5 times, and then the Kzinti advantage becomes much less pronounced than one
:>might think.
Note the marked >< phrase above - What do these Coalition fleets consist of?
ahar...@my-dejanews.com
command rating (and that of the BC). Lyran feudalism has been shown to
produce, um, officers whose areas of expertise invlove neither tactics nor
strategy, in much of the fiction and other background material. So they
should be worse at command and control compared to the other races rather
than better. Perhaps 8 for the CA and 9 for the BC. Similarly, the Rom NH and
KH should be command 10 ships as they are BCH-class or better.
While we're at it, rejig the combat factors on the plasma races to better
represent their performance against drone users (Kzin vs equal BPV Rom = dead
Rom, at least once fast drones are available). Some other factors are out of
line too. Of course, that means I need to buy another three sets to get the
new counters...
As for Coalition strategy, I generally don't bother pressing home an attack on
the Kzinti Capital, and will only go for the Hydran if moderately weak (if the
entire Hydran fleet is stacked there, I will just cut it off - with two fleets
each sufficent to pin the entire Hydran fleet - and devastate the non-capital
worlds there). This means that the Klingons will not lose many command ships,
the Lyrans being able to provide all that will be risked. The invasion of the
Federation is fairly straightforward if heavy capital assualt losses have been
avoided, and that is where the game is won or lost.
Andrew Harding
In article <19981126020839...@ng93.aol.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tarquelne
:>represent their performance against drone users (Kzin vs equal BPV Rom = dead
:>Rom, at least once fast drones are available).
That bugs me too when the carrier groups are involved. The plasma user's V groups all have attack factors equal to the
defense factor, where everybody else has lower attack factors. (Some Lyran escorts have equal factors, but I can see that:
ESGs.) I suppose that does refelect the Gorns and Romulans hammering on each other, but I wondered how well a
Romulan group could cope with all the drones a Fed carrier group might generate.
ForlornH
>Romulan group could cope with all the drones a Fed carrier group might
>generate.
Speed, Plasma-Ds, EW support and phasers.
Rich Goranson (Lord Stephan Calvert deGrey)
Buffalo, NY (Barony of the Rhydderich Hael, Æthelmearc)
Diplomacy addict, F&E guru, Expos fan and medieval re-creationist
Tarquelne
:>>generate.
:>
:>Speed, Plasma-Ds, EW support and phasers.
The thing is, those options (with ADDs or small phasers in place of Pl-Ds) can be used by
all the non-plasma races, and all the non plasma races suffer an offensive penalty on their carriers and
escorts. The one exception being the Lyrans, and from SFB I can understand why that'd be: ESGs.
So, I guess this is really a SFB question - what makes the plasma using escorts/carriers so great?
(BTW - this was especially annoying before I got Carrier Wars and the Romulans could use the basic
SP as a 7-7 escort.)
ForlornH
>:>>Romulan group could cope with all the drones a Fed carrier group might
>:>>generate.
>:>
>:>Speed, Plasma-Ds, EW support and phasers.
>:>
>
>The thing is, those options (with ADDs or small phasers in place of Pl-Ds)
>can be used by
>all the non-plasma races, and all the non plasma races suffer an offensive
>penalty on their carriers and
>escorts. The one exception being the Lyrans, and from SFB I can understand
>why that'd be: ESGs.
>
>So, I guess this is really a SFB question - what makes the plasma using
>escorts/carriers so great?
>(BTW - this was especially annoying before I got Carrier Wars and the
>Romulans could use the basic
>SP as a 7-7 escort.)
I would gather because the plasma escorts defensive weapons (plasma-Ds) can be
used offensively to a certain extent. This certainly isn't true with the ADD
based escorts. The Hydrans suffer some penalties because their phaser based
escorts are more vulnerable to penetrating damage than the escorts of most
other races. If you've noticed, the Tholian escorts aren't hurt either in F&E.
And the plasma escorts just have oodles of power.
For me, EW support from a true scout is one of the best anti-drone weapons
available. That's why the Fed SC has all those sensor channels: they weren't
out going boldly where no man has gone before, they were breaking drone lockons
from Kzinti fleets. That's why it has an EW rating of 4 in F&E although it is
not as useful against the Romulans and I'd rather have a 3 channel DWS that can
move than an 8 channel SC which can't when fighting them.
Tarquelne
:>used offensively to a certain extent.
How about on the defense? I havn't found them _that_ usefull. Though I haven't played Romulans and Gorns much,
just destroyed them. :) If I were to alter a Plasma-users carrier group factors I'd give them a penalty to their defensive
rating, not the attack factor. (We'd go with a -1 per ship modifier if we do anything. We'll see how much the Alliance
player complains.)
Another thing: I believe a good part of the reason escorts suffer a penalty is because they have to face different sorts of
opponents. A Klingon V will throw lots of drones at a Fed group, a Romulan V would throw lots of plasmas. The Gorns
don't have that problem at all, but the Romulans certainly do. (Plasmas from the Gorns, drones from the Federation.)
:>For me, EW support from a true scout is one of the best anti-drone weapons
:>available.
Anti drone EW is something I didn't consider enough. That helps.
ahar...@my-dejanews.com
channels (only available in limited quantities) and T-bombs. Speed helps,
especially against medium drones, but if used against a drone ship tends to
allow your opponent several unanswered shots with disruptors against your
rear shields. If you are both using ballet tactics (sweep in, launch seeking
weapons, run away from the enemy weapons) the drone user has a significant
advantage for two reasons - the greater effect range has on plasma
effectiveness and their significant direct fire armament. (if you are both
using older ships this reverses, with the advantage to the plasma user,
because older ships cannot maintain high enough speed while also arming
disruptors).
If the plasma ship tries to force the action, it is still difficult. Even a
Kzinti frigate can throw a dozen drones in a turn (4 initial wave, 2 more a
little later from the C racks, if those have been handled and he is still
coming launch the scatter-pack). There aren't a lot of plasma ships that can
handle that kind of drone power.
That's for ships. I dislike fighters in fleet actions (except if fighting
around a fixed point) becuase of their low speed. I do not want to slow my
fleet to 15 to keep pace with even a fast fighter. Given the choice of a war
cruiser squadron (CWL, 2 CW: 350-400 BPV) or a carrier group (CV, CWE, DWE:
450-500 BPV), I would usually take the war cruisers and depend on speed and
my heavier long range firepower. With an extra DW or DWS to even up the BPV I
will always take the cruisers unless fighting at a base or planet.
Andrew Harding
In article <19981127122534...@ng30.aol.com>,
forl...@aol.computation (ForlornH) wrote:
> > but I wondered how well a
> >Romulan group could cope with all the drones a Fed carrier group might
> >generate.
>
> Speed, Plasma-Ds, EW support and phasers.
>
> Rich Goranson (Lord Stephan Calvert deGrey)
> Buffalo, NY (Barony of the Rhydderich Hael, Æthelmearc)
> Diplomacy addict, F&E guru, Expos fan and medieval re-creationist
>
> "I could have conquered Europe, all of it, but I had women in my life." -
Henry
> II
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Stephen A. Cuyler
> So, I guess this is really a SFB question - what makes the plasma using escorts/carriers so great?
> (BTW - this was especially annoying before I got Carrier Wars and the Romulans could use the basic
> SP as a 7-7 escort.)
-Plasma race escorts keep their heavy weapons. Thats what gives them
such a great F+E value asa compared to the non-plasma escorts. A Plasma
S can kill 3 fighters as a defensive system, or down a cruiser's shield
as an offensive one.
-SAC
--
"Do not fight a battle you cannot win."
-Sun Tzu
PDB6
"Note the marked >< phrase above - What do these Coalition fleets consist of?"
Hmm. Off the top of my head I would say something along the lines of (for the
first few rounds of PDU evaporation) a Lyran BC as comand ship, a Mauler, a few
CA/D7s, a couple of Klingon D5V groups (or possibly those weird DVs or
something) and then a bunch of CWs. And drone bombardment. This group will do
enough damage to direct 4 PDUs, do some extra damage (either payinbg off some
of the negative fighter defecit or convincing the Kzintis to cripple a CV group
for more negative points) and will be able to take average damage from the
Kzinti in return. If they direct the mauler (which is likely) the group will
get mostly crippled, but it is a bunch of chum, so who cares? If the Kzinti
don't direct the Mauler, then the group will get completely crippled, and
possibly a few escorts will get kacked, but who cares as they are chum?
After the PDUs are whacked,
PDB6
So anyways, as I was saying, after the PDUs are gone, the Coalition bumps up to
the 6-7 DN/BC mix backed by 6-7 CW/CV damage sinks and Drone Bombardment for a
battle line total of something like 129-130, and the grinding begins.
Tarquelne
:>first few rounds of PDU evaporation) a Lyran BC as comand ship, a Mauler, a few
:>CA/D7s, a couple of Klingon D5V groups (or possibly those weird DVs or
:>something) and then a bunch of CWs.
OK 1 BC
1 Mauler
3 CA/D7s (for me, a "few" is always 3)
6 ships from 2 D5V
7 CWs (for me, a bunch is always 7)
= 17
Ok, lets assume sufficent command points are spent to get force up to 13 ships...
1 BC, 1 MA, 1 CA, 2 D5V, 4 CW.
And drone bombardment. This group will do
:>enough damage to direct 4 PDUs, do some extra damage
Thats a 112 compot. Unless your opponent is being silly, you can only count on BI 5. That means you need a 4-6 to get 4
PDUs, and, even if you roll a 6, you'll only do 9 extra points of damage after the 4 PDUs. And how well can you count
on getting a 4-6 with an unfavorable EW shift? Does the enemy have a Starbase here?
:> If the Kzinti
:>don't direct the Mauler, then the group will get completely crippled, and
:>possibly a few escorts will get kacked, but who cares as they are chum?
:>
Ok, lets assume your oppoent lets you just take the damage. If your entire force is crippled you'll spend (lets factoring in
the drone bombardment) 22.7 points. I believe in the post I originally reponded to you mentioned doing this 4 or 5
times. Can the Coaltion afford to spend 113.5 points on repairs that early in the game? That's just about the entire Lyran
budget for a turn.
If you are nixing 4 PDU a turn (which I don't really find likely) then by the time you have destoryed all the PDUs the
Kzintis will have crippled 3 of your fleets. You have not yet significantly touched the Kziniti fleet.
Can the Coalition really afford to do that?
Stephen A. Cuyler
> Ok, assuming 13 ships:
> BC (10)
> Mauler (10)
> 3CA (24)
> 3D5V (21)
> 5CW (35)
> Drones (12)
-Not possible. The 3 D5Vs each require 2 escorts, one of each must be
equivalent to a "light escort". None of the ships in the force are
"light". Ignoring this, all 5 CW would have an attack of 3 each (15) and
one CA would also be reduced to a 4 compot. Thats only 88 total compot.
The BIR would need to be a 5 with a die roll of a "6" and no EW to
generate the 30 points (30.6 actually).
> If using EW, the Kzinti are even more screwed. The Kzinti get 6 EW from the SB
> and 1 from the SC. The Coalition gets 4 from the D6S and another 6 from the 3
> D6Ds that replace 3 CWs in the battle line, for a total of 7 vs 10, giving the
> Kzintis a -1 shift over their homeworld.
-Can't happen. The D6Ds can not use scout or drone bombardment functions
in the escort role. The would have the same attack value as the CWs.
> "Son, you don't have bad luck. The reason bad things
> keep happening to you is because you're a dumb ass."
> -Red Foreman
-Maybe this is why the Coalition always wins...? :)
PDB6
"OK 1 BC
1 Mauler
3 CA/D7s (for me, a "few" is always 3)
6 ships from 2 D5V
7 CWs (for me, a bunch is always 7)
= 17"
Man. Talk about wacky estimation skills :-)
Ok, assuming 13 ships:
BC (10)
Mauler (10)
3CA (24)
3D5V (21)
5CW (35)
Drones (12)
112 points (as you assumed). This will do the requisite 30 points needed at
BIR 5 on a 4-6. 25% (2 or 3) will get 3 PDUs. The next turn will require the
Coalition to fight through a bunch of negative points, so either they go big
and get more PDUs or go small (not as good of an idea) and just fight off the
negatives.
"Thats a 112 compot. Unless your opponent is being silly, you can only count
on BI 5. That means you need a 4-6 to get 4
PDUs, and, even if you roll a 6, you'll only do 9 extra points of damage after
the 4 PDUs. And how well can you count
on getting a 4-6 with an unfavorable EW shift? Does the enemy have a Starbase
here?"
If using EW, the Kzinti are even more screwed. The Kzinti get 6 EW from the SB
and 1 from the SC. The Coalition gets 4 from the D6S and another 6 from the 3
D6Ds that replace 3 CWs in the battle line, for a total of 7 vs 10, giving the
Kzintis a -1 shift over their homeworld. If the Kzin have (by some
miraculosity) a BATS, they will break even, until the BATS is killed.
"Ok, lets assume your oppoent lets you just take the damage. If your entire
force is crippled you'll spend (lets factoring in
the drone bombardment) 22.7 points. I believe in the post I originally
reponded to you mentioned doing this 4 or 5
times. Can the Coaltion afford to spend 113.5 points on repairs that early in
the game? That's just about the entire Lyran
budget for a turn."
The Kzinti will be doing less and less damage each round (as their PDUs are
stripped), and if they are not directing the Maulers, they are damning the
Alliance in the long run. I am trying to get up a game of "Thunder of Kzintai"
(the first 4 turns of the GW with no Hydran front) and will specifically not
direct the maulers to see how much it helps in the short run (as there is no
long run in this scenario :-). There will be a lot of damage done to the
Coalition on turn 3, yes, but as the repair costs are split between the
Klingons and the Lyrans, a lot of income is gained from captured space, and the
Kzinti will end up losing their homeworld by T5, it is worth doing.
"If you are nixing 4 PDU a turn (which I don't really find likely) then by the
time you have destoryed all the PDUs the
Kzintis will have crippled 3 of your fleets. You have not yet significantly
touched the Kziniti fleet.
Can the Coalition really afford to do that?"
I would say yes. The Kzinti fleet is fairly insignificant if they have no
shipyard. If the Kzinti lose their homeworld, their construction halts for 6
long turns, and their ability to conduct offensives is sketchy at best (there
isn't really anything they can reach from the Barony and they can't really
repair much with their limited economy anyway). They can hold out at the
Marquis SB for a while, but they can only make raids off of the SB (having to
return at the end of each strike), cause if they lose it while away on
campaign, they are _extra_ screwed, and there isn't that much to kill within 6
hexes of the Marquis SB. The Coalition needs to whack the Kzinti homeworld by
5, and it is completely worth the damage to do it.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
ForlornH
>> BC (10)
>> Mauler (10)
>> 3CA (24)
>> 3D5V (21)
>> 5CW (35)
>> Drones (12)
>
>equivalent to a "light escort". None of the ships in the force are
>"light".
Judging by the factors, it would seem he is using one 3D5V group (with two
F5Es) and not three D5V carriers.
>"Do not fight a battle you cannot win."
> -Sun Tzu
"It's hopeless. Everyone run away screaming." - Vercingetorix.
Stephen A. Cuyler
> Judging by the factors, it would seem he is using one 3D5V group (with two
> F5Es) and not three D5V carriers.
-OOPS! My bad. Guess I shouldn't post with my eyes closed. I stand
corrected.
-SAC
--
Tarquelne
:>and 1 from the SC. The Coalition gets 4 from the D6S and another 6 from the 3
:>D6Ds that replace 3 CWs in the battle line, for a total of 7 vs 10, giving the
:>Kzintis a -1 shift over their homeworld. If the Kzin have (by some
:>miraculosity) a BATS, they will break even, until the BATS is killed.
If you're putting D6Ds in the battle line will you still have enough for drone bombardment?
Can you afford to put D6Ds in the battle line, and lose them, instead of the D5s. (The D6Ds are what, more than
twice as expensive.)
Can't the Kzinti player use CDs, or other scouts? (And put some in the battle line.) Or maybe direct damage at a D6S -
how many of those do you have?
At the moment I think you have 6 D6Ds, 1 D6S, and 1 D6M involved in the battle. And that's a Lyran Battlecruiser,
right? Where are the other Lyran ships that need to make up the force? (They could supply the MA, but they don't have
many. They could have supplied some CWs, but most have been replaced with D6 varients.)
And you want 4-5 of these fleets.
:> There will be a lot of damage done to the
:>Coalition on turn 3, yes, but as the repair costs are split between the
:>Klingons and the Lyrans, a lot of income is gained from captured space,
If "a lot" of income is gained from captured space then the Kzinti's have something to strike at within range of both the
Barony and the Marquis starbase.
and the
:>Kzinti will end up losing their homeworld by T5, it is worth doing.
:>Can the Coalition really afford to do that?"
:>
:>I would say yes.
:> The Coalition needs to whack the Kzinti homeworld by
:>5, and it is completely worth the damage to do it.
Oops, we've departed from specifics into what are effectively unverifiable (and thus unassailable) generalities again. My
bad, I shouldn't have asked leading questions. We'll discuss specifics more, and work back up to them.
PDB6
"If you're putting D6Ds in the battle line will you still have enough for drone
bombardment?"
Conversions, baby, conversions. If you are playing with EW rules, you convert
as many D6s to D6Ds as Klingonly possible (at every SB in Klingon space as
often as possible), barring the major conversion to make a D6M every turn.
"Can you afford to put D6Ds in the battle line, and lose them, instead of the
D5s. (The D6Ds are what, more thantwice as expensive.)"
If the Kzinti are firing at a -1 shift and the battle is at a BIR of 5, the
Kzintis aren't really going to be doing that much damage (~80 points from a 300
compot). Again, it coems down to the Mauler question--can the Kzintis afford
to _not_ direct the maulers when they have the chance? I don't beleive they
can, and consequently, the D6Ds don't get killed. Every mauler that survives
the assault on the Kzinti capital means a tougher and tougher time for the
Alliance in the long run.
"Can't the Kzinti player use CDs, or other scouts? (And put some in the battle
line.) Or maybe direct damage at a D6S - how many of those do you have?"
The Kzintis start with a lot fewer good scouts (1 CD?) and have a lot less
money to spend on such conversions. Not impossible to compete in the EW war,
but the Kzintis start at a sever disadvantage and it never gets better. The
direct aspect again comes down to the Mauler decision. If your not getting the
maulers, you can kill other stuff. I suspect that in reality (and the long
run), the maulers are more important than the EW support the Coalition has.
"At the moment I think you have 6 D6Ds, 1 D6S, and 1 D6M involved in the
battle. And that's a Lyran Battlecruiser,
right? Where are the other Lyran ships that need to make up the force?"
They don't need to make up the battle force. The only ships that need to match
the Flagship are the units in the "command point" slots, and that's easy.
There may be some bit of errata stating that over 50% of a battle line must
match the race of the Flagship (or some such rule), but as far as I am aware,
this rule does not exist (I have the 1993 Rev 3-1 rulebook). I keep hoping
there is a rule like this somewhere, but I am yet to find it.
PDB6
"-Not possible. The 3 D5Vs each require 2 escorts, one of each must be
equivalent to a "light escort". None of the ships in the force are
would also be reduced to a 4 compot. Thats only 88 total compot. The BIR would
need to be a 5 with a die roll of a "6" and no EW to generate the 30 points
(30.6 actually)."
The 3D5V represents a single D5V group (note the 21 compot). You think I'd be
raving this much about F+E and make such an incredibly basic mistake?
:-)
"-Can't happen. The D6Ds can not use scout or drone bombardment functions in
the escort role. The would have the same attack value as the CWs."
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If I put 3 D6Ds in a battle line (not
as escorts of some weird CV group...), just as D6Ds, I get 21 points of compot
as well as 6 points of EW.
ahar...@my-dejanews.com
"Tarquelne" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> :>If using EW, the Kzinti are even more screwed. The Kzinti get 6 EW from the
SB
> :>and 1 from the SC. The Coalition gets 4 from the D6S and another 6 from the
3
> :>D6Ds that replace 3 CWs in the battle line, for a total of 7 vs 10, giving
the
> :>Kzintis a -1 shift over their homeworld. If the Kzin have (by some
> :>miraculosity) a BATS, they will break even, until the BATS is killed.
> :>
bombardment?
D5s. (The D6Ds are what, more than
> twice as expensive.)
Yes, the Klingons can afford this. Only one will die, and even that only if
the Kzinti's choose not to kill the Mauler. The shift from EW favoring Kzinti
to EW favoring Coalition is significant, increasing the chance of getting 4
PDU kills in a round and decreasing Coalition losses.
When forming my battleforce, I would use a DN rather than the BC. This lets me
swap two CA's for CW's, which are cheaper to repair. Also tempts the Kzin to
kill the DN (54 DP through the formation bonus - means much less damage to the
rest of the fleet) rather than the Mauler.
> Can't the Kzinti player use CDs, or other scouts? (And put some in the battle
line.) Or maybe direct damage at a D6S -
> how many of those do you have?
> At the moment I think you have 6 D6Ds, 1 D6S, and 1 D6M involved in the
battle. And that's a Lyran Battlecruiser,
> right? Where are the other Lyran ships that need to make up the force? (They
could supply the MA, but they don't have
> many. They could have supplied some CWs, but most have been replaced with D6
varients.)
> And you want 4-5 of these fleets.
I find no reference requiring use of flagships from the same nation;
admittedly I have not been following the addenda so one could exist. There is
a restriction when forming reserve fleets, but not when forming a battle line
(It is possible, when using the rule in combat as well, to produce a fleet
that cannot form a legal battle force. 3 Lyran DN/BC, all Klingon
C8/Battletugs killed, insufficient Lyrans to round out battle force -
coalition must use one of the command 10 ships, must fill the battle force
(lots of Klingon ships in the hex), must use at least 6 total Lyrans - but
there aren't enough. This kind of situation is quite plausible in the later
rounds of capital assualts when the majority of Lyrans have been pinned out
of the battle.)
Andrew Harding
jdou...@pei.sympatico.ca
correctly, spending 2 command points on a capital assault will allow a
player to add one ship to the battle force in all systems rather than
just picking one system in which to add a single extra ship, which would
result from spending 1 command point.
The Coallition fleet composition, though, seems pretty much standard -
I know, I've just gone through quite a few rounds as the Kzinti of being
assailed by such fleets :)
John
Mark Langsdorf
PDB6 wrote in message <19981130184031...@ng150.aol.com>...
>Tarqelne wrote:
>"At the moment I think you have 6 D6Ds, 1 D6S, and 1 D6M involved in the
>battle. And that's a Lyran Battlecruiser,
>right? Where are the other Lyran ships that need to make up the force?"
>
>They don't need to make up the battle force. The only ships that need to
match
>the Flagship are the units in the "command point" slots, and that's easy.
>There may be some bit of errata stating that over 50% of a battle line must
>match the race of the Flagship (or some such rule), but as far as I am
aware,
>this rule does not exist (I have the 1993 Rev 3-1 rulebook). I keep hoping
>there is a rule like this somewhere, but I am yet to find it.
Peter, are you sure?
I used to play from the Rev 3-1 rulebook, and I am quite sure that at
least
half of the fleet must be from the same race as the command ship.
I cannot come up with the rules reference of the top of my head, though.
I
think it might be in the rules for setting up battlefleets, though.
-Mark Langsdorf
http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/
Tarquelne
:>Conversions, baby, conversions. If you are playing with EW rules, you convert
:>as many D6s to D6Ds as Klingonly possible (at every SB in Klingon space as
:>often as possible), barring the major conversion to make a D6M every turn.
That'd be 2 D6Ds per turn, maxiumum, and 2 D6Ms, maxiumum. The limit comes from Klingons production
limitations, not from available starbases or hulls. That means by turn five the Kligons will have had at most 11 D6Ds.
(That counts the one from the SR fleet, but not the one from the E fleet.) If you are putting them into the battle line the
Kzinti's might be picking them off in Starbase assaults, if your not then you'll have to deal with a MSC in most battle
forces + the base cancelling the D6S's EW. If you still want EW superiority you'll need to start replacing some ships of
the line with scouts or bring the D6Ds forward and forsake some drone bombardment.
BC (10)
Mauler (10)
3CA (24)
3D5V (21)
5CW (35)
Drones (12)
With a D6S (best case scenario) you put out 4 EW. The Kzinti's can easily have 4 (base + MSC), and could easily use the
base to give the Coalition a EW penalty.
Regaining EW superiority requires:
BC
Mauler
2 CA
3D5V
2 D6D
3 CW
3 Drones
And the D6Ss must still be around.
(104) - with no EW shift you do an average of 28 points damage - enough to direct damage at 3, not 4, PDUs.
With the -1 shift the 300 compot Kzinti's still do 77 points damage. Take in on 6 fighters, 3 CW, 2 CA leaves 34. Take it
on the V - that leaves 13. Now what - take it on the Mauler, the BC? A D6D? You'll have to cripple 2 of them or
destroy 1 with the 13 remaining points. (Crip the BC leaves 3 left - that's over half the BCs remaining 5 def, so you can't
just take plus/minus points.). And the 77 is just an average. For the Kzinti's going against the average is good - on poor
rolls you can just take the damage on the CWs, CAs, and the V. But on a good roll you'll have to cripple every single
ship. in the fleet.
Lets say the Kzinti direct damage when the get a poor roll, but never on an average or good roll. On the poor roll rounds
you'll lose something you like - a Mauler (I really don't know if its worth it, since you've got plenty more), a D6S (lose
you EW supieriority), a D6D (ditto)? On average rolls you'll have to cripple something nice. On good rolls you cripple
it all. (Or lose all of the lesser ships and still cripple a number of good ones.)
Kzinti damage will decrease as you go, but remains at an average of 70 over the 5 rounds.
What set me pursuing this track is the mention of burning through 4 PDUs/round and using up 4-5 of the above fleets
doing it. At maximum production the Coalition will have no more than 11 D6Ds by turn 5 (that assumes none have been
destroyed). Note, BTW, that if maximum Mauler production is used then no more than 1 D6S can be manufactured per
turn without paying the 5 points/turn for the extra major conversion. If you pay it then you can have 10 D6Ss by turn 5/
If not, you only get 5.
I think the figures above show that the average Kzinti PDU loss is really 3 PDUs, not four.
Can the Coalition afford to loose 4-5 of the above fleets? What is meant by "loss"?
If loosing the fleet means the ships are destoryed then I don't see how the Coalition can afford to. 4-5 fleet losses means
that the Coalition looses all D6Ds, many or all D6Ss, and about 1/2 the maulers by turn 5. (There are still the Hydrans
and the Federation to go!)
OK, so lets assume "loss" means crippling. That means a little over 100 economic points needs to be spent to repair the
fleets. By turn 5 the Coaltion will have pulled in, after production (I've included the FRDs, the basic production, and
the conversions/substitutions to make the maulers, D6Ds, and a few D6Ss), about 71 points per turn to spare. Thats a
surplus of about 250 points. If you go through 1 4-5 fleets-crippled cycle agasint the Kzinti and one agasint the Hydrans
that cuts your surplus down to 50! Can't the Hydrans and Kzinti's influct 100 points of damage on the Coaltion by turn
5? I'd think so, and every 2 points done will put the Coalition 1 economic point in the hole.
Can the Coalition afford that?
I don't think so. That was just the home system, you still have the other systems to go before you knock out the shipyard.
Furthermore, after destroying nothing but PDUs the Kzinti fleet is still almost completely intact. They can still field
battle forces that will match a Coalition battle force. The reserves aren't nearly as deep, but they can still keep on
causeing damage and still tie up Coalition forces. And what about the Hydrans? Every D6D destroyed against the
Kzintis is 1 less to be used against the Hydrans. If the Kzinti's just get 4 D6Ds during the whole campaign agianst them
that means that the Klingons will not be able to increase D6D numbers above 11 for the Hydran assault 2 turns later. The
same sort of thing happens with D6Ss and Maulers.
(And all those Hydran fighers!)
4 PDUs a turn? No way.
4-5 fleets? No way.
I still, of course, accept that the Coaltion will destroy the Hydran and Kzinti shipyards. I just don't see it as being as easy,
or as harmless, as it's been described. And of course, I may not have correctly interpreted what you believe happens. (If
so, try me again.)
Lets talk about pinning a moment:
Why should the Kzinti or Hydran forces pin Coalition forces away from the targets? If a Coalition fleet big enough to
destroy the target can still get through then the pinning ships just get the Alliance into a battle that hurts them far more
than the Coalition. It isn't so much the skirmish caused by the pinning fleet, but the loss of those reserves at the target
hex. The command rating rules will force the Coalition to field a force that will usually be _inferior_ to the total Kzinti
force in each round of battle at a target hex. Along with Kzinit figher superiority this will cause the Klingons to take
more damage than the Kzintis in every round of battle. The longer the Kzintis can draw out such a battle the better, and
for that they need all thier ships. The Allaince should never, ever voluntarily take damage to a starbase or planet - the
ships are far easier to replace and repair.
You've described the Alliance "crippling the starbase" to allow the fleet to escape intact. I think such a move is a big
mistake on the part of any Alliance players. The Allaince isn't trying to keep its fleet intact, per say, but slow down the
Coalition. Crippling ships rather than bases slows down the Coalition.
On needing 1/2 the force to be of the same race as the flagship.
OK, I must have been thinking of something else, and in the fleets you describe a goodly number of Lyran ships are used
anyway.
Tarquelne
:>correctly, spending 2 command points on a capital assault will allow a
:>player to add one ship to the battle force in all systems rather than
:>just picking one system in which to add a single extra ship, which would
:>result from spending 1 command point.
Thats what I thought originally too. But when I looked again I saw that you could get 13 ship fleets in a capital assult.
But when I looked _today_ I couldn't find any such rule. Hmpf.
:> The Coallition fleet composition, though, seems pretty much standard -
:>I know, I've just gone through quite a few rounds as the Kzinti of being
:>assailed by such fleets :)
:>
I'll go ahead and take the devil's advocate position here, too. The question is, how _many_ fleets do the Coalition have?
(How many can they loose?)
This weekend we played the Four Powers War twice. In the first War the Kzinti capital hex got devistated fairly quickly.
In the second War it never happend. The difference? The second time the Kzintis were played by a far more experiened
Alliance player useing a very different strategy. (I played the Klingons both times, I felt the difference!) Quite awhile
ago someone mentioned that he thought that it takes a very experienced player to play the early Alliance properly - may
be true.
PDB6
"That'd be 2 D6Ds per turn, maxiumum, and 2 D6Ms, maxiumum. The limit comes
from Klingons production
limitations, not from available starbases or hulls. That means by turn five
the Kligons will have had at most 11 D6Ds."
Which is an awful lot of D6Ds when you are pretty much only using them for the
Capital assault. It is enough to have 3 for drone bombardment and then 8 for
the main battle line, and it is highly unlikely that all 8 of them will get
killed.
"(That counts the one from the SR fleet, but not the one from the E fleet.) If
you are putting them into the battle line the
Kzinti's might be picking them off in Starbase assaults"
What SB assaults? The only SB the Coalition ever fights over is the one at the
capital. If the Coalition is fighting Kzinti SBs with Kzintis protecting them,
the Coalition is playing incorrectly. If a SB is guarded by a fleet, you pin
the fleet, fight a single approach battle, and retreat. If the SB is not
protected, you kill it with cripples and FFs.
"if your not then you'll have to deal with a MSC in most battle
forces + the base cancelling the D6S's EW. If you still want EW superiority
you'll need to start replacing some ships of
the line with scouts or bring the D6Ds forward and forsake some drone
bombardment."
Now keep in mind here, as opposed to the basic GW scenario strategy, I have not
really put that much thought into EW strategy, as in the 8 Grand Campaigns we
have played, we only used EW once, and it was so abyssmal for the Alliance that
we never used it again. A great deal of my EW suppositions might be flawed.
"With the -1 shift the 300 compot Kzinti's still do 77 points damage. Take in
on 6 fighters, 3 CW, 2 CA leaves 34. Take it
on the V - that leaves 13. Now what - take it on the Mauler, the BC? A D6D?
You'll have to cripple 2 of them or
destroy 1 with the 13 remaining points. "
Out of that 77 points, the Kzinti will be using 38 to vaporize the Mauler. All
of my discussion here assumes that the Kzintis _need_ to kill the maulers.
This may not be the case, but in any game where I didn't kill the Maulers, the
Alliance did even worse than when they did. The Maulers _must_ die. If you
aren't killing the Maulers, then the Coalition will take a lot more damage,
yes. However, I assume that the Kzintis kill the Maulers. As you are aware,
the Kzinti need to look at the war in terms of the Long Term, and killing the
Maulers is a Long Term neccessity.
"I still, of course, accept that the Coaltion will destroy the Hydran and
Kzinti shipyards. I just don't see it as being as easy,
or as harmless, as it's been described. And of course, I may not have
correctly interpreted what you believe happens. (If
so, try me again.)"
I'm not claiming that the Coalition gets off scott free. They take _a lot_ of
damage and make full use of their 10 or so FRDs every turn and spend _a lot_ of
economy on repair. The Coalition gets killed a bunch for getting the Kzin
homeworld on turn 5 and the Hydran on 7, but they can suck it up and still take
out the Feds.
"Why should the Kzinti or Hydran forces pin Coalition forces away from the
targets? If a Coalition fleet big enough to
destroy the target can still get through then the pinning ships just get the
Alliance into a battle that hurts them far more
than the Coalition."
All your points here are completely correct (did I imply that the Alliance
should regularly pin the Coalition? It may have seemed that way, but I don't
actually beleive that). The only place where it is worth pinning the Coalition
_out_ is at the Kzinti capital when you are capable of doing so completely
(which is rare) and you are setting up bases. If you can keep the Coalition
out of the Capital on T3 (count all the possible ships before you try), you
shoudl defenitely do so--it allows you to set up a BATS, have 20 PDUs when they
do get in (on turn 3, you only have 16 PDUs), and slows them down a turn. If
the Hydrans can do the same thing, it is good for them as well.
PDB6
"Peter, are you sure?
I used to play from the Rev 3-1 rulebook, and I am quite sure that at least
half of the fleet must be from the same race as the command ship.
I cannot come up with the rules reference of the top of my head, though. I
think it might be in the rules for setting up battlefleets, though."
I wouldn't bet my life on the fact that such a rule does not exist, but as far
as I am aware, there isn't one. I know that some strategic note from some CL
makes reference to such a supposed rule, and there is a rule about Flagships
and command points being the same race, but as far as I can tell (and have ever
been able to tell), such a rule (51% same race as Flagship or something) does
not actually exist in the Rev 3-1 rulebook or the previous rulebook (Rev 3?
the unrevised Deluxe rulebook. I have both.). Such a rule might have existed
in the pre Deluxe rules (original rule book), but I don't have that one, so I
don't know. If there was a rule like this in the original rules, it seems to
have been lost in the various upgrades.
Keep in mind, that as the constant Alliance player, I have looked for this rule
forever, but have never found it. I keep looking, though :-)
Cat w Lisp
>:>Just a comment on the 13-ship fleet. If I've interpreted the rules
>:>correctly, spending 2 command points on a capital assault will allow a
>:>player to add one ship to the battle force in all systems rather than
>:>just picking one system in which to add a single extra ship, which would
>:>result from spending 1 command point.
>
>Thats what I thought originally too. But when I looked again I saw that you
>could get 13 ship fleets in a capital assult.
>But when I looked _today_ I couldn't find any such rule. Hmpf.
>
(308.95) allows 4 command points to be used in a capital hex.
1 point gets you 1 ship in 1 system
2 points gets you 1 ship in all systems
3 points gets you 2 ships in 1 system and 1 ship in the rest
4 gets 2 ships in all systems.
Jeff Laikind
Cat w Lisp
>:-):
>"Peter, are you sure?
> I used to play from the Rev 3-1 rulebook, and I am quite sure that at
>least
>half of the fleet must be from the same race as the command ship.
> I cannot come up with the rules reference of the top of my head, though.
>I
>think it might be in the rules for setting up battlefleets, though."
>
>I wouldn't bet my life on the fact that such a rule does not exist, but as
>far
>as I am aware, there isn't one. I know that some strategic note from some CL
>makes reference to such a supposed rule, and there is a rule about Flagships
>and command points being the same race, but as far as I can tell (and have
>ever
>been able to tell), such a rule (51% same race as Flagship or something) does
>not actually exist in the Rev 3-1 rulebook or the previous rulebook (Rev 3?
>the unrevised Deluxe rulebook. I have both.). Such a rule might have
>existed
>in the pre Deluxe rules (original rule book), but I don't have that one, so I
>don't know. If there was a rule like this in the original rules, it seems to
>have been lost in the various upgrades.
Reserve fleets must have a flagship and majority of all ships (51%) belong to
the race supplying the RESV counter (507.5)
Command points must be of the same race as the flagship (308.93).
Other than that, no racial percentages for battleforces required that I
remember.
Jeff Laikind
Greg Lary
>Mark Langsdorf wrote (Heh, heh. Nothing better than Jyhad allies in r.g.b :-):
>"Peter, are you sure?
> I used to play from the Rev 3-1 rulebook, and I am quite sure that at least
>half of the fleet must be from the same race as the command ship.
> I cannot come up with the rules reference of the top of my head, though. I
>think it might be in the rules for setting up battlefleets, though."
>
>I wouldn't bet my life on the fact that such a rule does not exist, but as far
>as I am aware, there isn't one. I know that some strategic note from some CL
>makes reference to such a supposed rule, and there is a rule about Flagships
>and command points being the same race, but as far as I can tell (and have ever
>been able to tell), such a rule (51% same race as Flagship or something) does
>not actually exist in the Rev 3-1 rulebook or the previous rulebook (Rev 3?
>the unrevised Deluxe rulebook. I have both.). Such a rule might have existed
>in the pre Deluxe rules (original rule book), but I don't have that one, so I
>don't know. If there was a rule like this in the original rules, it seems to
>have been lost in the various upgrades.
>
>Keep in mind, that as the constant Alliance player, I have looked for this rule
>forever, but have never found it. I keep looking, though :-)
I could've sworn I remembered a rule like this as well, but I've just
been poring over the Rev 3-1 rulebook and cannot find any mention of
it. Likely it's one of those sentences in a totally unrelated section
that implies this is the case. TFG is famous for those.
In any case, it seems odd that everyone seems to think of this as a
rule but no one can find it. Surely we can't *all* be on drugs.
-Greg
jdou...@pei.sympatico.ca
[...]
> I'll go ahead and take the devil's advocate position here, too. The question is, how _many_ fleets do the >Coalition have?
> (How many can they loose?)
Unless things go very very wrong for the Coallition, they don't
actually lose any fleets, they just have those fleets limp back to a
repair yard to come back out a couple of turns later. The thing is, the
answer to the question of how many fleets the Coalltion has just has too
many variables. It depends on many things, but some of the major
factors are: production decisions, strategy decisions, and enemy
action. At a minimum, the Lyrans can field two good wartime fleets
relatively quickly while the Klingons can usually ram together two good
ones and one decent one in short order. After that, it all depends...
John
Tarquelne
:>Which is an awful lot of D6Ds when you are pretty much only using them for the
:>Capital assault. It is enough to have 3 for drone bombardment and then 8 for
:>the main battle line, and it is highly unlikely that all 8 of them will get
:>killed.
But if you put them on the battle line it is not at all unlikely that they'll get crippled pretty quickly - first round even -
leaving the Coalition with an EW problem. If some are killed then the Klingons will have to do without them when
attacking the Hydrans.
:>
:>What SB assaults? The only SB the Coalition ever fights over is the one at the
:>capital.
Here's a point of contention: You've mentioned 1307? The only 6-hex length route from hex 1307 to the capital is
through a Kzinti starbase. That means that if you raid the capital (and thus retreat from it) you will be 5 hexes from
home - supply, and thus valid retrograde, routes won't be able to twist around much. If the Kzinti player leaves pairs of
ships around along with a very small fleet or two he can make the supply line situation very tough for the Klingons: The
starbases will block supply through their own hex and serve as a nice place to put reacting fleets. The Kzinti ships are
out in pairs so that one can always retreat - these ships will try to retreat in such a manner that they block Klingon supply
routes. In the first couple of turns the Klingons don't have enough ships to protect (pin out from) every battle station the
Kzinti's might take. If the Kzinti's destroy some battle stations it means that the Klingons will only have a few valid
retrograde points from the capital. The Kzintis can then concentrate on blocking those routes. The reacting larger fleets
are there to make it possible for the Kzinti's to possibly win a battle in one of these hexes, blocking that route. A small
reserve fleet, just 4 ships, can make a huge difference - such a fleet can pick one vital hex that just contains 2-3 klingon
FFs pinned by 2 Kzinti FFs. Instead of withdrawing from this battle the Kzinti sends in the reserve fleet and takes the
hex. If the Kzintis do this with hexes the Klingons counted on the Klingons are in trouble. Early in the game a carefull
Kzinti player can drain so many ships from the main effort doing this that a credable capital raiding force is very, very
difficult to put together. This makes putting up extra defenses in the capital system much easier.
Ok, that was all a little incoherent. There are so many variables its hard to describe. Here's the basic points: The Kzinti's
must be very active in pursiut of cutting Klingon supply lines. Keep a couple of small reserve fleets and be ready to use
FF pairs to contest many of the hexes along the Klingon supply routes. Because of the small reserve forces the Klingons
will have to use a disproportinate number of ships to ensure valid retrograde routes. This pulls away ships from capital
busting duty. If the Klingon doesn't give your "deep defense" the respect it deserves he risks haveing a major force start
the Kzinti turn behind Kzinti lines. (What's wrong with that?: Not only will the Kzintis be able to force you to fight a
round or two with the Kl. at a 1/2 attack factor, but the Kzinti's just might be able to make the Klingons do it twice in one
turn, PLUS they may very well herd you farther away from Klingon space. All this delays repairing the crippled ships
and putting the other ships back agasint the Kz at full attack factors.)
The only way to avoid all that trouble for sure is to take the Kzinti space, and that means capturing the planets and
destroying the starbases.
If the Coalition is fighting Kzinti SBs with Kzintis protecting them,
:>the Coalition is playing incorrectly. If a SB is guarded by a fleet, you pin
:>the fleet, fight a single approach battle, and retreat.
The Kzintis get the option to retreat first. If they damage the pinning fleet enough to make the destruction of the starbase
impossible they might be able to retreat into the Klingon's supply route, cutting the retrograde path.
Pin the Kzinti's with too weak a force and you might get your assault fleet trapped - with too strong a force and you may
not have enough strength to make the assault worth it.
Note that a Kzinti fleet placed directly behind a starbase can be particularly nasty in this way. It'll react enough ships to
the starbase to defend it - if 2 or more are left behind the starbase that's yet another chance to cut Klingon supply lines.
:>Now keep in mind here, as opposed to the basic GW scenario strategy, I have not
:>really put that much thought into EW strategy, as in the 8 Grand Campaigns we
:>have played, we only used EW once, and it was so abyssmal for the Alliance that
:>we never used it again. A great deal of my EW suppositions might be flawed.
:>
OK, here's another good point to work on. Your EW suppositions might be flawed, and I might just be dead wrong.
Something to be experimented with.
:>Out of that 77 points, the Kzinti will be using 38 to vaporize the Mauler.
Do you mean 28, not 38? Either way, I think that's far too many points for the Kzintis to spend killing just one ship.
The Coalition will have another one to replace it, and if the Kzinti's go down too easily then the Hydrans will go down
too easily, and if the Hydrans go down to easily then the Federation will go down, Maulers or no Mauler.
All
:>of my discussion here assumes that the Kzintis _need_ to kill the maulers.
:>This may not be the case, but in any game where I didn't kill the Maulers, the
:>Alliance did even worse than when they did.
Something else to investigate further. I think the Maulers are really tempting targets, but they may not be worth going
for. The first time I figured out how many PDUs the Coalition assualt fleet could destroy in one round I forgot to
account for the Mauler. However, when I included the Mauler the number didn't change. The difference was only about
2 points. (Instead of being 4 points off from doing another PDU the Coalition was 2 points off.) I think that destroying
Maulers may allow the Klingons to get away with too little damage to the rest of the fleet. It's a question of balancing
how long the H's and K's hold out vers. how much the Maulers are going to hurt the Federation. Lets go to an extreme:
Lets say the Hs and Ks never direct damage at a Mauler, but prevent the Coalition from even raiding, let alone takeing
thier capitals. Worth it? Obvously it would be. So, it may be true that the early-Alliance must avoid directing damage at
the Maulers. (My guess is that it is.)
:>"I still, of course, accept that the Coaltion will destroy the Hydran and
:>Kzinti shipyards. I just don't see it as being as easy,
:>or as harmless, as it's been described. And of course, I may not have
:>correctly interpreted what you believe happens. (If
:>so, try me again.)"
:>
:>I'm not claiming that the Coalition gets off scott free. They take _a lot_ of
:>damage and make full use of their 10 or so FRDs every turn and spend _a lot_ of
:>economy on repair. The Coalition gets killed a bunch for getting the Kzin
:>homeworld on turn 5 and the Hydran on 7, but they can suck it up and still take
:>out the Feds.
Don't forget the figures I supplied. The Coalition margin might be _too_ narrow. If the the Allaince does a good job that
_a lot_ can become _too much._ The 10 FRDs is probably a good idea, but that's 10s of points less for the Coalition to
work with. Making maximum D6Ds, Ms, and Ss is good, but that's even more points. Don't forget about extra command
points. (I did what I added everything up.) Note that even in the best case scenario using the figures I supplied the
Coalition will have a very small economic point reserve when they invade the Federation. The Feds. might then opt to
overproduce frigates at maximum rate - going for the "treacle" effect. The Coalition wouldn't be able to counter with its
own overproduced swarm.
Alright! I think we've come along way: EW? Maulers? Supply routes? Economic stress? You've volunteered that your
assumptions on EW and Maulers may be faulty, and I'll volunteer for you (you can thank me later) that the Allaince may
be able to force the Coalition into fighting at strongpoints outside the capital, and also might hurt the Coalition _too
much_ as opposed to _a lot._
Now what?
ForlornH
point: Commando ships. How many D6Gs and CWGs does the coalition need in order
to crack the capitals and how can they keep them alive. Ground forces can just
gut a planet of PDUs and the Kzintis are particularly vulnerable to them. The
big problems are that the Klingons and Lyrans already have enough conversions
that they have to do and how do the commando ships stay alive long enough to be
effective. Since the Kzintis particularly rely on PDUs to augment their defense
a Klingon attack fleet with 2 D6Gs or more can cause some considerable
discomfort if they are not taken care of. I believe that in the capital hex the
commando ships are a more important directed damage target than the maulers
are.
The plus side is that the D6G has a pitiful combat ability (3-8 GG) and the
Lyran CWG isn't any better and has only one G.
I have yet to play a capital assault with the commando ships. Anyone out there
wish to comment?
Tarquelne
:>wish to comment? "
:>
:>I am yet to actually use them, for exactly the reasons you pointed out--The
:>Kzinti have a hard enough time keeping their Homeworld as it is, and I fail to
:>see how making it easier for the Coalition to kill PDUs will benefit the game
:>at all.
Actually, with the way directed damage works against G ships trying to land troops, and the lesser combat factors for G
ships, the Kzinti's should welcome a ground attack in the capital. I think ground combat is most usefull against smaller
planetary garrisons and starbases (where the extra SIDS means you destroy the sooner.)
A nice side effect for the Kzinti's of the Coalition using ground attacks is that the Coalition would have to use a 4 BI. If
the Kzintis have plenty of fighters they just might pick a 4 BI also. The Coalition isn't going to get more than 4 PDUs
('cause of the 4 PDU limit) and there will be lots of fighters around to take the excess damage, and lets see - if the
Coalition has 1 BC, 1 Mauler, 1 D5V group, 3 CA, 1 D6D (for extra EW), and 4 CW, and the Kzinti have a 300 compot,
and they roll a, what the heck, 6 at BI, what the heck, 10. Then the Coalition gets to cripple the Mauler, destroy EVERY
OTHER SHIP, and take two extra points of damage the next round. Don't laugh, it could happen to you.
Tarquelne
:>attempting to block supply, and then notices that every other hex in Kzinti
:>space has an E4 in it, and thus the Coalition will sucessfully retrograde
:>anyway.
:>
:>"Here's the basic points: The Kzinti's must be very active in pursiut of
:>cutting Klingon supply lines."
:>
:>And I assure you that if the Coalition is careful, no matter how wiley the
:>Kzinti player is, it is just not going to happen.
I really can't accept that. The Kzinti doesnt' need to block the whole path, just part of it. If a couple of Klingon battle
stations are destroyed (and the Klingons can't defend every board station the first turn) there aren't all that many valid
paths to worry about. The Kzinti bases which you've ignored block thier own hexes. If the Kzinti's can just block out
two hexes in the retrograde path they've cut off the fleet. Sure, the Coalition can fill Kzinti space with ships, but they
still need a path no longer than 6 hexes, and the Kzinti's don't have to clear every space of Coalition ships, just 2
consecutive hexes.
Later on, sure, the Coalition has way to many ships once the home fleet gets involved, but the Coalition can't just stroll
into the capital until it has all those ships. The Klingon Home Fleet, for instance, won't be released untill turn 4.
:>"Pin the Kzinti's with too weak a force and you might get your assault fleet
:>trapped - with too strong a force and you may
:>not have enough strength to make the assault worth it."
:>
:>You pin the Kzintis with exactly enough ships. You fight one round of approach
:>battle at a low BIR and retreat. The Kzintis can retreat if they want. It is
:>highly unlikely that they will manage to cut off a retrograde path.
If the Coalition pinning force is inferior then the Kzintis get to choose who retreats. Lets say the Klingons are raiding the
Capital and the Kzintis have two 4 ship reserve fleets that are still active (thery're operation out of Marquis territory.)
The Kzinti's reacted a force a minimal force in the hex infront of the starbase - they retreat diagonally back. The fleet on
the starbase retreates diagonally back. The reserve fleets have already gone in and sat down on the E4s you mention that
are adjacent to the other fleets, the base, or a planet. This can create a line of hexes 4 long between the capital raiding
fleet and the valid retrograde paths. Even if no Coalition battle stations are destroyed the raiding Klingon fleet _will be_
cut off.
:>Yeah. 28 sounds right. Anyway, the Kzintis need to keep the Mauler population
:>to zero growth (i.e. kill them as fast as they can). If the Coaliton has
:>infinite Maulers to attack the Hydrans with and then the Feds with, the
:>Coalition will be able to vape PDUs too easily and then continue to kill way
:>too many heavy units (Dragoons, Rangers, and the weak Fed DNs) too easily.
:>
Infinite! The Coalition can make 4/turn. Lets play a F&E game - we start on turn 7. You play the Coalition. You can
have a number of Maulers as close to infinite as the Coalition can get by turn 7, which is precisely 23.
I play the Alliance. Both the Hydran and Kzinti capitals hexes have most of the PDUs gone. Many of the battle stations
have been destroyed, but all the starbases are intact. The H and K capital planets have not been devestated, and the fleets
are largely intact, and here comes the Federation! Is that the scenario that will doom the Alliance? I don't think so. But
that's exactly the sort of scenario the Kzintis and Hydrans might bring about by refraining from directing at the Coaltion
Maulers.
:>"I think that destroying Maulers may allow the Klingons to get away with too
:>little damage to the rest of the fleet."
:>
:>This is probably correct, however, the existance of infinte Maulers means the
:>Alliance will lose _way_ too many important, heavy ships too quickly after the
:>Kzinti and Hydran capitals fall.
:>
23! Only 23 when the Federation joins. The whole point of _not_ hitting the Maulers is making the Coalition assualt so
costly that the Coalition effort is crippled is spite of the fact that it has _23_ Maulers.
:>"Now what?"
:>
:>Ya got me. I'm just happy to keep on picking apart minutae...
:>
23!
Here's what I think we should examine re the Coalition assualt on the Hydran and Kzinti homeworlds.
EW
The role of Maulers. (How effective are they, what happens if you don't destroy them.)
Ground Combat. (Waste of effort on the part of the Big C, or not?)
The Kzinti's ability to destroy Klingon battle stations in the first 2 turns. (This'll lead into a discussion of retrograde.)
The economic cost of the assualt on the Kzinti's and Hydrans. (How much is too much?)
What they Hydrans are doing while the Coalition is throwing all the good ships at the Kzintis.
Tarquelne
:>without even getting adjacent to the SB. The point about the Kzintis keeping
:>pairs of ships in various hexes in Kzinti space is a valid one, but it just
:>won't actually happen. The Kzintis have way too few ships to do this
<snip snip>
It looks like the key issue is the number of ships.
:>
:>The first thing the Coalition does every movement phase is pin every ship on
:>any SB. They have one chance to react, and if they react off the SB, they
:>leave the SB completely open to be killed by chum units.
What if they start some of the ships behind the starbase? They react enough extra ships to keep the starbase from getting
destroyed, and the others help set things up for the reserve fleets.
:>The Kzintis have a total of 72 active ships
:>after their turn 2 builds (plus less than 10 ships worth of fighters).
:>Compared to the Coalition's 143, plus fighters, plus turn two strategics, the
:>Kzintis will get nowhere, and real fast, at that. The Kzintis can't get
:>_anywhere_ in an offensive sense for quite some time.
Where are the Coalition ships comeing from please. I just counted and I wasn't able to come up with enough Coalition
ships to defend all the bases in range of the Kzinti. Divided evenly along the boarder there aren't enough to protect every
base from the Kzinti ships. Bunched up they can absolutely shield some of the bases, but not all of them.
Tarquelne
and I won't be satisfied until you tell me where every ship is coming from and where it's going. When I critique that
message I'll have to match it with an equal level of detail, and so on, ad 23tum. I don't know about you, but I don't have
the time for an F&E PBEM game at this point.
Lets go with the little list I made in another message (EW, Maulers, etc.) I think those will be more manageable.
Anything directly involving movement should be avoided.
Tarquelne
I'm planning on playing F&E with my girlfiend. (cue violin music) I'm more experienced than she with every wargame
we have _except_ for F&E. Thus, she's consented to play it with me. However, after filling her in on the latest progress
of the "Coalition always wins" thread she's threatened to withdraw from the game - I'm obviously getting too much out of
this conversation. To use an RPG (in celebration of the new "Illuminati" game I'll use GURPS) analogy, I'm getting
experience points in F&E (Mental Hard, Defaults to IQ-4). I think I've gotten at least 4 eeps, giving me a further +2. I'm
going to grit my teeth and start ignoring these posts. (Man! What'll I do with my free time?)
So. . . . . how 'bout those FCRs? Replace a CVE, 6 fighters, fighters cost 2 per factor? Hmm?
PDB6
(part 1 of 2)
Tarquelne wrote:
"Here's a point of contention: You've mentioned 1307? The only 6-hex length
route from hex 1307 to the capital is
through a Kzinti starbase. That means that if you raid the capital (and thus
retreat from it) you will be 5 hexes from
home - supply, and thus valid retrograde, routes won't be able to twist around
much."
You attack the capital, retreat to hex 1402. You now can retrograde to 1307
without even getting adjacent to the SB. The point about the Kzintis keeping
pairs of ships in various hexes in Kzinti space is a valid one, but it just
won't actually happen. The Kzintis have way too few ships to do this
effectively, and need most of their units in the capital (the Kzintis have an
appalingly low number of FFs, especially when they start getting killed when
they try stuff like this). The reality of the situation is that all of Kzinti
space will be filled with pairs of Coalition ships and not Kzinti ones, and the
Coalition retrograde points (on the Coalition turns) will be pretty much free
and clear.
"The starbases will block supply through their own hex and serve as a nice
place to put reacting fleets. "
The first thing the Coalition does every movement phase is pin every ship on
any SB. They have one chance to react, and if they react off the SB, they
leave the SB completely open to be killed by chum units.
"In the first couple of turns the Klingons don't have enough ships to protect
(pin out from) every battle station the Kzinti's might take."
I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. Are you saying that the
Klingons can't pin the Kzintis on the first few turns? This is pretty
incorrect. Remember that the Klingons get a build on turn one and start T2
with 73 ships (not counting fighter equivalents) within 6 hexes of the Kzinti
capital. The Lyrans have another 70, and this still doesn't count the Turn 2
builds, TBS, and Far Stars units that strategic to within 6 hexes of the Kzinti
capital at the end of turn two. The Kzintis have a total of 72 active ships
after their turn 2 builds (plus less than 10 ships worth of fighters).
Compared to the Coalition's 143, plus fighters, plus turn two strategics, the
Kzintis will get nowhere, and real fast, at that. The Kzintis can't get
_anywhere_ in an offensive sense for quite some time.
"If the Kzinti's destroy some battle stations it means that the Klingons will
only have a few valid
retrograde points from the capital."
This simply will not happen. The Kzintis have exactly zero chance of killing a
Klingon BATS until around turn 6 or 7 (when they get to strike out of the
Marquis zone), and they have lost their capital by then.
PDB6
Tarquelne wrote:
"A small reserve fleet, just 4 ships, can make a huge difference - such a fleet
can pick one vital hex that just contains 2-3 klingon
FFs pinned by 2 Kzinti FFs. Instead of withdrawing from this battle the Kzinti
sends in the reserve fleet and takes the hex."
While a good idea, and always worth trying, it simply won't block the
retrograde paths. The retrograde rules allow for retrograding ships to enter
hexes adjacent to enemy units as long as their are friendly units also adjacent
to that hex. The Kzinti reserve fleet descends on a couple of E4s, valiantly
attempting to block supply, and then notices that every other hex in Kzinti
space has an E4 in it, and thus the Coalition will sucessfully retrograde
anyway.
"Here's the basic points: The Kzinti's must be very active in pursiut of
cutting Klingon supply lines."
And I assure you that if the Coalition is careful, no matter how wiley the
Kzinti player is, it is just not going to happen. The Retrograde and Supply
rules make it incredibly easy to keep open supply and retrograde paths,
especially if you have more than twice the ships of the opponent.
"Pin the Kzinti's with too weak a force and you might get your assault fleet
trapped - with too strong a force and you may
not have enough strength to make the assault worth it."
You pin the Kzintis with exactly enough ships. You fight one round of approach
battle at a low BIR and retreat. The Kzintis can retreat if they want. It is
highly unlikely that they will manage to cut off a retrograde path.
"Do you mean 28, not 38? Either way, I think that's far too many points for
the Kzintis to spend killing just one ship.
The Coalition will have another one to replace it, and if the Kzinti's go down
too easily then the Hydrans will go down
too easily, and if the Hydrans go down to easily then the Federation will go
down, Maulers or no Mauler."
Yeah. 28 sounds right. Anyway, the Kzintis need to keep the Mauler population
to zero growth (i.e. kill them as fast as they can). If the Coaliton has
infinite Maulers to attack the Hydrans with and then the Feds with, the
Coalition will be able to vape PDUs too easily and then continue to kill way
too many heavy units (Dragoons, Rangers, and the weak Fed DNs) too easily.
"I think that destroying Maulers may allow the Klingons to get away with too
little damage to the rest of the fleet."
This is probably correct, however, the existance of infinte Maulers means the
Alliance will lose _way_ too many important, heavy ships too quickly after the
Kzinti and Hydran capitals fall.
"Now what?"
Ya got me. I'm just happy to keep on picking apart minutae...
:-)
PDB6
"I have yet to play a capital assault with the commando ships. Anyone out there
wish to comment? "
I am yet to actually use them, for exactly the reasons you pointed out--The
Kzinti have a hard enough time keeping their Homeworld as it is, and I fail to
see how making it easier for the Coalition to kill PDUs will benefit the game
at all.
I really think that the bulk of the expansion rules (salvage, EW, SFGs,
Commando ships) favor the Coalition, and they simply don't need the help.
ThomRhymer
>least
>>half of the fleet must be from the same race as the command ship.
>I could've sworn I remembered a rule like this as well, but I've just
>been poring over the Rev 3-1 rulebook and cannot find any mention of
>it. Likely it's one of those sentences in a totally unrelated section
>that implies this is the case. TFG is famous for those.
>
>In any case, it seems odd that everyone seems to think of this as a
>rule but no one can find it. Surely we can't *all* be on drugs.
I couldn't find this rule either, but I found two articles in Captain's Log
that refer to it. If we're all on drugs, we've got company.
-Thomas
PHD
>Jeff Laikind wrote:
>
>(308.95) allows 4 command points to be used in a capital hex.
>1 point gets you 1 ship in 1 system
>2 points gets you 1 ship in all systems
>3 points gets you 2 ships in 1 system and 1 ship in the rest
>4 gets 2 ships in all systems.
>
Jeff, a question for you.
My rule book is REV.3, and in it (308.95) says: No more than two
Command Points per race can be used in any one Battle Hex
(four in a capital hex)."
Rule (308.94) says: "In the case of a capital assault, one point
allows an extra ship in the Battle Force fighting in one system, while
two Command Points count as one Command Point for each system."
Where is/was the rule you posted ever published?
Thanks
jdou...@pei.sympatico.ca
I had the same reaction until I read Jeff's message and then I thought
about it. It always seemed odd to me that the book went out of its way
to state 2/race and then 4 in a capital hex in parentheses. I'd always
thought that meant that 4 points total was the meaning, but one way to
look at 308.95 is that each race may spend 4 points in a capital hex,
which would make Jeff's interpretation correct. So the question is,
which interpretaion is the One True Way?
John
ForlornH
>about it. It always seemed odd to me that the book went out of its way
>to state 2/race and then 4 in a capital hex in parentheses. I'd always
>thought that meant that 4 points total was the meaning, but one way to
>look at 308.95 is that each race may spend 4 points in a capital hex,
>which would make Jeff's interpretation correct. So the question is,
>which interpretaion is the One True Way?
>
Considering that Jeff Laikind is the official ADB sponsored F&E czar, I would
believe that whatever he says, goes (unless it is refuted by the two Steves for
some obscure reason).
His interpretation is what we have been using here and that is how I have
interpreted the rule.
Jim Davies
I can remember this rule from somewhere, but it may have been in SFB.
It's not in the original (non-deluxe) F&E, nor in (S8.0) or its
errata, and I can't find it in any CL.
This is bugging me. I remember an example of something like 5 D5s and
3 Lyran CAs, where the rule stated that if the Lyrans were in charge,
only 3 D5s could be used. Or something like that.
It must be out there somewhere. We can't all be dreaming.
Jim Davies
------------------------------------------
"More volts, Igor!" - Florence Nightingale
-----------------------------------------
Spamfilter: remove all clothing to reply.
Derrick Kong
: I really think that the bulk of the expansion rules (salvage, EW, SFGs,
: Commando ships) favor the Coalition, and they simply don't need the help.
A variant that a friend proposed altered salvage rules so that normal
salvage rates (35/25%, I believe) only applied in your (original) home
territory. Any ships lost in non-home territory received a lower rebate
rate (25/15%). What this did was allow the Alliance to continue to get
salvage as before, but reduce Coalition salvage to a more reasonable
level (and encourage the Alliance to blow up Coalition ships, especially
Lyrans). While we never got a game to the later stages with Alliance
offensives, the rule would then reverse and hopefully aid the collapsed
economies of the Coalition.
Derrick
jdou...@pei.sympatico.ca
>
> Re: the flagship/race rule.
>
> I can remember this rule from somewhere, but it may have been in SFB.
> It's not in the original (non-deluxe) F&E, nor in (S8.0) or its
> errata, and I can't find it in any CL.
>
> This is bugging me. I remember an example of something like 5 D5s and
> 3 Lyran CAs, where the rule stated that if the Lyrans were in charge,
> only 3 D5s could be used. Or something like that.
>
> It must be out there somewhere. We can't all be dreaming.
I have the Rev 2-0 rulebook and it's in there.
John
Tarquelne
:>
:>John
:>
What are the various "rev" rulebooks out there, anyway?
My rulebook, for instance, came with a copy of DF&E, and says "REV. 1" in the lower corner.
Have I been left behind? Do the reaction rules now allow movement out to 4 hexes? Can up to 12 ship equivilents of
fighters _and_ PFs now be used in a battle force? Hey what?
PDB6
"I can remember this rule from somewhere, but it may have been in SFB. It's not
in the original (non-deluxe) F&E, nor in (S8.0) or its
errata, and I can't find it in any CL."
Jeff Lakind (I think I spelled your name correct, Jeff. If not, sorry :-), and
official F+E guy, responded to say that I was correct about this not actually
being a rule. There is a rule (507.5) about Reserve fleets that says that 51%
of a Reserve fleet must be the same race as the flagship, and rule (308.93)
states that command point ships must be the same race as the flagship, but
other than that, there is no restriction on the racial composition of a
particular battle line. If you want to make a fleet of 10 D5s commanded by a
Lyran BC, you are perfectly able to.
PDB6
so...many...things...to...respond...to. Must...start...somewhere...
Well, yeah, we have degenerated into incredibly specific details that are
simply impossible to disect in this forum, so I'll veer back towards the more
general aspects you have presented:
Tarquelne wrote:
"EW"
I simply don't think the EW rules are well written, and the one time we used
them, the Alliance got smeared (the SFGs didn't help, either...), so I haven't
had much experience with EW really. Certainly not enough to go on as I do
about general GC strategy, so I'll just defer EW strategy to others.
"The role of Maulers. (How effective are they, what happens if you don't
destroy them.)"
I'm telling you. The Maulers are really important. A Mauler makes it pretty
easy to get 4 PDUs rather than 3 per round in a capital assault, as well as
making it really easy for the Coalition to drill the Kzinti/Hydran cruiser
force. Assuming that the Coalition strikes Kzintai on turn 3 (as it should),
there will only be 16 PDUs, so it should take, probably, 6-7 turns to get all
the PDUs and devestate Kzintai (so there aren't any PDUs on turn 4...). Those
6-7 turns of damage will be repaired/replaced pretty quickly. Without the
Maulers, this 6-7 turns becomes 10 turns, at which point the damage becomes
quickly unacceptable. With Maulers not getting vaporized over the homeworlds,
the Coalition is free to use Maulers in non capital assaults, like when pinning
Alliance fleets. If the Hydrans or Kzintis get pinned in open space by the
Coalition with Maulers to spare, they put a Mauler in the battle line, pick a
low BIR, and direct a cruiser on 14 points of damage. The Kzintis and Hydrans
run out of cruiser hulls (the Dragoons and Rangers are espcially hard losses)
really fast. Once the Feds are assaulted, the abundanat Mauler population
allows the Coalition to kill every Fed DN in Fed space. When the Feds have
only 2 or 3 command rating 10 ships left (the CVAs), it makes fighting on such
a vast front very difficult. The Maulers are bad. Very bad. The Kzinti need
to kill them.
PDB6
Tarquelne wrote:
"Ground Combat. (Waste of effort on the part of the Big C, or not?)"
Again, like EW, I won't use ground combat. The rules I have read (I don't
actually own the GC expansion) just give the Coalition a huge early game
advantage vs the Hydrans and Kzinti. They don't need it.
"The Kzinti's ability to destroy Klingon battle stations in the first 2 turns.
(This'll lead into a discussion of retrograde.)"
Again, they simply cannot do it. If the Klingons are sloppy or let them, sure,
but I am assuming that the Klingon player is not a fool here. The Klingons
have more ships than the Kzintis. Then there are the Lyrans. The Klingons
will be able to pin every single offensive the Kzintis try on the first three
turns. Even, if by some miracle, the Kzintis manage to kill the BATS in hex
1507 (the only one that is in any way a posibillity), the Klingons still have
the planets in 1506 and 1504, one of which they will certainly hold at that
point. Any offensive the Kzintis attempt on the first three turns will result
in nothing but Lyran Reserve fleets moving to 6 hexes of the Kzinti capital,
when they were more than 6 hexes away before the pinned offensive.
"The economic cost of the assualt on the Kzinti's and Hydrans. (How much is
too much?)"
If the Kzintis and Hydrans have had their capitals captured by turn 7, the cost
is pretty much immaterial. In 8 games, the cost has never been insurmountable
to the Coalition. Keep in mind that on turns 7 and 8, the Feds are incredibly
weak, giving the Coalition even more time to recoup.
What they Hydrans are doing while the Coalition is throwing all the good ships
at the Kzintis."
The Coalition has enough good ships for both fronts. The Hydrans can't really
get anywhere either. If the Lyrans let them, they can kill the SB in 0411, and
possibly a BATS or so, but it won't really have any effect on the offensive.
The Lyrans are relying on the MB in 1013 for supply into the capital. If the
Hydrans attempt the expidition, they do little more than release the Klingon
Home Fleet early. Again, the Hydrans are good for crippling stuff and soaking
up Coaliton economy, but in the end, they are just speed bumps.
PDB6
"My rulebook, for instance, came with a copy of DF&E, and says "REV. 1" in the
lower corner.
Have I been left behind? Do the reaction rules now allow movement out to 4
hexes? Can up to 12 ship equivilents of
fighters _and_ PFs now be used in a battle force? Hey what?"
No, no, nothing that extreme. There was non Deluxe F+E (i.e. the original
rules). They were basically the same, but there were pretty large fixes
between non deluxe and Deluxe F+E (like the "Fighter Pool" rules and stuff).
DF+E came with the Rev 2 rulebook, which has all the imroved rules. Then they
reprinted DF+E (with the new pastel colored [uglier, IMO] map) with the Rev 3
rulebook that is pretty much the same as the Rev 2 rule book, with all the
errata/addenda and a few other minor fixes, like the Klingons have 3E4s added
to their production schedule (see, they have even more ships than you
thought...). I'm not sure what your Rev 1 from DF+E rulebook is, but if it
came with DF+E. it probably isn't much different than the Rev 2 DF+E rulebook
(and consequently not much different than the Rev 3 rulebook).
Cat w Lisp
>>
>> Re: the flagship/race rule.
>>
> I have the Rev 2-0 rulebook and it's in there.
>
Could you reference the rule number please? I'll try to dig out my old
versions and see what they say.
Jeff Laikind
ahar...@my-dejanews.com
to reserve fleets. As I posted a while ago, if requiring this to be used when
forming battle forces it is possible (and in some circumstances likely) to
have a fleet that cannot form a legal battle force.
Andrew harding
In article <36659eb7...@news.powernet.co.uk>,
j...@moose.powernet.socks.co.uk wrote:
> Re: the flagship/race rule.
>
> I can remember this rule from somewhere, but it may have been in SFB.
> It's not in the original (non-deluxe) F&E, nor in (S8.0) or its
> errata, and I can't find it in any CL.
>
> This is bugging me. I remember an example of something like 5 D5s and
> 3 Lyran CAs, where the rule stated that if the Lyrans were in charge,
> only 3 D5s could be used. Or something like that.
>
> It must be out there somewhere. We can't all be dreaming.
>
> Jim Davies
> ------------------------------------------
> "More volts, Igor!" - Florence Nightingale
> -----------------------------------------
> Spamfilter: remove all clothing to reply.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jdou...@pei.sympatico.ca
>
> John wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Re: the flagship/race rule.
> >>
>
> >
>
> Could you reference the rule number please? I'll try to dig out my old
> versions and see what they say.
>
> Jeff Laikind
Sure thing. Command points first. 308.93 states that any command
points used must come from the same race as the flagship and that if
both races spend command points in a single hex, then only the command
point(s) from the race owning the flagship count for that round. There
doesn't seem to be any rule requiring most of a battle force to be made
up of the same race as the flagship and I'm quite certain I got that
confused with the rule on Reserves, which *does* require that at least
51% of the ships using a race's Reserve marker come from the race owning
the Reserve marker.
John
Christopher Dearlove
<URL:mailto:pd...@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm telling you. The Maulers are really important.
<snipped>
> The Maulers are bad. Very bad. The Kzinti need
> to kill them.
OK if the maulers are bad, only the Coalition has them and the game favours
the Coalition then scrap them - by which I mean scrap their damage directing
ability, you can still use them for increased combat density.
I have _no_ idea how much this affects balance. (For context I've never
really played F&E, enough solitaire play to work out the rules is all
I've done; my only attempt against a live opponent frightened him off
and we played something else.) The rationale comes from the first time
I saw F&E, having played SFB. Does anyone else feel that the mauler,
with its very limited field of fire, is not well suited as the weapon
with best directed damage - even against a base (I really can't see it
against a moving ship).
(I doubt I'll be playing F&E in the forseeable future, but if I were I'd
like a fix - the argument that one is needed appears fairly convincing,
if not proven - that minimised rule changes, factor changes and historical
changes - though making the Klingons attack the Tholians isn't a change
in that sense.)
Expecting to be shot down in flames ...
--
Christopher Dearlove ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk Speaking only for myself
Derrick Kong
: In article <19981203201025...@ng106.aol.com>, PDB6
: <URL:mailto:pd...@aol.com> wrote:
: > I'm telling you. The Maulers are really important.
: <snipped>
: > The Maulers are bad. Very bad. The Kzinti need
: > to kill them.
: OK if the maulers are bad, only the Coalition has them and the game favours
: the Coalition then scrap them - by which I mean scrap their damage directing
: ability, you can still use them for increased combat density.
In local games, I've proposed a similar (but less drastic) change. Only
allow the mauler directed damage effect to come into play when attacking
(not defending) a fixed target, (including FRD's, convoys, AuxCV's, as
they are essentially fixed), AND require the attacker to choose a BIR of
4 (to reflect the fact that the mauler ship has to close to overload
range essentially). Any target can still be affected as it is assumed
that the fixed target will force the defending ships into sticking
around the base, thus allowing the mauler to get into range. Hopefully
this is more reflective of the use of maulers in SFB while not totally
destroying their usefulness.
The above did not drastically affect play in the game it was used,
except that the Coalition could no longer use maulers to kill Alliance
ships (and especially carrier groups and Hydran CA/CC's) in open space,
thus making Alliance pinning more useful.
If anyone else has played with a more drastic or other variant of this
rule, I'd love to hear how it worked out...
Derrick
Cat w Lisp
> My rule book is REV.3, and in it (308.95) says: No more than two
>Command Points per race can be used in any one Battle Hex
>(four in a capital hex)."
> Rule (308.94) says: "In the case of a capital assault, one point
>allows an extra ship in the Battle Force fighting in one system, while
>two Command Points count as one Command Point for each system."
> Where is/was the rule you posted ever published?
You've answered the question yourself. "Two Command Points count as one
Command Point for each system." and four Command Points can be used in a
Capital hex. Therefore, four Command Points count as two Command Points in
each system.
Jeff Laikind
ahar...@my-dejanews.com
points on the same system (none for other systems)? I have always played it
that way, but based on earlier posts in this thread now doubt it.
Assuming "no", if a non-capital multi-system hex is under attack (eg. A
Klingon starbase in 1910, not in the same system as the planet - therefore
allowing the Klingons to see the attacker's fleet composition before choosing
their own, which is why that starbase isn't in the same system) are three
command points needed to get two effective points against that starbase? The
planet has no defences.
Andrew Harding
In article <19981204231632...@ng142.aol.com>,
catw...@aol.com (Cat w Lisp) wrote:
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
PDB6
"OK if the maulers are bad, only the Coalition has them and the game favours
the Coalition then scrap them - by which I mean scrap their damage directing
ability, you can still use them for increased combat density."
While _I_ think this is a good idea, it would be difficult to convince any
Coalition opponents of this :-) It is also probably a bit extreme, however
Derrick's suggestion is very good--
Derrick Kong wrote:
"In local games, I've proposed a similar (but less drastic) change. Only allow
the mauler directed damage effect to come into play when attacking (not
defending) a fixed target, (including FRD's, convoys, AuxCV's, as they are
essentially fixed), AND require the attacker to choose a BIR of 4 (to reflect
the fact that the mauler ship has to close to overload range essentially). Any
target can still be affected as it is assumed that the fixed target will force
the defending ships into sticking around the base, thus allowing the mauler to
get into range. Hopefully this is more reflective of the use of maulers in SFB
while not totally destroying their usefulness."
That is a really good variant rule that makes the Maulers much more reflective
of their SFB abilities. As has been pointed out by a pal of mine, "How is a
Mauler any more effective at shooting stuff than an NCL?" They both get to
range 1 and automatically hit for 100 damage. Yeah, ok, it isn't that close,
but Maulers in F+E are _much_ more effective than in SFB. Perhaps I'll
convince my cohorts to try this one the next time we play (if ever...)
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"I'm a street walking cheeta with a heart full of napalm.
I'm the renegade son of a nuclear A-bomb."
-Iggy Pop
Tarquelne
:>the mauler directed damage effect to come into play when attacking (not
:>defending) a fixed target,
I don't think that's necessary. But maybe we'll use it anyway.... hmm... OK, I'm convinced. I open space it wouldn't be
much of a problem to just avoid those nasty Maulers. (That big arrow is such a give away, they should think of some
method of disguising maulers.)
AND require the attacker to choose a BIR of 4 (to reflect
:>the fact that the mauler ship has to close to overload range essentially).
But I think that's a really good idea! Something does seem very wrong with the Mauler playing saying. "Well, with the
low BI I chose I only did 10 points of damage. Good think it's all Mauler damage!"
One possible variation: Allow a Mauler to be used when a BI 4 is not set, but make the Mauler vulnerable to 1-1
directed damage itself, and not have that attack count against the directed damage limit. (Much like what happens when
Ground attack ships move in to land troops.)
:> Perhaps I'll
:>convince my cohorts to try this one the next time we play (if ever...)
:>
We're adoping it as of the next time we play. Great idea! Mind if someone sticks it on the F&E website? (You'd get the
credit, of course, Derrick.)
Derrick Kong
[...]
: But I think that's a really good idea! Something does seem very wrong
: with the Mauler playing saying. "Well, with the
: low BI I chose I only did 10 points of damage. Good think it's all
: Mauler damage!"
: One possible variation: Allow a Mauler to be used when a BI 4 is not
: set, but make the Mauler vulnerable to 1-1
: directed damage itself, and not have that attack count against the
: directed damage limit. (Much like what happens when
: Ground attack ships move in to land troops.)
Hmmm, possibly. That's a big enough restriction that I can't see the
Coalition ever using it, which sort of defeats that variant...
: :> Perhaps I'll
: :>convince my cohorts to try this one the next time we play (if ever...)
: :>
: We're adoping it as of the next time we play. Great idea! Mind if
: someone sticks it on the F&E website? (You'd get the
: credit, of course, Derrick.)
No problem; tzeentch has already done so and informed me...
Derrick
Cat w Lisp
>: set, but make the Mauler vulnerable to 1-1
>: directed damage itself, and not have that attack count against the
>: directed damage limit. (Much like what happens when
>: Ground attack ships move in to land troops.)
>
>Hmmm, possibly. That's a big enough restriction that I can't see the
>Coalition ever using it, which sort of defeats that variant...
A good rule of thumb is that if neither player is willing to accept the
Coalition with a restriction, then maybe the current rule is too favorable.
Jeff Laikind
Catw...@aol.com
ahar...@my-dejanews.com
better in F&E than in SFB) is to require the Coalition to use directed damage
after the alliance if they wish to use the mauler at 1:1. If the mauler gets
crippled or destroyed before it fires, then the Coalition must leave at least
10 points for the Alliance to distribute after assigning his directed damage.
I like the required BIR of 4 idea too.
Also, directed damage should occur before plus/minus points. It's irritating
to watch the (insert enemy race here) cripple a whole CV group for one point
of damage, effectively preventing use of directed damage on the next round.
Andrew Harding
In article <74hgsi$e...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
ko...@uhheps.phys.hawaii.edu (Derrick Kong) wrote:
> Tarquelne (nos...@nospam.net) wrote:
> [...]
> : But I think that's a really good idea! Something does seem very wrong
> : with the Mauler playing saying. "Well, with the
> : low BI I chose I only did 10 points of damage. Good think it's all
> : Mauler damage!"
> This is exactly the reasoning I used...
>
> : One possible variation: Allow a Mauler to be used when a BI 4 is not
> : set, but make the Mauler vulnerable to 1-1
> : directed damage itself, and not have that attack count against the
> : directed damage limit. (Much like what happens when
> : Ground attack ships move in to land troops.)
>
> Hmmm, possibly. That's a big enough restriction that I can't see the
> Coalition ever using it, which sort of defeats that variant...
>
> : :> Perhaps I'll
> : :>convince my cohorts to try this one the next time we play (if ever...)
> : :>
> : We're adoping it as of the next time we play. Great idea! Mind if
> : someone sticks it on the F&E website? (You'd get the
> : credit, of course, Derrick.)
>
> No problem; tzeentch has already done so and informed me...
>
> Derrick
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Tarquelne
:>to watch the (insert enemy race here) cripple a whole CV group for one point
:>of damage, effectively preventing use of directed damage on the next round.
We play with a maximum of 3 plus or minus points each round.
I had thought this was an official rule, but I just looked for it and didn't find it.
Players can still take damage on whatever they wish, but the 3 point limit keeps
people honest. (I find crippling a V group with 1 point of damage blatant rule
abuse. You could also do that to sabatoge a SIDS attempt.)
Derrick Kong
: >Hmmm, possibly. That's a big enough restriction that I can't see the
: >Coalition ever using it, which sort of defeats that variant...
: A good rule of thumb is that if neither player is willing to accept the
: Coalition with a restriction, then maybe the current rule is too favorable.
Good point, Jeff. Now to convince the two Steves of this...
BTW, I know that with the Deal still in limbo (as far as we are
concerned), no real work on SFB/F&E can be done or seriously
contemplated, but could you see a large scale overhaul of F&E (say, the
Rev 4 rulebook) to restore play balance? I'd like to hear any comments
you have on the Coalition/Alliance play balance and what it would take
to make a case for substantive changes.
Hypothetically (and I know the situation could change if/when the Deal
was done) would we have to convince you and then you would check with
Steve P./C., or would we have to convince one or more of the Steve's?
Derrick
David desJardins
> It's not likely. According to Steve & Steve, ADB gets nearly equal
> mail from both sides: half claim that the Alliance wins every time,
> half claim the Alliance loses. As long as the rate is 50-50 or so, no
> change is needed.
This seems like a wrong way of deciding if a game is balanced. It's not
like a bookie joint, where the bookie is perfectly happy if half the
people take each side of a bet (since then he gets his cut either way).
If the game really is seriously unbalanced when played correctly, but
half of the people are playing correctly and the other half aren't, then
the enjoyment is ruined for those who play correctly, who surely count
more. It must be more important that the game is actually balanced,
than that it passes a popularity contest!
My own feeling is that games which take a long time to play generally
need balance options sufficient that the players who are actually
playing the game can "bid" for balance. That way each side is
guaranteed to be satisfied that it has a fair chance. (This is
important in long games because there's generally relatively little
"mixing" between players who don't know each other well, so it can often
never been conclusively determined whether one camp or the other is
correct. If the guys in Texas think one thing and the guys in Ohio
think another, they can't generally get together for a month to sort it
out.)
David desJardins
Cat w Lisp
>concerned), no real work on SFB/F&E can be done or seriously
>contemplated, but could you see a large scale overhaul of F&E (say, the
>Rev 4 rulebook) to restore play balance? I'd like to hear any comments
>you have on the Coalition/Alliance play balance and what it would take
>to make a case for substantive changes.
>
>Hypothetically (and I know the situation could change if/when the Deal
>was done) would we have to convince you and then you would check with
>Steve P./C., or would we have to convince one or more of the Steve's?
It's not likely. According to Steve & Steve, ADB gets nearly equal mail from
both sides: half claim that the Alliance wins every time, half claim the
Alliance loses. As long as the rate is 50-50 or so, no change is needed.
Jeff Laikind
Catw...@aol.com
Zen Bitz
>
> >BTW, I know that with the Deal still in limbo (as far as we are
> >concerned), no real work on SFB/F&E can be done or seriously
> >contemplated, but could you see a large scale overhaul of F&E (say, the
> >Rev 4 rulebook) to restore play balance? I'd like to hear any comments
> >you have on the Coalition/Alliance play balance and what it would take
> >to make a case for substantive changes.
> both sides: half claim that the Alliance wins every time, half claim the
> Alliance loses. As long as the rate is 50-50 or so, no change is needed.
This happened with Krieg! too, although with utterly different
results. Apparently, between two novices the game is very balanced,
but with experienced players the allies will win most of the time.
(win the game, not just the war).
That's NOT including a "perfect" Soviet defense strategy that
Gary Robinson and co. cooked up.
Main difference between ADB and the Krieg folks (Alan Emerich,
mostly) is that they are working very hard on fixing the problems
for the 2nd edition.
--
**********************************************
* PLEASE BEFORE READING THIS PAGE, *
* DOUBLE CLICK ON HIGHLIGHTED SUBJECT AREA *
* TO VIEW LETTER IN FULL SCREEN *
**********************************************
Remove BRAIN to email Remove BRAIN to email Remove BRAIN to
Ben Hitz -- Do not reply Directly -- Dept. of Biochemistry
*** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ ***
Tarquelne
:>both sides: half claim that the Alliance wins every time, half claim the
:>Alliance loses. As long as the rate is 50-50 or so, no change is needed.
I want all the Alliance always wins people to play the Coalition always wins people.
_Then_ we'd see some action.
Tarquelne
:>than that it passes a popularity contest!
Excellent point. Though, I'm not certain how ADB is supposed to be able to figure out
who's right.
:>
:>My own feeling is that games which take a long time to play generally
:>need balance options sufficient that the players who are actually
:>playing the game can "bid" for balance.
Yeah.
I'm not sure that ADB really needs to do anything. If a particular group of players
finds that the one side is always winning in their games they can use the copious
balance options ADB has already put out to do something about it. I think F&E
players should be perfectly willing to take matters into thier own hands and fix it
themselves. ADB has provided the tools, and doesn't seem opposed to players "messing"
with things. (At least, I haven't gotten any hate-mail from them yet.)
PDB6
"It's not likely. According to Steve & Steve, ADB gets nearly equal mail from
both sides: half claim that the Alliance wins every time, half claim the
Alliance loses. As long as the rate is 50-50 or so, no change is needed."
Sadly, as someone pointed out, it is perfectly likely that the 50% who say the
Alliance always wins are the new players (who haven't played the game to death)
and the 50% who says the Coalition always wins are the folks who have played
the game enough to know how to unhinge it (this is in no way meant as a dig at
anyone).
As president of (I'm also a client!) the "Coalition always wins" club, I can
say with fair certainty that my play group and I have played the game enough to
know how to unhinge it, and once unhinged, the Alliance has no chance in the
long term. Due to the nature of the game, sadly, there is no viable way to
prove this.
The problem with F+E and balance is that it is a humongous game with a fairly
small pool of players who are actually experienced enough to be qualified to
judge the balance of the game. As it takes months to play one game of the
grand campaign, you simply can't tinker with tactics to see what effect they
have on the game as a whole, so you can't really see how the game works one way
or the other. As the GW scenario currently exists, the first 3 or 4 times you
play, the Alliance does just fine, and can even win, because the Coalition
player is just figuring out how the game works (the Alliance player is doing
the same thing, but the Alliance is much more forgiving of novice mistakes) and
makes mistakes. Once you get around games 4-7, the Coalition should be handily
slaughtering the Alliance all the time. Now, as the game is so huge and takes
so long, the only way to come to this discovery is to play the straight GW
scenario (no balance points, variants, or tinkering with anything), like, 6 or
7 games in a row, which is not all that likely to happen. Unlike a Star Fleet
scenario or a Tournament Ship, either of which can be playtested, like, 50
times in the amount of time it takes to play one game of F+E, F+E simply has
too large a learning curve and too long a play time to get viable balance data,
except from a very small pool of players. I wonder how many times anyone has
played out this scenario?
ForlornH
let us try to have some concrete solution to the problem.
I have always believed that the solution lies on recreating the actual timeline
to some certain extent. There MUST be some way that the Klingons MUST be forced
to attack the Tholians. This will divert the necessary forces away from the
Kzinti, Hydran and Federation fronts and gut that massive advantage of numbers
that makes the Coalition victorious. The problem is precisely how to do it. Do
we make them attack the Tholians on a specific date? Do make it subject to some
ramdom factor as I previously suggested? Do we make it dependent on a specific
event or victory point level? Or do we do something entirely different.
I do feel strongly that this is the "fix" that we are looking for. We just need
to decide how to do it so that the resulting change to the game balance is what
we are looking for.
Rich Goranson (Lord Stephan Calvert deGrey)
Buffalo, NY (Barony of the Rhydderich Hael, Æthelmearc)
Diplomacy addict, F&E guru, Expos fan and medieval re-creationist
"I could have conquered Europe, all of it, but I had women in my life." - Henry
II
Derrick Kong
: Without harping on all the various reasons on why the Coalition always wins,
: let us try to have some concrete solution to the problem.
: I have always believed that the solution lies on recreating the actual
: timeline to some certain extent. There MUST be some way that the
: Klingons MUST be forced to attack the Tholians.
[...]
: I do feel strongly that this is the "fix" that we are looking for. We
: just need to decide how to do it so that the resulting change to the
: game balance is what we are looking for.
OK, that's a good starting point. A friend and I have cooked up a
couple of ideas along this line:
Version #1:
-----------
The Coalition must keep a number of ship equivalents equal to or greater
than the Tholians within 5 hexes of the Tholian border. They must also
have at least one ship with a command rating equal to or better than the
Tholian ship with the best command rating in that group. Only activated
Coalition ships count, so the Romulan Tholian Border Fleet does not
count until the Romulans enter the war.
The Klingons may attack the Tholians at any time. Same with the Roms
once they enter the war. The Tholians start at a wartime economy and
are free to attack the Klingons (and later Roms).
Even if the Klingons fail to attack the Tholians, the constant Tholian
ship production (3 per turn or so) will slowly but surely force more and
more Coalition ships to be "pinned" in that area. Failure to attack the
Tholians immediately also means that they will have time to fortify
their capital even further (imagine a full complement of 20 defense
battalions and 3 starbases at the Tholian capital!) making it nearly
impossible to knock them out of the war later on.
If Swarm rules are being used, all Swarms must be used against the
Tholians if they Tholians are still in the game.
Version #2:
-----------
As #1, except that the Coalition must maintain at least one or more
ships in Tholian space at all times, if possible, and must move at least
one ship into Tholian space at the start of their turn.
Version #3:
-----------
This is as the Tholian Gambit rules in CL#14, except the following:
1) If the Klingons capture the Tholian capital by turn #3, the Roms
enter the General War a turn early (i.e. turn 8).
2) For each turn beyond turn 3 that the Tholian capital is uncaptured,
the Rom entry into the General War is delayed one additional turn.
This could mean that the Roms NEVER enter the war!
Subvariant #1: The Gorns enter the war normally on turn 12. They may
attack the Roms, but then they enter the war normally at
that point.
Subvariant #2: The Gorns enter the war 2 turns after the Roms do (after
all they won't feel threatened if the Roms don't do
anything).
Subvariant #3: The Gorns may move to limited war status on turn 12
regardless of Romulan status and go to full war two turns
after the Roms go to war, whether late or early. They
use rules similar to the Federation limited war state if
the Klingons fail to attack: New builds and the Fed
border fleet can operate in Fed space, economy operates
at 75%, etc.
(Personally, I like the idea of subvariant #3 myself.)
This variant tries to plug up the one "flaw" in the base Tholian Gambit
scenario in that it is possible that the Klingons might decide to ignore
the Tholians anyway since there isn't any written penalty for NOT taking
the Tholian capital eventually (at least as I read it).
Given the other conditions of the scenario (Kzinti and Hydrans each get
an extra turn delay before being attacked by the Klingons), I believe
that the Coalition cannot afford to have the Romulan war entry delayed.
An ideal schedule for the Coalition is VERY tight:
T1) Lyrans attack Kzinti, Klingons attack Tholians
T2) Klingons attack Kzinti
T3) Klingons take Tholian capital, Coalition attacks Kzinti capital
(outer planets).
T4) Klingons remnants from Tholian battle moved to within range of
Kzinti capital, Lyrans get attacked by Hydrans.
T5) Klingons and Lyrans take Kzinti capital, Lyrans attack Hydrans.
T6) Klingons attack Hydrans, Lyran and some Klingons moved to Hydran
front, other Klingons move to assault positions against Feds.
T7) Lyrans and Klingons assault Hydran capital (outer planets), Klingons
attack Feds.
T8) Coalition takes Hydran capital(?), Roms attack Feds.
Without the Roms attacking the Feds, the Coalition will have a very weak
initial attack or must give up the idea of taking the Hydran capital.
Final note: I have played out the Klingon attack on the Tholian capital
by myself just to judge how difficult it was. Assuming a turn 3 attack
(Klingons had Tholian Border Squadron, Southern Reserve and 2 turns
worth of production/activations) and using all standard rules including
giving the Tholians 2 monitors, the Klingons lost almost everything
except one final battleline's worth of ships; of course, these were the
best ones (BT's, DN's, D7C's) which had been saved for last.
Zen Bitz
>
> Without harping on all the various reasons on why the Coalition always wins,
> let us try to have some concrete solution to the problem.
>
> I have always believed that the solution lies on recreating the actual timeline
> to some certain extent. There MUST be some way that the Klingons MUST be forced
> Kzinti, Hydran and Federation fronts and gut that massive advantage of numbers
> that makes the Coalition victorious. The problem is precisely how to do it. Do
> we make them attack the Tholians on a specific date? Do make it subject to some
> ramdom factor as I previously suggested? Do we make it dependent on a specific
> event or victory point level? Or do we do something entirely different.
How about this one:
The Tholians declare war (defensively!) on the Klingons!
(either at start or on historical turn N)
If they conqure a klingon planet or province, the Federation
enters the war.
Tarquelne
1) Two paragraphs quoted from a previous message
2) A discussion of those paragraphs.
3) A discussion of using the Tholians as a play balance.
1 ****
:>Sadly, as someone pointed out, it is perfectly likely that the 50% who say the
:>Alliance always wins are the new players (who haven't played the game to death)
:>and the 50% who says the Coalition always wins are the folks who have played
:>the game enough to know how to unhinge it (this is in no way meant as a dig at
:>anyone).
:>
:>As president of (I'm also a client!) the "Coalition always wins" club, I can
:>say with fair certainty that my play group and I have played the game enough to
:>know how to unhinge it, and once unhinged, the Alliance has no chance in the
:>long term. Due to the nature of the game, sadly, there is no viable way to
:>prove this.
2 ****
Please be careful about what you write!
Note that the above two paragraphs, taken together, yield something pretty much indistinguishable from:
a) Highly experienced/skilled players think the Coalition always wins, only inexperienced/unskilled players think
otherwise.
and
b) There is no way to prove this by debating on F&E itself, the rules, the deployments, etc.
The implied conclusion is, should anyone take excpetion to the argument:
c) The only way to continue this debate is through attacking the level of experience or skill professed by your opponent.
The original poster quoted above and I were at the put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is-start-PBEM stage of the
debate, and I just don't like PBM games - take too long. However, I remain constitutionally completely unable to take
such things lying down, so I offer two rewrites to the first quoted paragraph above:
A: Ironic reversed.
Sadly, as someone pointed out, it is perfectly likely that the 50% who say the
Coalition always wins are the new players (who haven't played the game to death)
and the 50% who says the Alliance always wins are the folks who have played
the game enough to know how to unhinge it.
B: Moderate revised.
Sadly, as someone pointed out, it is perfectly likely that the 50% who say the
Alliance always wins are the new players (who haven't played the game to death)
and the 50% who says the Coalition always wins are the folks who have played
the game as my group has, and found that the Coalition always seems to win. While
small, my group is experienced, and we just don't see any way for a well played
Coalition to lose.
A, while silly, makes an obvious point. B retains the same point as the original paragraph, but leaves room for arguments
other than _ad hominem_ ones. (BTW - Any criticism of my spelling, especially my _latin_ spelling, will be immedietly
construed as a personal attack and result in a flame war. Ok?)
My position has never been, by the way, that the Alliance always wins. In fact, I think the Coalition have the advantage,
I just don't think a well played Coalition is unbeatable.
3 ****
OK! As far as attacking the Tholians goes, I say require it. I really like Derrick Kong's #1 (Tholian ships "pinning"
Coalition forces.) I think it should be required that those Coalition ships facing off against the Tholians must not be
used offensively against the Federation. There is still quite a bit of damage that ships within 5 hexes of the Tholian
border can do to the Federation, attacking and retrograding each turn to end the turn within that 5 hex limit. I do think,
though, that the Coalition should get some bonus for actually capturing the Tholian capital. A bag of economic points,
say (reflecting the looting of the strange-tech Tholian homeworld), or have the Tholain planet produce 5 (or 10!)
economic points when captured.
Jim Davies
Kong) wrote:
>: I have always believed that the solution lies on recreating the actual
>: timeline to some certain extent. There MUST be some way that the
>: Klingons MUST be forced to attack the Tholians.
snip
Of your suggestions, I'd like #1 with a splash of #3. The Rom entry
rules in 3 seem a bit strict, given that the Klingons are probably
well advised to attack the Tholians early anyway. Substitute turn 4 or
5 for turn 3.
As for Tarquelne's restriction on anti-Tholian ships not attacking the
Freds, this may be a moot point anyway because the Tholians may be out
of the war long before the Freds are involved. Maybe the restriction
should be lifted but with a requirement that the ships aren't
crippled.
The other thing I'd want to do is tone down the maulers and SFGs. As
suggested elsewhere, I'd require a BIR of 4 for either, especially
against ships. I dunno what the SFG rules are, but they sound absurdly
powerful. F&E should have more than a passing resemblance to SFB,
after all.
PDB6
"Please be careful about what you write!"
You'll notice that I specifically pointed out in the first paragraph that it
was not meant as a dig at anyone.
"Note that the above two paragraphs, taken together, yield something pretty
much indistinguishable from:
a) Highly experienced/skilled players think the Coalition always wins, only
inexperienced/unskilled players think
otherwise."
What I was stating, and continue to state, is that F+E is a game with a huge
learning curve, and what I strongly believe is that the game is unbalanced
towards the Coalition, and that this unbalance only becomes apparent when both
players become experienced enough with the system to see it. This is not a
derogatory statement aimed at newer players in any way, nor is it meant to
imply that people who don't agree with me are dumb. I have just found that
most very experienced players (not meaning good or genius players, just players
who have played out the basic scenario, without balance options or rules
variants, enough to see the balance problems invloved) tend to agree with the
concept that the Coaliton has a huge advantage. Again, if someone disagrees
with this, it isn't because they are dumb or bad players or anything of the
sort, I just suspect that they have not played the game to death and have not
over anaylized the scenario as much as neccessary to see the problems involved.
"and
b) There is no way to prove this by debating on F&E itself, the rules, the
deployments, etc."
There isn't really any way to definatively prove this, correct. The game is
just so huge and so long that you can't just challenge someone to a game to
prove a point, nor can you tinker with tactics on turn 1 and 2 to see what
effect they have on the outcome of the war. It is just too long and too huge.
We can debate possibilites all day long (as I tend to do), but I'll never
convince anyone that I am correct and no one will ever convince me that they
are correct, and there is no way to duke it out to see who is correct. In SFB,
for instance, there is a theory that the current Andro Tournament Cruiser is
overbalanced. People discuss this endlessly, and when that comes to an end,
they can actually play the game to see what the problem is, and see, one way or
another, who is correct, yet still, no one can agree.
"The implied conclusion is, should anyone take excpetion to the argument:
c) The only way to continue this debate is through attacking the level of
experience or skill professed by your opponent."
This is neither the overt or implied conclusion. I have never once impugned
the skill or ability of anyone involved in any of these discussions, and have
no intention of doing so in the future.
"The original poster quoted above and I were at the
put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is-start-PBEM stage of the
debate, and I just don't like PBM games - take too long. However, I remain
constitutionally completely unable to take
such things lying down, so I offer two rewrites to the first quoted paragraph
above:"
Again, none of this was meant as an attack at anyone, as pointed out in the
first paragraph you quoted.
"My position has never been, by the way, that the Alliance always wins. In
fact, I think the Coalition have the advantage,
I just don't think a well played Coalition is unbeatable."
And therein lies the balance problem. A well balanced game should, at least in
theory, begin with both sides having an even chance and neither side starting
with an overt advantage. I belive (as do many other folks) that the Coalition
starts with a strong advantage. It is not impossible for the Alliance to win,
but I suspect that it takes (assuming an appropriately played Coaliton) really
good luck on the part of the Alliance and really bad luck on the part of the
Coalition, for the entire run of the game.
PDB6
"3 ****
OK! As far as attacking the Tholians goes, I say require it. I really like
Derrick Kong's #1 (Tholian ships "pinning"
Coalition forces.) I think it should be required that those Coalition ships
facing off against the Tholians must not be
used offensively against the Federation. There is still quite a bit of damage
that ships within 5 hexes of the Tholian
border can do to the Federation, attacking and retrograding each turn to end
the turn within that 5 hex limit. I do think,
though, that the Coalition should get some bonus for actually capturing the
Tholian capital. A bag of economic points,
say (reflecting the looting of the strange-tech Tholian homeworld), or have the
Tholain planet produce 5 (or 10!)
economic points when captured."
I whole heartedly agree that the Coalition should be required to attack the
Tholians, but there needs to be some way to make it not swing the game balance
pendulum too far in the other direction. Making the Coalition's need to kill
the Tholians too severe, and the game balance, again, goes out the window.
Hmm. The above suggestions are all excellent, but might be a bit too severe.
Perhaps simply releasing all of the Tholian fleets on turn 12 and making them
part of the Alliance, regardless of wheither or not the Coalition bothers to
attack them. They still are prevented from moving more than 2 hexes out of
Tholian territory (other than one expiditionary fleet) and probably be quite a
thorn in the side of the Coalition by killing border bases, reacting onto
Coaliton ships, contesting provinces, capturing that there planet, and keeping
the Klingons and Romulans apart.
Ken
>
> <snip>
>
> My own feeling is that games which take a long time to play generally
> need balance options sufficient that the players who are actually
> guaranteed to be satisfied that it has a fair chance. (This is
> important in long games because there's generally relatively little
> "mixing" between players who don't know each other well, so it can often
> never been conclusively determined whether one camp or the other is
> correct. If the guys in Texas think one thing and the guys in Ohio
> think another, they can't generally get together for a month to sort it
> out.)
Well put. F&E has balancing options in section 653.0. There are quite
alot of them and more added from the Carrier War expansion. A group that
thinks once side is favored can allow selection of a certain point total
of options for the inferior side or predesignate specific options. There
is no need to lobby for official rule changes based on a premise
unprovable except as how you state. Naturally, I have no objections to
lobbying for optional rules.
Ken
--
remove 'nospam' to reply
Derrick Kong
: I whole heartedly agree that the Coalition should be required to
: attack the Tholians, but there needs to be some way to make it not
: swing the game balance pendulum too far in the other direction.
: Making the Coalition's need to kill the Tholians too severe, and the
: game balance, again, goes out the window.
In my experience (YMMV), merely releasing the Tholians on turn 12 is too
little, too late. Restricting the Tholians to 2 hexes of their
territory means they can inflict a maximum of about 10-12 points of
economic damage on the Coalition. That's irrelevant given the amount of
territory gained in Kzinti and Hydran space. Also, once Orion goes
neutral, the Coalition still has a corridor connecting the Klingons and
Romulans out of reach of the Tholians.
Also, in all the games we've played according to the base rules and
setup, by turn 12 the Coalition is ready to assault the Fed capital or
has already dismanted the Feds (i.e. cut off the survey zone, reduced
Fed holdings to a few hexes around the capital, etc).
The Tholian options I proposed were drastic because in my experience a
drastic change is needed.
Derrick
PDB6
"In my experience (YMMV), merely releasing the Tholians on turn 12 is too
little, too late. Restricting the Tholians to 2 hexes of their
territory means they can inflict a maximum of about 10-12 points of economic
damage on the Coalition. That's irrelevant given the amount of territory
gained in Kzinti and Hydran space. Also, once Orion goes neutral, the
Coalition still has a corridor connecting the Klingons and Romulans out of
reach of the Tholians."
I suspect that you are entirely correct, but as I have never actually had _any_
experience with the Tholians (they might have well not made the counters...), I
figure I'd present the idea and see what happened. Luckily, someone has
thought about it more than me :-)
"Also, in all the games we've played according to the base rules and
setup, by turn 12 the Coalition is ready to assault the Fed capital or
has already dismanted the Feds (i.e. cut off the survey zone, reduced
Fed holdings to a few hexes around the capital, etc)."
I have found the same thing. By turn 12, the Feds are just screwed, so yeah, I
suspect that the Tholian 2 hex menace might be a bit less than needed.
"The Tholian options I proposed were drastic because in my experience a drastic
change is needed."
Oh, absolutely. Your suggestions were defenitely good ones. There has to be
some way to require the Klingons attack the Tholians without allowing them to
say "look! An E4 has struck at the heartof the Holdfast! There!", but doesn't
make them lose outright. Hmm. The "pinning" units there is defenitely a good
idea, but ships equal to the number of Tholian units might be a bit too
restrictive to the Coalition. I had an idea floating around here somewhere
involving a timeline of Tholian bases to be killed by turn X with a penalty of
Coalition ships tied to the Tholian border if not fulfilled which was similar
to one of your suggestions, but a bit less severe. Maybe requiring X compot of
ships (100? 200?) to be adjacent to or in Tholian space (to prevent them from
affecting the Feds while fulfiling the anti-Tholian job) starting on turn 11,
reduced by some for each Tholian base killed.
Stephen A. Cuyler
> In my experience (YMMV), merely releasing the Tholians on turn 12 is too
> little, too late. Restricting the Tholians to 2 hexes of their
> territory means they can inflict a maximum of about 10-12 points of
> economic damage on the Coalition. That's irrelevant given the amount of
> territory gained in Kzinti and Hydran space. Also, once Orion goes
> neutral, the Coalition still has a corridor connecting the Klingons and
> Romulans out of reach of the Tholians.
-So how about this. Each turn after the Federation goes to limited or
full war for the first time, roll 1d6. When the total reaches, oh, say
10, the Tholians have been persueded to join the war on the side of the
Alliance. (Thanks to hard working Federation Diplomats no doubt!) All
Tholian units are immediately released. If the Federation has been
invaded, the Tholian forces may extend the range of allowed movement to
6 hexes. Thoughts?
-SAC
--
"Our life is frittered away by detail... simplify,
simplify."
-Henry Thoreau
PDB6
"Version #1:
-----------
The Coalition must keep a number of ship equivalents equal to or greater than
<snipped>
I think that this is the best option (the pinning of Coalition ships idea), but
might be better served as a number of compot rather than actual ships, and they
should be required to be adjacent to (within 2 hexes?) the Holdfast (to avoid
getting to mess with the Feds as well). Perhaps compot equal to the current
compot of Tholian bases on the map (counting or not counting fighters?) which
starts out at 168 (without fighters) and if the Coalition blows up Tholian
bases, this number drops, freeing up ships (encouraging them to try). By using
compot rather than units, you don't have to worry about command ratings, and if
the Coalition wants to satisfy the anti-Tholian force with 42 E4s, they could
(in fact, this would be more helpful for the Feds than if the Coalition used
all dense units, I suspect...)
"The Klingons may attack the Tholians at any time. Same with the Roms once
they enter the war. The Tholians start at a wartime economy and are free to
attack the Klingons (and later Roms)."
The Klingons should still have to abide by their fleet release schedule, so if
they chose to attack the Tholians, they have to do so by diverting units from
the Kzinti/Hydran fronts. I would also not require the Klingons to pin ships
at the Tholian border (as above) until they attack the Feds. Too many ships on
the Fed border might get the Feds riled up and start them gearing for war.
My version of the rule might look something like:
Starting on turn 7, the Coalition is required to move a total compot of ships
equivelant to the current compot of Tholian bases (not counting fighters?) to
within 2 hexes of any Tholian base. If enough compot worth of units cannot be
moved to Tholian space by operational movement, the Coalition must strategic
move enough ships to an appropriate spot (within 2 hexes of any Tholian base)
immediately, and may not use strategic movement for any other purpose until
thses conditions are satisfied. These ships may not leave their position
until either:
A) Tholian bases are destroyed, freeing up an equivelant compot in units.
B) Any of these units are crippled, at which point they may return to repair
facilities, but only if immediately replaced by equivelant compot in units,
bringing the Coaliton forces up to the required total compot.
"Version #2:
-----------
As #1, except that the Coalition must maintain at least one or more
ships in Tholian space at all times, if possible, and must move at least one
ship into Tholian space at the start of their turn."
Also good (even better, actually, but possibly too detrimental to the
Coalition), but again, this restriction (i.e. the anti-Tholian force) shouldn't
be required until the Klingons attack the Feds. This one is more severe, as
the Klingons automatically have to release the Tholian fleets, where in #1,
they are not required to release the Tholians, just have ships
nullified/pinned. If the Klingons are tied to Tholian space, having the
Tholians released is bad for them, as there will be constant combat, which will
in effect also require the Klingons to keep viable command units on the front.
"Version #3:
-----------
This is as the Tholian Gambit rules in CL#14, except the following:
1) If the Klingons capture the Tholian capital by turn #3, the Roms
enter the General War a turn early (i.e. turn 8).
2) For each turn beyond turn 3 that the Tholian capital is uncaptured, the Rom
entry into the General War is delayed one additional turn. This could mean that
the Roms NEVER enter the war!"
Excellent addition to the Tholian Gambit scenario. I prefer, however, to keep
the game as "historical" as possible, and having the Klingons attack the
Tholians on 1 strays a bit too far from the established timeline for me to be
happy as part of the basic scenario. An excellent addition to the TG rules,
however.
PDB6
"-So how about this. Each turn after the Federation goes to limited or full war
for the first time, roll 1d6. When the total reaches, oh, say 10, the Tholians
have been persueded to join the war on the side of the Alliance. (Thanks to
hard working Federation Diplomats no doubt!) All Tholian units are immediately
released. If the Federation has been invaded, the Tholian forces may extend the
range of allowed movement to 6 hexes. Thoughts?"
This one is good, but (IMO) it strays a bit too far away from "history". I
think it would be best to come up with a way to make the Coalition attack them,
or simulate the Coalition needing to attack them, without changing the
established history or the original intent of the Tholians. The Tholians are
neutral and simply want to be left alone, so some way to make the Coaliton have
to attack them would be more poetic than simply allowing the Tholians to go on
effectively an unrestricted offensive (although 6 hexes really isn't that much
of an offensive, true...).
Tarquelne
:>was not meant as a dig at anyone.
:>"The implied conclusion is, should anyone take excpetion to the argument:
:>
:>c) The only way to continue this debate is through attacking the level of
:>experience or skill professed by your opponent."
:>
:>This is neither the overt or implied conclusion. I have never once impugned
:>the skill or ability of anyone involved in any of these discussions, and have
:>no intention of doing so in the future.
Just because a statement has the caveat "This is not meant as an insult." does not necessarily make the statement an
insult. But really, the point is that just because it isn't a insult doesn't mean you are not backing the opposition into a
corner in this particular case. I didn't say _you_ had attacked other player's abilites, you were just leaving no room for
me (or others) to argue without criticing _your_ abilities. That, of course, would have been a forfeit for my side. :)
However, you also just said...
:> I have just found that
:>most very experienced players tend to agree with the
:>concept that the Coaliton has a huge advantage.
And I find the above much more palatable. I have anecdotal evidence of very experienced
players reversing thier "Coalition advantage" position, so I find "most very experienced players
tend" to be a statement I can work with. Furthermore, I like "a huge advanatage" quite a bit more than bald
statements such as "a well-played Coalition must win." "A huge advantage" is a thing of degree, where
"the Coalition always wins," while maybe the common result of that advantage, doesn't
act as its own conclusion.
:>"My position has never been, by the way, that the Alliance always wins. In
:>fact, I think the Coalition have the advantage,
:>I just don't think a well played Coalition is unbeatable."
:>
:>And therein lies the balance problem. A well balanced game should, at least in
:>theory, begin with both sides having an even chance and neither side starting
:>with an overt advantage.
:>
OK! I like this alot! I agree that the game is balanced in favor of the Coalition. However,
I don't think the Alliance needs luck (but that would help immensely), I think the Alliance
just has a far tougher time. I think that the Alliance _can_ win without superb luck,
but must work much, much harder than the Coalition early in the game. A big problem is that
its hard to see the result of a "successfull" early-Alliance defense - The H and Kz captials will
still fall, and the Alliance position will still look quite bad. Thus, I'm not at all opposed
to balance options that favor the Alliance.
Now I think there's room to talk again. We can cooperate on finding some more balance options, since we both
agree that the Coalition has an advantage. Unfortunatly, I don't think we can argue about the exact nuts-and-bolts of the
early-GW. I'm not supposed to anyway, and, and I don't think either of us has time for a PBEM F&E game.
Tarquelne
Tholians when the Federation is attacked, or by turn 11 when the Coalition historically attacks the Tholians. No
movement restirctions. It should really be very, very obvious to the Tholians that if the Federation falls they are
capital-D DOOMED, and it's not as if by withdrawing the movement restirctions the Tholians will just march right into
the Lyran capital. However, removing the movement restrictions should allow them to fully participate in the war,
instead of just squatting in a corner. Fully released they can be a major asset to the Federation in the south instead of just
being not much more than something at the edge of the map for the Coalition to avoid.
Tarquelne
:>think it would be best to come up with a way to make the Coalition attack them,
:>or simulate the Coalition needing to attack them, without changing the
:>established history or the original intent of the Tholians. The Tholians are
:>neutral and simply want to be left alone, so some way to make the Coaliton have
:>to attack them would be more poetic than simply allowing the Tholians to go on
:>effectively an unrestricted offensive (although 6 hexes really isn't that much
:>of an offensive, true...).
I think keeping a tight leash on the Tholians should be the Coalition player's responsibilty, not the Tholians. If the
Coalition places (or is forced to place) a suitibly sized fleet near the Holdfast then the Tholians won't be able to launch a
big offensive. However, they will be tying down Coalition ships. I don't think there's anything wrong with letting the
Tholians go completely - no movement restrictions. Allow pressure from the Coalition to naturally influence Tholian
movement.
Would this work?: As of turn X the Tholians are completely released - they may move where ever they wish. No
messing about with "pinning" Coalition ships or base-destruction schedules. Do the Tholains have so many ships that
this would unbalance things too far?