Please review and comment
QuoteRaid FP requirements
In response to player feedback, we are considering implementing minimum FP sizes for certain raid types. See below-
Destroy Resources Raid
The minimum raiding force size is based on the target:
HPG = 0.25 FP
MF or IC = 2.5 FP
SY or PF = 5.0 FP
RS = 7.5 FP
Blackbox Factory, HPG Network Hub* = 10 FP
*This hex improvement is not in the game yet, but listed since its something that will exist in the future.
Recon Raid/Naval Recon
Minimum 0.25 FP (0 FP units cannot run these missions). Naval Recon still requires mobile or warship movement class.
Resource Raid
Not applicable as the revised Resource Raid rules already effectively apply minimum raid sizes based on the desired payoff.
Planned Naval Engagement
Not applicable though its worth reminding people that this is a raid order, which means the maximum FP deployed is 10 (an important balancing factor to this otherwise potentially broken order).
Added to rules
QuoteNuclear Weapon "positive events"
If a Nuclear Terror roll results in matching numbers (i.e. 1+1, 2+2, etc), in addition to any other effects of the roll the attack creates substantial public backlash against the attacker in the target faction.
For a number turns equal to the number rolled (i.e. 1+1 = 1 turn, 2+2 = 2 turns, etc), the faction that was the victim of the nuclear attack requires 4 Battle defeats rather than 3 to be forcibly ejected from a planet, reflecting the stiffer resistance being offered by the defenders.
This bonus does not stack.
Shelved pending further review
Quote"Simple Rez Tax" continued discussions
Last turn the discussion brought up that the original proposed rule would disproportionately benefit the winner in these situations. The GMs are aware that this could create an incentive for the loser to drag out the fight and force GM resolution, so we are interested in ideas for alternative incentives.
Shelved pending further review
QuoteAerospace FP rebalance
The runoff poll indicated a majority of voters supporting adoption of a detailed "Flashpoint style" ASF equipment table to determine fighter FP. All aero units including WarShips will now use BV 2.0 to determine their FP value.
I will post more details on this once I have updated the orders sheet to support the new system, but in general:
- Orders for Turn 41 will not be due until the 15th of the month, to allow more time for the stats to be converted over to the new system.
- A new orders sheet template will be uploaded. This template will automate FP calculation so at the faction leader level, all that needs to be entered (once the equipment table is filled out) will be the WarShip class (if applicable) plus the number and type of squadrons/dropship groups. The sheet will autocalculate the base FP from there.
- WarShip BV will be preloaded into a data section on the sheet, so everyone will be working from the same base numbers.
- There will be six equipment tables to fill out: Light, Medium, and Heavy ASF units (either 2x Squadron for IS or 1x Star for Clan - 12 and 10 craft each respectively) plus Transport, Patrol, and Assault DropShip groups.
- Most JumpShips will still be handled abstractly through movement class costs as described in the current rules. The only JumpShips that will count as "WarShips" are those that are heavily armed and/or carry fighters (Comitatus-class for example).
- At this time, the MP system for movement will not/not be changed to the Flashpoint style "actual lift available" system; this rules change is limited in scope to Battle Value and Force Composition.
- Unit Improvements will not be introduced at this time but may be added later
- Ground Forces will not be impacted by these changes at this time.
Implemented
The way this will work will be that each faction will plug in their existing WarShips, then rebuild the remaining FP of aero with the new components (squads/stars/etc) so that their FP after the rebalance equals their FP before (for each movement class). If units need to reduce their FP due to increases compared to what they had under the old system, they can either drop supporting units, or reduce skills levels, or in extreme cases delete WarShips (but I would prefer to avoid this).
WarShips will be allowed to carry external supporting units (unlike Flashpoint) but will be required to assign the DropShips to accomodate them (so, much as it pains me to say it, munch-Foxes and munch-Potemkins will still be able to be created LOL)
Basically, this will require a decent amount of up-front work, but once it is implemented this will permanently solve the problems of BV1 vs. BV2 and of naval force composition. It will also prep the aero end of the game for additional rules improvements that will eventually be implemented in future turns. Perhaps most importantly, this will serve as a dry run for implementing similar improvements to ground forces organization.
QuoteRecharge Station rebalance
Revised Recharge Station characteristics:
Cost: 72 RP
Build Time: 3 turns
Revenue: 1 RP per turn
MP: 12/turn*
Special Ability: Any unit that moves through a hex containing an RS may extend its maximum movement range by one hex, to a maximum of 10 hexes. This does not effect the actual MP cost of the movement.**
*Calculated to be equivalent to a non-LFB warship of the same price.
**Note that this means LFB units do not derive any special benefit from RSes... this is deliberate as a balance mechanism.
Based on the feedback received so far and pending further review, I'm delaying revising the RS rules, probably until I can take a look at how to fix other, larger issues with the movement system.
Raid RP requirments: I think the RS is a bit high, since its probably not much tougher than a SY. Perhaps that bonus might be a nice reward for them costing so damn much, but I'd rather just address the cost of them. The other targets, however, and the idea in general, I think is very good.
Should SY be noted to require air forces? RS definatly should, but in canon SY have ground based components, from power generators (Kathil), component manufacturers, and in some cases they are entirely on the ground and build dropships (Skye I think has such a yard in canon).
Nuke rule: One wonders when this would not be the case? One mostly forgotten rule that might be aplicable here is the forced withdraw rules. In some cases, the nuke attack, or that and the follow up battle, will reduce a unit to 50% strength and force a withdraw check. I think the resualt of these positive rolls might be something to see here. A unit afflicted with terror might see a penalty, as they are more prone to just run for it, while a unit with a defiant attitude might see a bonus, and be able to stand and fight.
Sim rez: The main bonus for defenders is that you can retreat if you are losing, rather than have to suffer the whole effects of a dice roll. A force that's outnumbered enough has little to no chance of surviving a single round of simple resolution, since just 50% damage from a larger force is too much to take. In MM, one can always fall back, if they've got the skill and the speed.
But, if we want to see other bonuses that go with that, we might offer a bit of salvage to a retreating force for an MM game. If you lose and retreat in a played game, you can do a bit of Avanti's Angels salvage work, grab some gear, some ammo stockpiles, what ever and bug out with a bit more than you would if you just let the sim rez go.
The air rules are what they are, I guess. I didn't vote for that, but if thats how it has to be... I'm just glad I'm not the FWL any more.
I'm not really looking forward to the new order sheet either, as our current one's got everything (including almost all warship flotillas broken down to the particular fighter stars) and is a bit of an old friend.
What about the groups that don't fit with the new gimped star / patrol / wing formations being allowed to shift that FP over to another warship as long as the new warship has the appropriate fighter bays or collar slots?
Quote from: Iron Mongoose on June 17, 2010, 06:50:51 PM
Raid RP requirments: I think the RS is a bit high, since its probably not much tougher than a SY. Perhaps that bonus might be a nice reward for them costing so damn much, but I'd rather just address the cost of them. The other targets, however, and the idea in general, I think is very good.
I calculated the minimum force for the raid as 10% of the cost of the hex improvement, rounded off to even 2.5 FP intervals to keep it consistent.
Let me ask you this though - in the context of the updated Recharge Station rules and the increased benefits they will provide, do you still think that 10% is too high?
Should SY be noted to require air forces? RS definatly should, but in canon SY have ground based components, from power generators (Kathil), component manufacturers, and in some cases they are entirely on the ground and build dropships (Skye I think has such a yard in canon).
VERY good point. That was my intention, and I will include it in the final rule.
Nuke rule: One wonders when this would not be the case? One mostly forgotten rule that might be aplicable here is the forced withdraw rules. In some cases, the nuke attack, or that and the follow up battle, will reduce a unit to 50% strength and force a withdraw check. I think the resualt of these positive rolls might be something to see here. A unit afflicted with terror might see a penalty, as they are more prone to just run for it, while a unit with a defiant attitude might see a bonus, and be able to stand and fight.
Its probably worth noting that forced withdrawal was quietly deleted from the rules back in turn 37 when the rulebook was reissued. Despite (or perhaps because of) its complexity and length the rule was almost never used, and even the GMs had long since stopped using it, so I let it die with the transition. If there's interest in bringing it back we can look at reviving it.
As for the nuclear bonus, that was just one idea. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the need for a 'positive' outcome from WMD attacks, but there was some interest in it during the discussions last turn so I figured I would kick something out for feedback.
Sim rez: The main bonus for defenders is that you can retreat if you are losing, rather than have to suffer the whole effects of a dice roll. A force that's outnumbered enough has little to no chance of surviving a single round of simple resolution, since just 50% damage from a larger force is too much to take. In MM, one can always fall back, if they've got the skill and the speed.
But, if we want to see other bonuses that go with that, we might offer a bit of salvage to a retreating force for an MM game. If you lose and retreat in a played game, you can do a bit of Avanti's Angels salvage work, grab some gear, some ammo stockpiles, what ever and bug out with a bit more than you would if you just let the sim rez go.
The air rules are what they are, I guess. I didn't vote for that, but if thats how it has to be... I'm just glad I'm not the FWL any more.
Hopefully, especially with the highly automated sheet, it won't be as bad as people are expecting.
Quote from: DisGruntled on June 17, 2010, 07:05:20 PM
I'm not really looking forward to the new order sheet either, as our current one's got everything (including almost all warship flotillas broken down to the particular fighter stars) and is a bit of an old friend.
I understand where you're coming from, and Josh and I will both be available to assist with the conversion.
What about the groups that don't fit with the new gimped star / patrol / wing formations being allowed to shift that FP over to another warship as long as the new warship has the appropriate fighter bays or collar slots?
Yes, as long as the new receiving unit has A) the capacity and B) the same movement class, you can rearrange your FP to ensure its all represented.
Its worth noting that the only units that will find themselves potentially shuffling FP around are going to be units that are currently completely maxxed out on their FP (such as the good old "Fox + 5 Vengeance + 200 of the highest BV fighters the TH can field" combo). Actually, now that I think of it, the TH is going to be a real pain in the neck to convert over, since their uber-units are going to have to shed a lot of FP due to the reduction in fighter capacity that will come with structured DropShip tables.
But I digress. I think you'll find the setup will be more adaptable than you may be expecting - the intent, certainly, is not to actually gimp or otherwise weaken existing formations, just to record them in a uniform way across the board and eliminate a lot of the ambiguity. (Actually, the level of detail you've broken your units down into should make it easier for CSA to update).
Forced withdraw is still on the books, at least in the rules thread we have now. I agree, I don't think its ever been used or will be used, but perhaps in this one case, nukes, there might be a place for it, or a nuke specific rule like it. What would have more of an impact on moral than nukes, one way or the other?
As to the conversion, that's why I wouldn't want to be FWL. I think Helm went back and assigned fighter types for my units, but most of them were just a warship and some amount of FP assumed to have figthers in it. The Camel fleets are a bit more like Terran one, with a light of Titans filled with fighters.
QuoteSpecial Ability: Any unit that moves through a hex containing an RS may extend its maximum movement range by one hex, to a maximum of 10 hexes. This does not effect the actual MP cost of the movement.**
Okay to make any sense of this, it looks to say that the extra hex of movement does not require MP?
So a transported unit that goes from 5 to 8 hexes gains the benefit of extra movement and no extra cost.
And a Mobile / Warship unit that is already traveling 10 hexes just gets the benefit for not paying extra MP due to the same limited motion...
And I'm ment to say, I think that RS even in the proposed revision could stand to be better. Either make them cheaper, perhaps 48 RP/2turns like an SY, with that same 1 RP generation, making their RP generation just like every other improvment and making their bonus just what it is, or keep that cost and make their bonus more. 2 RP a turn might not be out of the qustion, or more MP.
Don't worry about calculating the MP to be the same as some warship or another. Warships get bonues in that they can move, and that they can attack things. So unless we let RS orbitaly bombard things, I think they should be much better generators of MP than warships. After all, should a big station that spends all its time helping traders on a big trade route be more efficant than a little ship that spends most of its time masacaring babys? So at 72 FP/3 turns, I don't know that 20 or even 30+ MP would be out of line, with the same 1RP per turn generation. Let's give people a reason to build something asside from warships.
Hmmm... Now I have an odd question. What if your faction had a canon set up, which was for GM ease modified - then the rules changed and you were as a result gimped. With this change, if we feel that our faction is being gimped again can we show proof of the old organization and move back to that instead?
Quote from: Fatebringer on June 17, 2010, 08:01:18 PM
QuoteSpecial Ability: Any unit that moves through a hex containing an RS may extend its maximum movement range by one hex, to a maximum of 10 hexes. This does not effect the actual MP cost of the movement.**
Okay to make any sense of this, it looks to say that the extra hex of movement does not require MP?
So a transported unit that goes from 5 to 8 hexes gains the benefit of extra movement and no extra cost.
And a Mobile / Warship unit that is already traveling 10 hexes just gets the benefit for not paying extra MP due to the same limited motion...
Sorry, I did not mean to be unclear. The extra hexes would still need to be paid for - it is basically like the LFB movement class's "fast move" special ability.
As the current Captain-General let me say this....I am completely unconcerned about this rule change.
It gets everyone on the same page. X # of FP means the same for all factions. We won't run into the "ok wait you have how many fighters with you?" questions. That is worth any possible issue this could cause for me with my current fleet.
And while I may have a few ships which will have their fighter compliment lowered....I am fully confident that as the faction with the largest number of publicly known shipyards I can out build all of my neighbors....combined.
Has anyone who is worried about the FWL looked at the map? ;-) I have more Shipyards then all my neighbors (minus the TH) combined and multiplied by a factor of three. I still have more shipyards then any three of my neighbors and thats including the Terran Hegemony.
My forebearers as Captain-General left me in a very good position where I need only realistically fear an interdiction and I work tirelessly to minimize the chances and the damage it can do to my realm should one occur.
I infact welcome any 3 to 4 of my neighbors and this including the Terran Hegemony to attempt a Naval Construction race with me. Where they as a group try to build one warship of equal class for ever two I build.
I assure you not only will you lose but you have ALREADY lost and shall continue to do so. 8)
The FWLN intends to establish the fabled rule of two. And we are so very close to achieving it.
Quote from: Iron Mongoose on June 17, 2010, 08:04:29 PM
And I'm ment to say, I think that RS even in the proposed revision could stand to be better. Either make them cheaper, perhaps 48 RP/2turns like an SY, with that same 1 RP generation, making their RP generation just like every other improvment and making their bonus just what it is, or keep that cost and make their bonus more. 2 RP a turn might not be out of the qustion, or more MP.
Don't worry about calculating the MP to be the same as some warship or another. Warships get bonues in that they can move, and that they can attack things. So unless we let RS orbitaly bombard things, I think they should be much better generators of MP than warships. After all, should a big station that spends all its time helping traders on a big trade route be more efficant than a little ship that spends most of its time masacaring babys? So at 72 FP/3 turns, I don't know that 20 or even 30+ MP would be out of line, with the same 1RP per turn generation. Let's give people a reason to build something asside from warships.
I'd be willing to consider making the MP generation more generous, but I am (hopefully understandably) approaching this cautiously to avoid replacing a rule that was broken in one direction with a rule that is broken in the other...
Quote from: Jeyar on June 17, 2010, 09:06:48 PM
Hmmm... Now I have an odd question. What if your faction had a canon set up, which was for GM ease modified - then the rules changed and you were as a result gimped. With this change, if we feel that our faction is being gimped again can we show proof of the old organization and move back to that instead?
Do you mean the goofy stuff with the SASF and how all your battle armor was taken away from you? I am working on a comprehensive solution to this, but it may be delayed somewhat since we now know that special rules for SASF are going to be in TRO 3085.
With regard to the larger issue of changes being imposed on factions by the old GM team, any cases of that will be (for all factions, not just the TC) addressed on a case-by-case basis, but I will not promise that additional units will be given. Many factions - even my old FRR - were impacted by issues like this, and with the exception of certain special cases* I'm generally inclined to keep the balance of forces the way it exists right now so no one faction gets "fixed" while others - either through not knowing they were impacted in the past or simply because they don't have the documentation to prove what went down 20+ turns ago - miss out.
*The main special case I am talking about is where the old GM team took something away in exchange for a special ability or other benefit that for whatever reason never made its way into the actual rules... effectively leaving the faction empty-handed.
Incidentally, if anyone wants to see a preview of the still-not-totally programmed new aerospace tab (along with the equipment tables) feel free to check out the attached spreadsheet. The goal here is not just to port in the Flashpoint setup, but to improve and streamline it to further reduce the paperwork burden on players.
One thing I particularly like is the "Clan/IS" switch on the equipment tables. Instead of having two totally different data blocks for Clan and IS units, and correspondingly two totally different sets of FP groupings and stuff, there is a simple Yes/No switch for Clan tactical doctrine. If you change it to yes, the tables automatically recalculate to base-30 instead of base-36 units. Everything automatically recalculates, right down the chart that figures the total fighter capacity of the flotilla.
Like I said, this is only half-way (maybe more like 1/3) complete, so lots of stuff is missing, including the formulas to calculate unit FP, but that's being worked on.
Slight problem... What about factions who use oddball orgs? For example the Vipers use 15/45 ASFs depending upon Ground/Naval formations.
Quote from: GreyJaeger on June 18, 2010, 04:47:02 AM
Slight problem... What about factions who use oddball orgs? For example the Vipers use 15/45 ASFs depending upon Ground/Naval formations.
That's something I'm working on right now. I'm trying to avoid bringing back the dreaded Split Tables, but if neccessary we can use that to support non-standard tactical doctrines. The switching method theoretically supports an unlimited number of options, it would just required adjusting the syntax on the formulas.
Quote from: chaosxtreme on June 18, 2010, 12:59:33 AM
My forebearers as Captain-General left me in a very good position where I need only realistically fear an interdiction and I work tirelessly to minimize the chances and the damage it can do to my realm should one occur.
I might not know how to fight a war very well, but I know how to get set so that others can. We always had a few targets we wanted to hit, so we could build this or that ship in one or two turns. I think the FWL's gotten to the point where they can do a Thera in two, now, and we'd just passed being able to do an Atreus in one before I left. When you can do a battleship in a turn... you realize quickly you'd better be doing it, because your ground forces are something of a shambles, despite Helm's best efforts.
I have no problem confirming the Battleship every turn.
I would dispute that the ground forces are in a shambles...but merely because its in my best interests to do so. :-)
Eh, you should have seen the list I wanted to post when we all had the option to list our units. There were about twice as many regements as Helm admited to.
Quote from: David B.Its probably worth noting that forced withdrawal was quietly deleted from the rules back in turn 37 when the rulebook was reissued. Despite (or perhaps because of) its complexity and length the rule was almost never used, and even the GMs had long since stopped using it, so I let it die with the transition. If there's interest in bringing it back we can look at reviving it.
Well, turns out the above is a lie. That's what I get for not checking the rule before I shoot my mouth off. Forced Withdrawal is still in the game, its just greatly trimmed down and simplified.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 18, 2010, 04:03:36 AM
One thing I particularly like is the "Clan/IS" switch on the equipment tables. Instead of having two totally different data blocks for Clan and IS units, and correspondingly two totally different sets of FP groupings and stuff, there is a simple Yes/No switch for Clan tactical doctrine. If you change it to yes, the tables automatically recalculate to base-30 instead of base-36 units. Everything automatically recalculates, right down the chart that figures the total fighter capacity of the flotilla.
Base 30? Base 36? What's all this?
While there is the oddball IS power that uses a 36-Fighter Wing, the "Standard" is actually 18, with the next grouping up being the 54-fighter Regiment.
Meanwhile, "Oddball" is almost as common as the "Standard," especially in the IS. The Free Worlds and the Lyran Whateveritisthisyear (also most merc forces) are about the only ones that adhere to the old Regular Army doctrine, with the Feddies tacking on a Command Lance at the Wing level and the DC and FRR introducing a doubling factor at some point along the line (DC uses oversized companies, FRR uses oversized lances) and the Capellans sometimes using a 3-fighter lance. And sometimes not. Meaning that a Capellan air wing could range between 18 and 27.
Peripherants are pretty standard, but Clanners have a couple of confounding factors. Some Clans (Ghost Bears) prefer Binaries. Others (Vipers) cut the aerospace force in half for reasons known only to them.
As the RasDom, I have two dominant wing-level organizations to cope with -- the 36-ship Rasalhagian Wing and the 20-ship Ghost Bear Binary. As if to make things worse, yes, I also have Trinaries.
Quote from: JediBear on June 21, 2010, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 18, 2010, 04:03:36 AM
One thing I particularly like is the "Clan/IS" switch on the equipment tables. Instead of having two totally different data blocks for Clan and IS units, and correspondingly two totally different sets of FP groupings and stuff, there is a simple Yes/No switch for Clan tactical doctrine. If you change it to yes, the tables automatically recalculate to base-30 instead of base-36 units. Everything automatically recalculates, right down the chart that figures the total fighter capacity of the flotilla.
Base 30? Base 36? What's all this?
Going away, for the most part. Base-30 and Base-36 referred to the number of units in a "Mid-level Unit," which in Flashpoint was either a Trinary of Clan fighters or 2 Wings of IS fighters. This cause some wackiness with the IS units, involving a "split table" where only one half of the chart got used depending on whether or not the squadron had a certain special ability. This is something I am going to be eliminating in the FGC version, and after trying a number of different approaches, I've come up with a way to correctly distribute the units off the 2d6 bellcurve for 5-, 6-, and 8-fighter formations, so the smaller formations will be able to be incorporated without any excessive backflips. So... the final version you all get for use in Turn 41 will be a little different from the "test" version.
While there is the oddball IS power that uses a 36-Fighter Wing, the "Standard" is actually 18, with the next grouping up being the 54-fighter Regiment.
Meanwhile, "Oddball" is almost as common as the "Standard," especially in the IS. The Free Worlds and the Lyran Whateveritisthisyear (also most merc forces) are about the only ones that adhere to the old Regular Army doctrine, with the Feddies tacking on a Command Lance at the Wing level and the DC and FRR introducing a doubling factor at some point along the line (DC uses oversized companies, FRR uses oversized lances) and the Capellans sometimes using a 3-fighter lance. And sometimes not. Meaning that a Capellan air wing could range between 18 and 27.
I'll be trying to support the oddballs as much as possible, though I can't promise 100% support just because of the way the math has to work.
Peripherants are pretty standard, but Clanners have a couple of confounding factors. Some Clans (Ghost Bears) prefer Binaries. Others (Vipers) cut the aerospace force in half for reasons known only to them.
The "baseline" unit of Clan fighter forces will be the Star, so whether or not they use individual Stars, Binaries, or Trinaries is totally up to them. The Vipers' oddball Star sizes will be supported.
As the RasDom, I have two dominant wing-level organizations to cope with -- the 36-ship Rasalhagian Wing and the 20-ship Ghost Bear Binary. As if to make things worse, yes, I also have Trinaries.
I am still working on a method to support multiple doctrines without causing the sheet to explode into a huge mountain of cludge-code, but hopefully I will have a solution fully integrated in time for turn 4. If not, the workaround may simply be to round to the nearest size increment; I.E. turn a Rassie 36-ship wing into 4 10-ship Stars.
So i was thinking that the standing rules of resolving damage on a warship unit are kinda faulty. What i propose is that damage to the warship unit be determined proportionally between the actual hull and its attending ASF/DS.
Example:
Dark Chicken is a Potemkin class whose unit FP is 50FP that takes 15FP of Damage. Now the warship is 18% of the total unit FP (50/9) so it takes 2.75FP damage while its ASF/DS group takes 12.25FP.
It just makes since to me, now ships that lack ASF/DS capacity would take a hell of a lot more damage, therefor be easier to sink.
Quote from: Holt on June 22, 2010, 06:51:09 PM
So i was thinking that the standing rules of resolving damage on a warship unit are kinda faulty. What i propose is that damage to the warship unit be determined proportionally between the actual hull and its attending ASF/DS.
Example:
Dark Chicken is a Potemkin class whose unit FP is 50FP that takes 15FP of Damage. Now the warship is 18% of the total unit FP (50/9) so it takes 2.75FP damage while its ASF/DS group takes 12.25FP.
It just makes since to me, now ships that lack ASF/DS capacity would take a hell of a lot more damage, therefor be easier to sink.
I'm confused, this seems to make carriers more susceptable to damage, not less. I like the idea in theory, but I'm not sure if the added math work would have a tangible in-game benefit.
Only in my example are they more susceptable to damage, if the warship hull FP was 90% of the total unit FP, then it would be the other way around. Its a ll proportional per individual unit.
As far as the added math, i am sure most of us would be willing to to do it given that the alternative is basically a dead warship because you rolled lowert than 5.
My concern is that it ignores the fact that many units are going to focus on the warship...
... while at the same time, the WarShip's escorts are going to be protecting it. Thus the term "escort."
My theory is that for example, a Potemkin 9FP is going to be a hell of a lot harder to kill when it has 41FP of fighters and dropships protecting it; so it would take 18% of the total damage.
A Potemkin with 9FP of escorts would take 50% of the total damage.
A Naked Potemkin with no escorts would take 100% of the damage.
And an extreme example a Potemkin 9FP with 100FP of escorts would take 9% of the total damage.
You're pointing to this in the case of a warship death roll, yes? So, for example, if the Dark Chicken takes damage in battle and rolls a 2, it would still be threatened, but it would have to be enough damage to kill the whole flotilla?
It would be for regular damage really, lossing the survival roll could tripple its %, example:
18% of total damage if made roll.
54% of total damage if missed roll.
I guess the qustion I would have then is, does anyone do anything significantly difrent from your method now? Would anyone do a higher perportion of damge to their warship, or kill it, if they didn't have to?
Thing is right now, if you miss your +5 roll a 50FP unit with a potemkin that takes 9FP damage loses the warship entirely, but has no fighters/DS destroyed and it makes no sense to me.
I agree, and that's the qustion I have. Would you propose a 75/25 split? 50/50? What other than the 100/0 we have now?
There are a lot of factors in this, there can be no qustion. Even looking at the Randis battle, had I rolled a bit better it might have been that 5 FP of defenders could have scored a kill on a warship confronted by 70 FP of attackers. Is that reasonable, just because the attacker rolled a 4 on a warship save?
Conversly, is it right that some ships should live while others die as a resualt of flotilla design, and not just the resualts of the dice? Why should one of the Terran's Fox flotillas at 26 FP see a difrent outcome than a 6 FP Fox that is escorted by 20 FP of fighters in a difrent flotilla? The last thing we want to do is punish people for having designed their flotillas under older rules and then springing something on them that make some work good and other work bad.
I think a better rule might be to limit the perportion of damage over the entire force present that can go to stricken ships. Is it even concevable rationaly that one could bring a force like the Butler or Sudeten fleets to battle against a small force, but then by warship damage rules every single point of damage would go to one or two warships, with no damage at all to anything else? This I think is Holt's point, and I agree. But to spread it out too much brings us back to making warships invincable. How could one ever get a kill, if the damage was always spread out evenly? If four warships went into battle and lost all but 1 FP of their force, the player if given a choice would still be left with four .25 FP warships.
Yeah, but what about those that would TAKE the warship outright? I know that after the hilarious battle a few years ago when a force entered a game out-gunned 2 to one left with nearly twice the power ended up making the rules change so that it is harder to do, but it is still a viable method (if just barely) - and what if they take the vessel but the other side decides to detonate it while it isn't fully staffed?
There should be some way of calling that damage WITHOUT the crits rolls, since there are valid in game-mechanic methods to do that very thing.
Quote from: Holt on June 22, 2010, 06:51:09 PM
So i was thinking that the standing rules of resolving damage on a warship unit are kinda faulty. What i propose is that damage to the warship unit be determined proportionally between the actual hull and its attending ASF/DS.
In practice there's no reason this should be the case.
Ask any AT2 player. The inability of fighters and dropships to provide effective protection against same is notorious.
In reality, the present rule is entirely appropriate, actually canted a little in the direction of Warship survival (which there is normally no way to ensure,) given that we're already assuming BV has anything to do with the combat capability of AT2 units (which is an absurd conceit, but one we seem bound to.)
Quote from: Iron Mongoose on June 22, 2010, 10:43:56 PM
I agree, and that's the qustion I have. Would you propose a 75/25 split? 50/50? What other than the 100/0 we have now?
How about we consider the concept of levels of failure/success?
i.e. a 2 gets you 100% of the incoming fighters (deployed your screen the wrong direction,) a 3 gets you 50%, and a 2 gets you 25%?
Or we could just assume that under normal circumstances, Warships get damaged last. That's an absurd conceit (see above) but works for thematic reasons.
Quote from: Iron Mongoose on June 22, 2010, 10:43:56 PMConversly, is it right that some ships should live while others die as a resualt of flotilla design, and not just the resualts of the dice? Why should one of the Terran's Fox flotillas at 26 FP see a difrent outcome than a 6 FP Fox that is escorted by 20 FP of fighters in a difrent flotilla? The last thing we want to do is punish people for having designed their flotillas under older rules and then springing something on them that make some work good and other work bad.
Flotillas in their original conception seem to have little or no bearing on present rules. I'm half-inclined to suggest abolishing them entirely and just going back (admittedly before this FGC) to individual ships and flexible pools of dropship/fighter units.
Quote from: Iron Mongoose on June 22, 2010, 10:43:56 PM
Is it even concevable rationaly that one could bring a force like the Butler or Sudeten fleets to battle against a small force, but then by warship damage rules every single point of damage would go to one or two warships, with no damage at all to anything else?
Absolutely. Fire gets concentrated all the time on the AT2 board and in real life, and it doesn't matter if you have two ships or a hundred, you can put all your fire on a handful of targets. The weapon ranges are huge, the accelerations relatively low, and stacking limits nonexistent. Take it from me, this is not only a conceivable possibility but in practice a near-certainty. If large enough forces meet in battle, Warships
die. The only real quirk of these rules is that their chances of survival is a consequence not of their armor and SI (real survivability) but of their BV -- a number which is dimensionally non-comparable to the relevant value.
Quote from: Jeyar on June 22, 2010, 11:58:26 PM
Yeah, but what about those that would TAKE the warship outright?
Speaking from experience, boarding an active Warship borders on the impossible. The difficulty of doing so is a function of the comparative maneuverabilities of the target ship and the boarding craft, and most importantly will take
time. Boarding is far more likely to happen as opportunities arise in battle, and is actually served adequately enough by the salvage rules (which have no analogue in AT2. Ships that die in AT2
just go away.)
Quote from: Jeyar on June 22, 2010, 11:58:26 PM
There should be some way of calling that damage WITHOUT the crits rolls, since there are valid in game-mechanic methods to do that very thing.
Sure. I'd say you should have to take some extra damage to force fire concentration, like double damage from the enemy to put half your fire on a target or something, but it should be totally doable.
Natural defensive measures for fighters against warships is to pray that they don't have much in the way of close air support and get your butt right up next to them. :P Aside from actaul non-capitol weaponry, only Naval Lasers can bracket to function as AA guns while most are also limited on the amount of missles they're using. The other systems are limited at close range.
Rules Errata in conjunction with the ASF rebalance
Clan battle taxis are no longer magically twice as good as IS models. Battle Taxis are worth 0.25 marine FP no matter what faction is using them.
Clan formations with battle taxis do not lose any FP; the number of ships is doubled (if the carrier has capacity for them) or the FP can be used for other purposes (like increasing marine FP or whatnot).
I'll just leave this here...
Quote
=MROUND(((VLOOKUP(D3,A252:G362,4,FALSE)/15000)+(VLOOKUP(H3,I252:O282,2,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(I3,I252:O282,3,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(J3,I252:O282,4,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(K3,I252:O282,5,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(L3,I252:O282,6,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(M3,I252:O282,7,FALSE))+(N3*0.25)+((O3*'Equipment Tables (template)'!G73)/15000)+P3),0.25)
Fun stuff!!!
Naval MP auto-calculation is in.... looking good so far.
Auto-calculation of Fighter, Dropship, and Small craft capacity plus auto-tally for flotilla validation is in.
EDIT -> special note for TC... support for Snowdens and TiG-15s is present
Movement length validation is in - the sheet not only knows how to pay for LFB "fast moves," but it will also kick back an "INVALID" message if you enter a distance that is too long for your movement class.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 02, 2010, 12:09:53 AM
EDIT -> special note for TC... support for Snowdens and TiG-15s is present
Thanks! That is awesome! *scratches off one question* ;D
Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 02, 2010, 12:37:58 AM
Movement length validation is in - the sheet not only knows how to pay for LFB "fast moves," but it will also kick back an "INVALID" message if you enter a distance that is too long for your movement class.
And that will keep in mind the new movement bonus for RS's you've implemented?
Quote from: Fatebringer on July 02, 2010, 12:59:08 PM
Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 02, 2010, 12:37:58 AM
Movement length validation is in - the sheet not only knows how to pay for LFB "fast moves," but it will also kick back an "INVALID" message if you enter a distance that is too long for your movement class.
And that will keep in mind the new movement bonus for RS's you've implemented?
The formulas will be updated if/when the RS functionality is changed.
Rules thread has been updated. Also, the eratta for the nuclear terror rules that was discussed during 40 has been implemented (no more non-rules-compliant "planet only" terrors listed).