ASF FP REVISION - Runoff Poll

[Dave Baughman]

OK, the most popular choices for the first round of voting were "straight" BV 2.0 with a rebalance, or the "Flashpoint Method" (which also included a rebalance).

Voting is now unlocked. All forum members get one vote.

Details of each option

In both cases: 1 aero FP = 15,000 BV 2.0. Warship FPs will change to match the new BV values, and each faction's overall FP for each movement class must stay exactly the same. This means that if any FP are gained on warships, FP must be subtracted from the same movement class (mobile or LFB) either by removing units or reducing skill levels. Likewise, if a warhip's FP goes down, FP may be added to units of the same movement class.

Generic FP Pool method: Other than WarShips and Pocket WarShips (DropShips with capital weapons), unit composition does not need to be specified; 1 FP simply equals 15,000 BV 2.0 of generic aero forces that can be selected on a case-by-case basis by the owner. This method gives maximum flexibility since forces can be tailored for each mission, but it also allows for significant "cheezing" by providing no mechanical balancing mechanism against simply choosing the units with the best performancy by BV, rather than a more canonical force mix.

Detailed Unit List method: Under this method, each faction would complete an equipment table detailing the composition of typical light/medium/heavy aerospace squadrons, along with transport groups, patrol groups, and attack groups (DropShip formations). These units would have a specific FP value calculated from the actual composition of the unit; if the composition changed, so would the FP. This method ensures diverse force mixes in scenarios and makes acquisition planning easier since each unit type has a specific FP value (similar to the way ground forces are currently handled). If this method is selected, rules would be introduced to govern changes to the equipment table (to ensure that factions can't easily "stack the deck" with their very best designs, ensuring an FP advantage).

[Marlin]

First one. Alone thinking of the Micro stuff of the second makes my head ache. 

[Fatebringer]

The only reason I vote for the second one is that it makes you have to fit your BV on your ship instead of just saying a ship without docking collars can get up to 10 FP because it's a destroyer.

[Iron Mongoose]

Well, that Distroyer could easly be escorted by a jumpship and dropships.  Historicaly, several Mandrill fleets were designed that way, with Lolas or Vincents being followed around by Odysseys loaded with Titans or what have you for support.  The former Fang Fleet would have been 20 FP on the new system with a Lola as its core.  I think there may have been some secondary fleets in the FWL with this design as well, though the Theras made it less of an issue.

[Fatebringer]

Tracking Jumpships with it's own assets should be part of the process though. Extra jumpships would add extra Docking Collars wich effects your MP pool.

[Iron Mongoose]

I wasn't given to understand that jump ship collars added to MP.  If so, the Camels need to add a half dozen.