Rules Updates for turn 41

[chaosxtreme]

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. :-)

[Iron Mongoose]

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.

[Dave Baughman]

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.

[JediBear]

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.

[Dave Baughman]

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.

[Holt]

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.

[Dave Baughman]

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.

[Holt]

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.

[NVA]

My concern is that it ignores the fact that many units are going to focus on the warship...

[DXM]

... while at the same time, the WarShip's escorts are going to be protecting it.  Thus the term "escort."

[Holt]

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.

[Iron Mongoose]

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? 

[Holt]

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.

[Iron Mongoose]

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?

[Holt]

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.