The first two strategic turns of economic turn one have been played through.
Forces were put on the table only once, when John and Colin faced off of possible control of B7 - only for John to reveal that he had jumped in system with three super dreadnaughts to Colin's half dozen light cruisers and worse. Colin backed off after some initial posturing, and John pressed home his attack only to roll a 1 and be driven off with damage and embarassment.
Other operations were purely book operations. In the first turn, all players put out scouts to check local neutral systems out; there are now two systems with no income at all, and a couple with so little they will probably never be claimed by anyone. Con's scouts were driven back to home territory, gleaning only a sense that Eddie travels loaded for bear.
In turn two, everyone tried to take over at least one system, with mixed good fortune; Eddie managed to use overwhelming force to take over I8, destroying the system defences completely in the process, and J 10, reducing the local defences to a third of their strength. John similarly crushed the defences of D4, destroying them completely. UNSC moved into its closest neighbour in A3, rolling a natural six followed by a natural 5 and thus getting unconditional surrender and completely intact system defences. This outcome can only be interpreted as the locals welcoming the peaceloving UNSC with open arms. Colin had no luck on this front.
UNSC made unspecified refits to its prime units during week one before issuing out on turn two in full strength - at least one task force has more than 2000 points worth of ships. Eddie bought fighters for an unspecified number of carriers during turn one, neatly skirting the capital cap on initial builds by buying the carriers empty and then fitting them out from retained cash as soon as the game started.
Bugs identified; we need a better system for tracking moves and outcomes.
Bugs dealt with; outcome moves out of a system count as the strategic move for the following turn. So if you get kicked out of a system in turn two, the move to the kick-out destination is your turn three move. So all the more important to write the move down secretly rather than announce it, since a kicked out fleet is kicked out with its damage in place and will be vulnerable to attack if anyone moves into its destination.
Proper maps and the like will not issue this week; to the extent that I have time at all, it's going on paid work - I'm doing this only because there's only so long I can spend staring at bureau-gibberish about how cool I am before I need to do something else instead.
Thursday 26 April 2007
News from the sector
The UN's special representative for peacekeeping operations briefed journalists this evening on recent developments in our region.
The Muratian civilisation remains mysterious. Self-proclaimed as Hu-Man, they have given little other information about themselves or their technology. It is rumoured that they may be using nova guns in their vast starships. All reported sightings to date have emphasised the size of their vessels and their propensity to strike with immense force. Their "exploration" of neighboring space has so far brought them primarily into contact with the reclusive Con-sultant Savasku. Sketchy Con-sultant reports from their outnumbered scouts in outlying neutral systems have given the impression that the Muratians attack in great force, and even in reconnaisance use considerable strength. They have reportedly reduced the defences of numerous neutral systems to rubble in their quest for local domination.
The hitherto unknown civilisation on the edge of Con-sultant Savasku space has proven to be Phalon, although as yet little more is known of their activities and intentions. They have already been involved in one inconclusive skirmish with the Peter Lorre genus of the Savasku, from which they retreated before shots could be fired. The subsequent Savasku attack on the defences of the neutral system involved was repulsed by gallant local defenders.
The Con-Sultant Savasku have remained quiescent, retreating in the face of Muratian attacks on their neighbours.
In the face of this growing aggression, it is not surprising that the inhabitants of the beleaguered and impoverished A3 system welcomed the recent offer of alliance from the UNSC Peacekeeping Command. Impressed by the strength of UNSC forces and their obvious capacity to protect them, they welcomed the visiting elements of Task Force 2 with open arms before handing over control of the local system defences to them. The UNSC will continue to offer the hand of friendship to neighbouring systems who share our values of peaceful co-existence and a robust engagement with those who would place our values at risk.
In unrelated news, the special representative for peacekeeping operations was pleased to report the completion of minor refitting operations to better suit local forces to the challenges facing them in this region.
The Muratian civilisation remains mysterious. Self-proclaimed as Hu-Man, they have given little other information about themselves or their technology. It is rumoured that they may be using nova guns in their vast starships. All reported sightings to date have emphasised the size of their vessels and their propensity to strike with immense force. Their "exploration" of neighboring space has so far brought them primarily into contact with the reclusive Con-sultant Savasku. Sketchy Con-sultant reports from their outnumbered scouts in outlying neutral systems have given the impression that the Muratians attack in great force, and even in reconnaisance use considerable strength. They have reportedly reduced the defences of numerous neutral systems to rubble in their quest for local domination.
The hitherto unknown civilisation on the edge of Con-sultant Savasku space has proven to be Phalon, although as yet little more is known of their activities and intentions. They have already been involved in one inconclusive skirmish with the Peter Lorre genus of the Savasku, from which they retreated before shots could be fired. The subsequent Savasku attack on the defences of the neutral system involved was repulsed by gallant local defenders.
The Con-Sultant Savasku have remained quiescent, retreating in the face of Muratian attacks on their neighbours.
In the face of this growing aggression, it is not surprising that the inhabitants of the beleaguered and impoverished A3 system welcomed the recent offer of alliance from the UNSC Peacekeeping Command. Impressed by the strength of UNSC forces and their obvious capacity to protect them, they welcomed the visiting elements of Task Force 2 with open arms before handing over control of the local system defences to them. The UNSC will continue to offer the hand of friendship to neighbouring systems who share our values of peaceful co-existence and a robust engagement with those who would place our values at risk.
In unrelated news, the special representative for peacekeeping operations was pleased to report the completion of minor refitting operations to better suit local forces to the challenges facing them in this region.
Wednesday 25 April 2007
When the UNSC gets around to naming ships
The names will come from here
Culture Ship Names
Although I do not promise to paint them on the bases.
Culture Ship Names
Although I do not promise to paint them on the bases.
Tuesday 24 April 2007
One little link
Which may be of interest
Starships to scale
I'm somehow not in the mood to try to give a sense of what happened on Monday, though I am convinced I need a better system for tracking people's moves.
Starships to scale
I'm somehow not in the mood to try to give a sense of what happened on Monday, though I am convinced I need a better system for tracking people's moves.
Minor rule clarification
When your force bugs out of a system for any reason, this bug out takes the place of your next strategic move. So if, for example, you get pushed out of a system in turn 1, the bug out is your move for turn 2.
You should write it down and place it face down until the rest of the current turn is over and everyone else has written their orders for the next turn. Because otherwise, you'll be an irresistible target for anyone who can move into your bug out zone and attack you in a damaged state.
You should write it down and place it face down until the rest of the current turn is over and everyone else has written their orders for the next turn. Because otherwise, you'll be an irresistible target for anyone who can move into your bug out zone and attack you in a damaged state.
Sunday 22 April 2007
Continuing news from our conflict correspondents
Regional analysts have been thrown into confusion by the news that the Cons-sultant clan of the Sa'vasku, who are among the oldest inhabitants of the region, have announced that they are entering a period of reflection. Coincidentally, the hyperspace infrastructure on G8, G9 and I11 has been temporarily shut down for routine maintenance. There have been no reported sightings of Con-sultant clan vessels outside Con-sultant space in recent weeks, but their ambassador to New New York has made it clear to curious journalists (both of them) that Con-sultant military capability will be largely unaffected by the period of reflection.
Further information is emerging about the mysterious Murat-ian civilisation, following sightings of human style starships on the edge of Murat-ian space. Beyond the basic information gleaned from drive signatures, there is little clarity about the vessels, although they are thought to be either very large, or incredibly fast.
UN Space Command announced this evening that initial reports from the exploratory division suggest that local space may be even bigger than had been previously suspected and that there may be further inhabited planets neighouring our own. Further details are expected within a matter of weeks, but for the present the UNSC commander said that "To be frank, we are still collating the information from scouting parties sent out in all directions and it will be a while before the information can be analysed and the public can be told what new opportunities for peaceful co-existence we have discovered."
Further information is emerging about the mysterious Murat-ian civilisation, following sightings of human style starships on the edge of Murat-ian space. Beyond the basic information gleaned from drive signatures, there is little clarity about the vessels, although they are thought to be either very large, or incredibly fast.
UN Space Command announced this evening that initial reports from the exploratory division suggest that local space may be even bigger than had been previously suspected and that there may be further inhabited planets neighouring our own. Further details are expected within a matter of weeks, but for the present the UNSC commander said that "To be frank, we are still collating the information from scouting parties sent out in all directions and it will be a while before the information can be analysed and the public can be told what new opportunities for peaceful co-existence we have discovered."
Paying visits to planets; a revised etiquette guide
Following a question which made me think a bit, some changes to our earlier programme
Fleet orders are issued before departure to new systems.
Permissible orders are
Stand off; fleet will manoeuvre for advantage until it elects to withdraw, is attacked, or changes its orders to attack after assessing the situation
Fleets on Stand Off orders do not attack against either fleets or planetary defences, and do not count as interdicting the system if they are still present at the end of the turn.
Attack; fleet will attack what it finds on arrival; first attacking other fleets on attack orders (attack posture is readily distinguishable from stand off because active sensors are switched on), then other fleets on stand off orders, then planetary defences.
Attack orders give +1 to initiative rolls
Withdraw if contested; fleet will withdraw if any hostile mobile forces are present in the system. If only planetary defences forces are present, a fleet in "withdraw if contested" may remain, and change its orders to attack following recon of the defences.
This does not answer the question as posed. This was whether a fleet under orders to bombard the planet could be given conditional orders to attack the planet if there was no hostile fleet, but otherwise to stand off. After a bit of thought, I came to the conclusion that there was little real point to such a conditional order. If your force can't take on a hostile fleet, it should bug out full stop; putting it on stand off just makes it vulnerable to an attack order. So I amended Withdraw If Contested to give the same net effect and changed Stand-off to make it clear that a whole bunch of fleets on stand off are dancing around on the edge of things and don't have any real effect on trade in and out of the system. (Because otherwise people would throw stand off fleets into everything to deny money to people). And note the +1 for attack orders.
Based on returns to date (which are sketchy, but suggestive) actual forces coming into a system will not have large numbers of ships, so we should be able to use the scouting rules from FTII without much fuss.
Fleet orders are issued before departure to new systems.
Permissible orders are
Stand off; fleet will manoeuvre for advantage until it elects to withdraw, is attacked, or changes its orders to attack after assessing the situation
Fleets on Stand Off orders do not attack against either fleets or planetary defences, and do not count as interdicting the system if they are still present at the end of the turn.
Attack; fleet will attack what it finds on arrival; first attacking other fleets on attack orders (attack posture is readily distinguishable from stand off because active sensors are switched on), then other fleets on stand off orders, then planetary defences.
Attack orders give +1 to initiative rolls
Withdraw if contested; fleet will withdraw if any hostile mobile forces are present in the system. If only planetary defences forces are present, a fleet in "withdraw if contested" may remain, and change its orders to attack following recon of the defences.
This does not answer the question as posed. This was whether a fleet under orders to bombard the planet could be given conditional orders to attack the planet if there was no hostile fleet, but otherwise to stand off. After a bit of thought, I came to the conclusion that there was little real point to such a conditional order. If your force can't take on a hostile fleet, it should bug out full stop; putting it on stand off just makes it vulnerable to an attack order. So I amended Withdraw If Contested to give the same net effect and changed Stand-off to make it clear that a whole bunch of fleets on stand off are dancing around on the edge of things and don't have any real effect on trade in and out of the system. (Because otherwise people would throw stand off fleets into everything to deny money to people). And note the +1 for attack orders.
Based on returns to date (which are sketchy, but suggestive) actual forces coming into a system will not have large numbers of ships, so we should be able to use the scouting rules from FTII without much fuss.
One way to deal with Savasku
This isn't founded on analysis, but if I had to pick something to confront Savasku, I think I'd be looking for something strong which could do a lot of damage from long range. Close in, the Savasku ability to throw hideous amounts of dice at short ranges (as long as they don't do anything else) means that the tactic of getting in close with beams isn't that promising. On the other hand, the Kravak ability to smack people at any range out to 30 inches starts to look very useful; especially as the damage done is pretty heavy. Three or four good K-gun hits on a Savasku of any size should have it thinking about bugging out, given the real vulnerability of a Savasku ship with with even one missing power generator.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
The growing threat of conflict in the region
The UN Secretary General's spokesman's hairdresser, speaking off the record, expressed concern yesterday about reports of increasing military expenditure in the wake of the highly successful S'''''''loot arms fair in the capital of the XL globular cluster near our own hitherto peaceful region.
"I am critical of such fairs," said the Secretary General's assistant spokesman's aunt Ermintrude. "They only increase the likelihood of conflict and the only real beneficiaries are the grisly merchants of death who profit hugely from this wasteful and unnecessary spending."
Meanwhile concern is growing at the likelihood of internecine warfare among the mysterious Sa'Vasku and the danger that this may spill over and affect peaceloving UN affiliated planets. The UN SG, speaking on the record, played down such fear, drawing the attention of journalists (both of them) to the fact that the longest established Sa'Vasku civilisation in the region has been silent for a long time now, and may even have been rendered extinct by the lethal disease known colloquially as Distraction, or in Sa'Vasku, d'job-d'kidz-d'morgige. "As for reports of other Sa'Vasku in the region, these remain unconfirmed. The reportedly homicidal xenophobes the Muratians may yet prove to be freedom-loving humans much like ourselves." he said optimistically.
Nonetheless many commentators have noted the huge increase in military spending by forces in, and bordering, our hitherto peaceful region, and question whether peace can be maintained in the face of such warlike preparations. The Lorre clan of the Sa'Vasku have reportedly bought a number of heavy ships, and there are confusing reports about the Muratians buying up ex-Chinese aircraft carriers, freighters and most bafflingly, Sa'Vasku Superdreadnaughts. Little is known about the Muratians apart from their naked xenophobia and near-legendary aggression, and while the reported pattern of sales to them does nothing to clear up confusion about their identity, it certain reinforces the widely held concerns about their intentions.
More difficult to interpret are the reports that hitherto unknown agents of a yet to be identified power have bought up an enormous number of ships from the Neue Swabian League's military export authority. These ships, allegedly surplus to NSL requirements, are in fact among the most newly constructed and potent ships ever made by the New Berlin and New Hamburg dockyards, and it is thought that the sales represent a desperate effort by the yards to maintain the production line in the face of the failure of the NSL navy to purchase as many of the new designs as had been expected. Certainly the reported prices of these vessels suggest a buyer's market for these as yet unproven systems. The identity and location of the purchaser remain a mystery, although there has been uninformed speculation that they may be former subject races of the moribund Sa'vasku clan known as the Con-sultants, who have displaced the former occupiers of the worlds held by that clan in our region. It may be some weeks before this can be confirmed.
The UNSC commander was unwilling to go on the record about reports that uniformed men in blue berets had been seen dickering with arms traders for purportedly "surplus" vessels from the NSL shipyards at New Berlin. His spokesman's batman dismissed the idea that the UNSC would depart from its tried and tested designs, even if it went on to an offensive posture.
"I am critical of such fairs," said the Secretary General's assistant spokesman's aunt Ermintrude. "They only increase the likelihood of conflict and the only real beneficiaries are the grisly merchants of death who profit hugely from this wasteful and unnecessary spending."
Meanwhile concern is growing at the likelihood of internecine warfare among the mysterious Sa'Vasku and the danger that this may spill over and affect peaceloving UN affiliated planets. The UN SG, speaking on the record, played down such fear, drawing the attention of journalists (both of them) to the fact that the longest established Sa'Vasku civilisation in the region has been silent for a long time now, and may even have been rendered extinct by the lethal disease known colloquially as Distraction, or in Sa'Vasku, d'job-d'kidz-d'morgige. "As for reports of other Sa'Vasku in the region, these remain unconfirmed. The reportedly homicidal xenophobes the Muratians may yet prove to be freedom-loving humans much like ourselves." he said optimistically.
Nonetheless many commentators have noted the huge increase in military spending by forces in, and bordering, our hitherto peaceful region, and question whether peace can be maintained in the face of such warlike preparations. The Lorre clan of the Sa'Vasku have reportedly bought a number of heavy ships, and there are confusing reports about the Muratians buying up ex-Chinese aircraft carriers, freighters and most bafflingly, Sa'Vasku Superdreadnaughts. Little is known about the Muratians apart from their naked xenophobia and near-legendary aggression, and while the reported pattern of sales to them does nothing to clear up confusion about their identity, it certain reinforces the widely held concerns about their intentions.
More difficult to interpret are the reports that hitherto unknown agents of a yet to be identified power have bought up an enormous number of ships from the Neue Swabian League's military export authority. These ships, allegedly surplus to NSL requirements, are in fact among the most newly constructed and potent ships ever made by the New Berlin and New Hamburg dockyards, and it is thought that the sales represent a desperate effort by the yards to maintain the production line in the face of the failure of the NSL navy to purchase as many of the new designs as had been expected. Certainly the reported prices of these vessels suggest a buyer's market for these as yet unproven systems. The identity and location of the purchaser remain a mystery, although there has been uninformed speculation that they may be former subject races of the moribund Sa'vasku clan known as the Con-sultants, who have displaced the former occupiers of the worlds held by that clan in our region. It may be some weeks before this can be confirmed.
The UNSC commander was unwilling to go on the record about reports that uniformed men in blue berets had been seen dickering with arms traders for purportedly "surplus" vessels from the NSL shipyards at New Berlin. His spokesman's batman dismissed the idea that the UNSC would depart from its tried and tested designs, even if it went on to an offensive posture.
Friday 20 April 2007
20% off for army surplus
When John and I first discussed this idea, it was from the notion of using it to make it a bit cheaper to buy replacements when things got desperate.
However, it seems to have spawned a bit in people's minds and the position now is that anything which is any existing fleet book design, the UNSC designs already referenced and the "additional" pseudo fleet book designs I referenced in the same post can be used to buy a fleet made completely out of army surplus at the outset. The first fleet actually filed with me was put together on this assumption, so the rest of you should be treated equally.
This has the unfortunate effect of letting people effectively have starting fleets of 5000 pts, something which I actually changed the rules to prevent because it seemed like too many ships.
However, although you're buying them at 20% off, the maintenance bills come due on the actual build cost, something which I am now going to have to spell out to one overly optimistic player who didn't read the rule properly.
However, it seems to have spawned a bit in people's minds and the position now is that anything which is any existing fleet book design, the UNSC designs already referenced and the "additional" pseudo fleet book designs I referenced in the same post can be used to buy a fleet made completely out of army surplus at the outset. The first fleet actually filed with me was put together on this assumption, so the rest of you should be treated equally.
This has the unfortunate effect of letting people effectively have starting fleets of 5000 pts, something which I actually changed the rules to prevent because it seemed like too many ships.
However, although you're buying them at 20% off, the maintenance bills come due on the actual build cost, something which I am now going to have to spell out to one overly optimistic player who didn't read the rule properly.
We have met the enemy and he is you
Early intelligence estimates suggest that there is one confirmed Savasku player in the campaign over and above the lurking Savasku presence presumed to be present among Con's designated worlds. There are ugly rumours that the two clans may be related.
Unfounded rumours suggest that the other occupants of near space include one Kravak civilisation, or perhaps by now they've sold out to the Phalons (communications with this isolated region are poor due to a historic aversion to technology), and a wildly schizophrenic and xenophobic civilisation which may yet prove to be Human, Savasku, Kravak, Phalon, or all four, or something else. For the moment, they're known only as the Muratians.
The UN, as is their habit, are watching this with a mixture of trepidation and numb bewilderment. Reports from Really, Really, Really New New York allege that even now the UN is on a peacetime footing with no sign of a military ship building programme but an endless stream of bureaucratic directives and statements of principle, together with occasional in depth reports into the blindingly obvious. UN Secretary General Kofi Bräk was unavailable for comment. His spokesman promised that some really interesting reports on regional temperature change could be expected as soon as they could be agreed. His spokesman's hairdresser is quoted as saying that the UN will do anything for a quiet life, and hope to see out the coming turmoil without becoming directly involved in anything other than peacekeeping operations.
Unfounded rumours suggest that the other occupants of near space include one Kravak civilisation, or perhaps by now they've sold out to the Phalons (communications with this isolated region are poor due to a historic aversion to technology), and a wildly schizophrenic and xenophobic civilisation which may yet prove to be Human, Savasku, Kravak, Phalon, or all four, or something else. For the moment, they're known only as the Muratians.
The UN, as is their habit, are watching this with a mixture of trepidation and numb bewilderment. Reports from Really, Really, Really New New York allege that even now the UN is on a peacetime footing with no sign of a military ship building programme but an endless stream of bureaucratic directives and statements of principle, together with occasional in depth reports into the blindingly obvious. UN Secretary General Kofi Bräk was unavailable for comment. His spokesman promised that some really interesting reports on regional temperature change could be expected as soon as they could be agreed. His spokesman's hairdresser is quoted as saying that the UN will do anything for a quiet life, and hope to see out the coming turmoil without becoming directly involved in anything other than peacekeeping operations.
System Defences; a superficial analysis
Some of you will, I know, be wondering why initial investments in system defences are so cheap.
It's because they're of very limited utility. On a six, they always fail, no matter how much you've put into them. That's why there's an arbitrary lower limit on the size of force which can be used to enter a system with hostile intent - absent that, a succession of weasel boats would fall on the homeworld turn after turn and on average by the end of turn six, your capital would be in ruins, even if you had system defences which required an entire starting fleet to take on at even odds.
What bigger defences do is make it more likely that an unsuccessful attack will hurt - by raising the size of a fleet needed to attack with impunity and by raising the damage which a defeat will inflict on the unsuccessful attacker. So people will either stop and think about the risk of defeat or they will go in having massed something serious. It's worth keeping in mind that attacking with less than the system's strength gives you a one third chance of a bloody nose versus a one-sixth chance of victory.
The damage inflicted by system defences isn't that heavy either (though poor management can make it a lot worse - there's a lot to be said for planning to move into the system which an enemy fleet might retreat into if defeated - you'll force them into combat before they can do repairs and neglected system defence damage is intentionally simple and nasty). So they shouldn't cost anything like as much as starships, which are capable of moving around, forcing a decision, and above all don't give up the ghost completely on a single dice roll.
It's because they're of very limited utility. On a six, they always fail, no matter how much you've put into them. That's why there's an arbitrary lower limit on the size of force which can be used to enter a system with hostile intent - absent that, a succession of weasel boats would fall on the homeworld turn after turn and on average by the end of turn six, your capital would be in ruins, even if you had system defences which required an entire starting fleet to take on at even odds.
What bigger defences do is make it more likely that an unsuccessful attack will hurt - by raising the size of a fleet needed to attack with impunity and by raising the damage which a defeat will inflict on the unsuccessful attacker. So people will either stop and think about the risk of defeat or they will go in having massed something serious. It's worth keeping in mind that attacking with less than the system's strength gives you a one third chance of a bloody nose versus a one-sixth chance of victory.
The damage inflicted by system defences isn't that heavy either (though poor management can make it a lot worse - there's a lot to be said for planning to move into the system which an enemy fleet might retreat into if defeated - you'll force them into combat before they can do repairs and neglected system defence damage is intentionally simple and nasty). So they shouldn't cost anything like as much as starships, which are capable of moving around, forcing a decision, and above all don't give up the ghost completely on a single dice roll.
Thursday 19 April 2007
The inverse Q ship
John has done even more K gun analysis than I did, and came up with the wonderful idea of using 11 K-1s in place of 2 K-5s. The average damage from the smaller guns is 30% less, but K-1 shoot all round to exactly the same range, so the opportunities actually to do that damage are much better.
I suggested that the logical corollary was to leave the housings for the K-5s in place so that the opponent would assume he was facing a much more powerful and focussed ship, and then blow him apart with your 30% reduced firepower just when he thought he was invulnerable.
I suggested that the logical corollary was to leave the housings for the K-5s in place so that the opponent would assume he was facing a much more powerful and focussed ship, and then blow him apart with your 30% reduced firepower just when he thought he was invulnerable.
K-gun ballistics, the detail
I'm setting out below the basic table for the K-gun. I'd be the first to admit it's not too easy to read, but we need the raw numbers for reference
I show the numbers all the way to K-8 because they underline the point I made earlier; once you get past K-5 the increase in damage for the bigger guns is smaller than the extra whack you will get for installing a K2, for the same weight. Pound for pound, the K3 is the best value for money. It simply makes more sense to stud the ship with K3s than to use smaller numbers of anything larger or larger numbers of anything smaller.
How does this compare to beam weapons?
Here's their ballistic table which includes adjustment for rerolls
As with the graser, it's probably better to compare mass than cost. So one K-1 costs the same mass as two B-1s. Two B-1s do an average of 1.6 hits within 12 inches, quite a bit more than a single K1. On the other other hand, the K-1 keeps on hitting out to 30 inches
A three arc K2 (the number above is for a two arc) weighs as much as 2 B-2s. Out to 12 inches, two B-2s do 3.2 hits, again better than a K-2; out to 24 they do 1.6, still better than a K-2. And then the K2 has six inches where it still does damage and the B-2 can't touch it.
A single arc K3 weighs only one ton more than a single arc B-3 and out performs it almost all the way out to max range
A single arc K4 weighs exactly the same as a single arc B-4 and outperforms it in much the same way as a K3 outperforms the B-3.
The K5 leaves a B-5 in the dust and weighs less.
The moral of the story is that if you want to outshoot a K-gun equipped ship, you need to get in close and put your faith in a lot of light beams. This is a better tactic anyhow, because the closer you get, the harder the Kravak has to turn to get you back into arc, and the more the multiple arcs of your light weapons will work in your favour. The alternative is to place your faith in standing off out of range and hope to chip him to death with very big guns. I'm trying to imagine the kind of ship which could do that, without much success.
I show the numbers all the way to K-8 because they underline the point I made earlier; once you get past K-5 the increase in damage for the bigger guns is smaller than the extra whack you will get for installing a K2, for the same weight. Pound for pound, the K3 is the best value for money. It simply makes more sense to stud the ship with K3s than to use smaller numbers of anything larger or larger numbers of anything smaller.
How does this compare to beam weapons?
Here's their ballistic table which includes adjustment for rerolls
As with the graser, it's probably better to compare mass than cost. So one K-1 costs the same mass as two B-1s. Two B-1s do an average of 1.6 hits within 12 inches, quite a bit more than a single K1. On the other other hand, the K-1 keeps on hitting out to 30 inches
A three arc K2 (the number above is for a two arc) weighs as much as 2 B-2s. Out to 12 inches, two B-2s do 3.2 hits, again better than a K-2; out to 24 they do 1.6, still better than a K-2. And then the K2 has six inches where it still does damage and the B-2 can't touch it.
A single arc K3 weighs only one ton more than a single arc B-3 and out performs it almost all the way out to max range
A single arc K4 weighs exactly the same as a single arc B-4 and outperforms it in much the same way as a K3 outperforms the B-3.
The K5 leaves a B-5 in the dust and weighs less.
The moral of the story is that if you want to outshoot a K-gun equipped ship, you need to get in close and put your faith in a lot of light beams. This is a better tactic anyhow, because the closer you get, the harder the Kravak has to turn to get you back into arc, and the more the multiple arcs of your light weapons will work in your favour. The alternative is to place your faith in standing off out of range and hope to chip him to death with very big guns. I'm trying to imagine the kind of ship which could do that, without much success.
Charted routes and interdiction
Some clarifications
Charted routes work through a combination of the natural curvature of local space and infrastructure in the systems they link. So new routes are unlikely to appear and the planetary governments along the routes have the ability to cut the power to the infrastructure and stop people travelling through. Interdicting fleets also have the ability to disrupt routes by shooting up the infrastructure (any damage is superficial; handwaving explanations on request, the real reason is that I can't be bothered writing yet another set of rules for replacing things you can't afford to fix).
Fleets actually in FTL mode are inaccessible both to fleets in normal space and to other ships using FTL.
A fleet in FTL mode using a charted route which is interdicted for any reason will stop at the last friendly system before the blockage.
Fleets arriving in system using a charted route have a plus 1 on their initiative roll (finally, some point to those routes between neighboring systems!)
Interdiction happens because an attack on a system has failed to result in a decisive outcome one way or the other. It follows that in order to interdict a system, the interdicting player must have had enough strength to mount an attack in the first place. A task force smaller than that is driven off by the planetary defences. A task force smaller than that which quibbles about this rule is blown to bits. By the S'''''wat, if necessary.
Charted routes work through a combination of the natural curvature of local space and infrastructure in the systems they link. So new routes are unlikely to appear and the planetary governments along the routes have the ability to cut the power to the infrastructure and stop people travelling through. Interdicting fleets also have the ability to disrupt routes by shooting up the infrastructure (any damage is superficial; handwaving explanations on request, the real reason is that I can't be bothered writing yet another set of rules for replacing things you can't afford to fix).
Fleets actually in FTL mode are inaccessible both to fleets in normal space and to other ships using FTL.
A fleet in FTL mode using a charted route which is interdicted for any reason will stop at the last friendly system before the blockage.
Fleets arriving in system using a charted route have a plus 1 on their initiative roll (finally, some point to those routes between neighboring systems!)
Interdiction happens because an attack on a system has failed to result in a decisive outcome one way or the other. It follows that in order to interdict a system, the interdicting player must have had enough strength to mount an attack in the first place. A task force smaller than that is driven off by the planetary defences. A task force smaller than that which quibbles about this rule is blown to bits. By the S'''''wat, if necessary.
Re-roll damage
John has done a calculation which gives a correct multiplier for the common FT phenonomenon of the reroll on a 6. The net effect of potentially infinite rerolls on a six is to change the divisor for average damage from 6 to 5. The formula is x/6 + x/6*6 + x/6*6*6 and so on.
Pretty much there's no useful difference between the sum of the probabilities of one 6, two 6s, three 6s and four 6s and the sum of the entire infinity of possible continuous rolls of 6, at just about .2, as opposed to .166666666666666 recurring for a single roll of a six.
This changes the numbers for my comparison of beams and grasers, but because it has equal effects on the numbers, it doesn't change the actual analysis.
It does, however, change my assessment of K-guns versus beams, which looked pretty sick when I didn't take re-roll damage into account. Watch this space for more on K-guns, guaranteed to make you buy a S''''''wat fleet immediately.
Pretty much there's no useful difference between the sum of the probabilities of one 6, two 6s, three 6s and four 6s and the sum of the entire infinity of possible continuous rolls of 6, at just about .2, as opposed to .166666666666666 recurring for a single roll of a six.
This changes the numbers for my comparison of beams and grasers, but because it has equal effects on the numbers, it doesn't change the actual analysis.
It does, however, change my assessment of K-guns versus beams, which looked pretty sick when I didn't take re-roll damage into account. Watch this space for more on K-guns, guaranteed to make you buy a S''''''wat fleet immediately.
Repair
A question has arisen over combat repair, with John arguing for an approach under which anything damaged in combat would be checked on arrival at the next dockyard, and either
a) be given a swift kick and magically spring into life (50% of the time) or
b) cause your docky to suck in his breath sharply and say "that gonna have ta come aht, gov." (the other 50% of the time)
This would include stuff which you didn't manage to do a combat repair on.
From my perspective, if this is what people want, I'd just as soon drop the whole idea of repair, because it's the thin end of the wedge - next thing would be people arguing that combat repair should give you a plus on the dice roll, and then someone else would say a six should automatically make the part clone itself.
More rigorously, the economic model we started from BEGAN with the idea of repairing everything at full cost, and I then worked out the available money to make that possible, but tricky. So halving the cost of repair makes a mess of that idea. It also benefits big ships more than small ships, and one of the original design aims was to give us battles with smaller ships rather than fleets of big over the top megalomobiles.
My own argument on the followthrough to combat repair started from the supposition that it's only possible at all when the system isn't that badly banged up, in which case patching it up properly at the dockyard might involve less than a full replacement. So as I originally wrote the rule, there was a spectrum of results, from no charge up to about 75%. This was then simplified to the current all or nothing approach, which averages out at 50%. In essence it was a bit of a bonus for combat repair which I thought wouldn't do too much damage to the economics of the campaign, since combat repair's not that commonly successful.
While I'm here, a simple piece of news on repair costs; the repair costs of core systems were never made clear; it's one third of the cost of the keel of the ship, in the unlikely event that you ever find yourself in the position of repairing one.
a) be given a swift kick and magically spring into life (50% of the time) or
b) cause your docky to suck in his breath sharply and say "that gonna have ta come aht, gov." (the other 50% of the time)
This would include stuff which you didn't manage to do a combat repair on.
From my perspective, if this is what people want, I'd just as soon drop the whole idea of repair, because it's the thin end of the wedge - next thing would be people arguing that combat repair should give you a plus on the dice roll, and then someone else would say a six should automatically make the part clone itself.
More rigorously, the economic model we started from BEGAN with the idea of repairing everything at full cost, and I then worked out the available money to make that possible, but tricky. So halving the cost of repair makes a mess of that idea. It also benefits big ships more than small ships, and one of the original design aims was to give us battles with smaller ships rather than fleets of big over the top megalomobiles.
My own argument on the followthrough to combat repair started from the supposition that it's only possible at all when the system isn't that badly banged up, in which case patching it up properly at the dockyard might involve less than a full replacement. So as I originally wrote the rule, there was a spectrum of results, from no charge up to about 75%. This was then simplified to the current all or nothing approach, which averages out at 50%. In essence it was a bit of a bonus for combat repair which I thought wouldn't do too much damage to the economics of the campaign, since combat repair's not that commonly successful.
While I'm here, a simple piece of news on repair costs; the repair costs of core systems were never made clear; it's one third of the cost of the keel of the ship, in the unlikely event that you ever find yourself in the position of repairing one.
The Average Taxpayer has just died OR K-Gun ballistics
Because the chance of a hit is the same for any K-Gun at any given range, the only reason for going big is to get more damage when you do hit.
For K-Guns over K-5, there's no pay off in extra damage for extra weight; adding another K-2 will give you more average damage (it's a fraction, but benefits in these things are always marginal) for three mass than going up a size. This is because a class 2 K-Gun adds 16/6 average damage points to your pool, but a K-6 and above adds 11/6 to the pool provided by the next size below it.
So the only reason to use a K5 or above is aesthetic; the model looks like it has BIG guns. And I suppose psychological.
Watch this space for a shoot-off between K and B guns.
For K-Guns over K-5, there's no pay off in extra damage for extra weight; adding another K-2 will give you more average damage (it's a fraction, but benefits in these things are always marginal) for three mass than going up a size. This is because a class 2 K-Gun adds 16/6 average damage points to your pool, but a K-6 and above adds 11/6 to the pool provided by the next size below it.
So the only reason to use a K5 or above is aesthetic; the model looks like it has BIG guns. And I suppose psychological.
Watch this space for a shoot-off between K and B guns.
Leading by example
I will be using the UNSC ships shown at this website UNSC preview. Suitable, since what little I am told suggests that I may be the sole representative of humanity.
Now, no-one can accuse me of guarding my counsel and waiting to see what other people are up to. Step up, preferably by posting a comment to this post.
New version, thanks to good ideas from John, of the getting to know people in new systems rules REVISED RULE.
Sites worth looking at
New Israel Stealth Hulls are not a standard system and cannot be used, full stop.
Japan Hyperspatial Distortion Cannons are not a standard system, but can be used because they're so expensive no-one will bother. If the rest of your fleet is not Japanese, the usual rules on extra costs for weird weapons apply
Outrim Coalition Presented as an example of something you can't have. EMP guns haven't been fully play tested and should not be used.
OUDF presented as an example of something you can have, but probably won't bother with.
Islamic Federation Heavy missiles are something to be discussed before adoption
Atomic rockets If I have to resort to handwaving explanations of why something isn't happening, this is my first port of call
Tough guide And this is my second.
Variant fleetbook stuff I like these designs and the ones on the linked pages - same vanilla, designed by a committee, not really very good at any one thing, feel as the original Fleetbook designs - these all qualify for the 20% discount. I also like his Kravak designs Kallistra Kravaks
Full weapon archive Eddie's favourite site, and definitely not mine. If it only exists on this, it gets used only after either John or I have expressly signed off on it. We are more likely to sign off on anything in green, but sign off willingness will drop off dramatically the more often we're asked. We're pretty unlikely to sign off on anything which isn't green. I should say up front that I don't view most of the green stuff as being fully and exhaustively playtested, largely because too much of it comes from too small a list of originators.
Full Thrust F1 there's a game in this - I might actually prefer it to the campaign at this rate
Ship Registry A lot of the SSDs are disappointing, but they're worth a look to give a sense of what's possible. Don't assume that any of them are approved.
Now, no-one can accuse me of guarding my counsel and waiting to see what other people are up to. Step up, preferably by posting a comment to this post.
New version, thanks to good ideas from John, of the getting to know people in new systems rules REVISED RULE.
Sites worth looking at
New Israel Stealth Hulls are not a standard system and cannot be used, full stop.
Japan Hyperspatial Distortion Cannons are not a standard system, but can be used because they're so expensive no-one will bother. If the rest of your fleet is not Japanese, the usual rules on extra costs for weird weapons apply
Outrim Coalition Presented as an example of something you can't have. EMP guns haven't been fully play tested and should not be used.
OUDF presented as an example of something you can have, but probably won't bother with.
Islamic Federation Heavy missiles are something to be discussed before adoption
Atomic rockets If I have to resort to handwaving explanations of why something isn't happening, this is my first port of call
Tough guide And this is my second.
Variant fleetbook stuff I like these designs and the ones on the linked pages - same vanilla, designed by a committee, not really very good at any one thing, feel as the original Fleetbook designs - these all qualify for the 20% discount. I also like his Kravak designs Kallistra Kravaks
Full weapon archive Eddie's favourite site, and definitely not mine. If it only exists on this, it gets used only after either John or I have expressly signed off on it. We are more likely to sign off on anything in green, but sign off willingness will drop off dramatically the more often we're asked. We're pretty unlikely to sign off on anything which isn't green. I should say up front that I don't view most of the green stuff as being fully and exhaustively playtested, largely because too much of it comes from too small a list of originators.
Full Thrust F1 there's a game in this - I might actually prefer it to the campaign at this rate
Ship Registry A lot of the SSDs are disappointing, but they're worth a look to give a sense of what's possible. Don't assume that any of them are approved.
Wednesday 18 April 2007
New race
I have just designed, for the purpose of forestalling an entire class of arguments, a new character race, the S'''''wat.
S''''''wat ships are built and designed exactly like human ships, and have exactly the same weapons and drives. They have the unique superpower that if any of their beam weapons so much as grazes a stationary non-manuevering target, it instantly disintegrates it. They are consequently impossible to defeat, and must be banned immediately.
If you feel you have well founded concerns about the efficacy of something in the system, ask yourself if it could defeat the S''''''wat. If it can't, it's probably less of a problem than you think it is.
S''''''wat ships are built and designed exactly like human ships, and have exactly the same weapons and drives. They have the unique superpower that if any of their beam weapons so much as grazes a stationary non-manuevering target, it instantly disintegrates it. They are consequently impossible to defeat, and must be banned immediately.
If you feel you have well founded concerns about the efficacy of something in the system, ask yourself if it could defeat the S''''''wat. If it can't, it's probably less of a problem than you think it is.
Drive-by shootings; how the rules constrain them
It has occurred to people that you could beam into a system, shoot up the scenery and/or passing ships and then bug out again, personally untouched by it all.
When making such evil plans, keep these points in mind.
If the hostile fleet leaves, for any reason, the hostile is counted as defeated.
A system only counts as contested or interdicted if there's an undefeated hostile task force in it throughout the turn. Otherwise, it goes right on delivering income to the current owner.
When a fleet leaves a system during combat, it has to specify immediately, without time for thinking about it, where it's going next, and that is where it will in the next strategic turn.
When making such evil plans, keep these points in mind.
If the hostile fleet leaves, for any reason, the hostile is counted as defeated.
A system only counts as contested or interdicted if there's an undefeated hostile task force in it throughout the turn. Otherwise, it goes right on delivering income to the current owner.
When a fleet leaves a system during combat, it has to specify immediately, without time for thinking about it, where it's going next, and that is where it will in the next strategic turn.
But I don't like it that way OR it seemed like a good idea at the time
The GZG boys Fleet Book designs have an innate conservatism and balance which is realistic in some ways while being frustrating in others. They haven't been minimaxed or optimaxed, but rather seem to have been designed by a committee anxious to be able to demonstrate that they put in all the things which might be needed, even if consequently none of them are there in decisive quantity.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the single hangars installed on superdreadnoughts.
Here are a couple of things which you could have instead of a hangar;
Ships in your fleet can be refitted with other weapon systems at your option. Where the new system is of a similar type and of identical mass, this is treated as a repair and billed accordingly. Where the system is a different type or a different mass, add 20% to cost to take account of the structural changes required. Beams, grasers, pulse torpedo launchers and PDS systems are similar types of weapon to each other. Missile launchers are similar to missile racks. And so on. Hangars aren't similar to anything else, but uniquely can simply be replaced with something else (a single something else) at repair cost (not vice versa). Hull boxes are not similar to anything else, for those of you thinking about weakening your hulls to add more systems.
Refitting can never exceed the design weight of the ship. The design weight of the ship is chosen at the point when it is first constructed and cannot be exceeded for any reason subsequently.
It is open to constructors to make the design weight bigger than the actual weight at launch; but drives must be bought for the design weight of the ship, and deliver that performance. For clarity, that means that you can make a ship with a design weight of 100 and and an actual weight of 80; the FTL drive must weigh 10, and the M-drive will weigh 5 for every point of thrust you want to have. If that weight of M-drive would give the ACTUAL build weight of the ship a higher Thrust, this can optionally be used in combat, but the drive will be subjected to a system check whenever it is used at that Thrust.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the single hangars installed on superdreadnoughts.
Here are a couple of things which you could have instead of a hangar;
- a single arc class 4 beam
- a single arc class 2 graser
- a salvo missile launcher with a three round magazine
Ships in your fleet can be refitted with other weapon systems at your option. Where the new system is of a similar type and of identical mass, this is treated as a repair and billed accordingly. Where the system is a different type or a different mass, add 20% to cost to take account of the structural changes required. Beams, grasers, pulse torpedo launchers and PDS systems are similar types of weapon to each other. Missile launchers are similar to missile racks. And so on. Hangars aren't similar to anything else, but uniquely can simply be replaced with something else (a single something else) at repair cost (not vice versa). Hull boxes are not similar to anything else, for those of you thinking about weakening your hulls to add more systems.
Refitting can never exceed the design weight of the ship. The design weight of the ship is chosen at the point when it is first constructed and cannot be exceeded for any reason subsequently.
It is open to constructors to make the design weight bigger than the actual weight at launch; but drives must be bought for the design weight of the ship, and deliver that performance. For clarity, that means that you can make a ship with a design weight of 100 and and an actual weight of 80; the FTL drive must weigh 10, and the M-drive will weigh 5 for every point of thrust you want to have. If that weight of M-drive would give the ACTUAL build weight of the ship a higher Thrust, this can optionally be used in combat, but the drive will be subjected to a system check whenever it is used at that Thrust.
Windshield wipers
For one point per ship, all vessels can be equipped with windshield wipers.
Why risk not being ready for when I wind up having to write rules for rain in space?
Why risk not being ready for when I wind up having to write rules for rain in space?
Tuesday 17 April 2007
Economic turn clarification Revised
Economic turns pay out at the beginning of each cycle of six strategic turns, not at the end.
This has no particular meaning once the game is under way, but it means that you get paid income at the beginning of the very first strategic turn.
And you get to pay maintenance out of it, of course.
This has no particular meaning once the game is under way, but it means that you get paid income at the beginning of the very first strategic turn.
And you get to pay maintenance out of it, of course.
Left over money
Loose cash can be spent on whatever you choose from the beginning of economic turn 2. (When it can be assumed that everyone will be able to claim to their people that they're in a just war).
There is no credit, so if you don't have enough cash to do repairs, they don't happen.
It's entirely up to the players to decide whether they want to use their spare money to buy more ships or to have cash on hand to make major repairs.
There is no credit, so if you don't have enough cash to do repairs, they don't happen.
It's entirely up to the players to decide whether they want to use their spare money to buy more ships or to have cash on hand to make major repairs.
Combat Repair
Because when your combat is broken, you won't have a happy face.
So as to forestall arguments, combat repair attempts end when you a) FTL out of the system or b) send in the marines to mop up after your successful action. Scotty has to go and have a lie down, and the deputy engineers work to rule without his inspiring leadership.
Because otherwise you would claim that you'd spent a whole week making combat repair rolls as you travelled around. I shouldn't have to explain that I'm not remotely patient enough to put up with that.
So as to forestall arguments, combat repair attempts end when you a) FTL out of the system or b) send in the marines to mop up after your successful action. Scotty has to go and have a lie down, and the deputy engineers work to rule without his inspiring leadership.
Because otherwise you would claim that you'd spent a whole week making combat repair rolls as you travelled around. I shouldn't have to explain that I'm not remotely patient enough to put up with that.
Focus
People, I need some sense of who's in play. That lets me think about what might be a problem for other players and prepare to defend any unwelcome news I might have to deliver. So if you could all get back to me with a commitment to some tribe or other ASAP, I'd appreciate it.
Just to get the available time into perspective, I've got an hour or so tomorrow, and some time on Thursday, and a little more on Sunday morning - assuming I'm able to get out of bed after Saturday's 20 hour day, that is.
Anything which can't be dealt with in that time will have to be dealt with on Monday evening, very possibly not to everyone's joy and satisfaction.
Just to get the available time into perspective, I've got an hour or so tomorrow, and some time on Thursday, and a little more on Sunday morning - assuming I'm able to get out of bed after Saturday's 20 hour day, that is.
Anything which can't be dealt with in that time will have to be dealt with on Monday evening, very possibly not to everyone's joy and satisfaction.
Savasku, and the need to start every day with a healthy breakfast
There is probably an irresistible temptation for Savasku players to claim that anything shot off or used up grows back.
Luckily, I'm here to meet that temptation by saying, yeah, right, sure, from what?
Damaged biomass costs 2 pts to replace, just like it cost to build in the first place.
Expended biomass costs 1 pt to replace, on the grounds that it's more similar to expended munitions in other people's ships.
The armwaving rationalisation for this is that there's quite a difference between having a crap and having a colostomy.
This is a volume control issue as much as anything; a solution designed to keep the howling noises in my right and left ears at similar and roughly tolerable levels.
There have been some other thoughts about Savasku, and there will doubtless be more thoughts about Phalons in due course.
To all of this I say, as calmly as lies within me, Kravak, Savasku and Phalons were exhaustively playtested by the original designers and will be assumed to be balanced until someone shows me a complete wipeout which cannot be attributed to ineptitude.
Selah
Luckily, I'm here to meet that temptation by saying, yeah, right, sure, from what?
Damaged biomass costs 2 pts to replace, just like it cost to build in the first place.
Expended biomass costs 1 pt to replace, on the grounds that it's more similar to expended munitions in other people's ships.
The armwaving rationalisation for this is that there's quite a difference between having a crap and having a colostomy.
This is a volume control issue as much as anything; a solution designed to keep the howling noises in my right and left ears at similar and roughly tolerable levels.
There have been some other thoughts about Savasku, and there will doubtless be more thoughts about Phalons in due course.
To all of this I say, as calmly as lies within me, Kravak, Savasku and Phalons were exhaustively playtested by the original designers and will be assumed to be balanced until someone shows me a complete wipeout which cannot be attributed to ineptitude.
Selah
Logistics ships
Players can construct freighters from any available capital in order to move pre-positioned parts or other useful things (like fighters) from one place to another. Such ships do not count against the initial 4000 pt cap on military vessel construction, as long as they are not armed with anything more than 1 PDS or class 1 beam per 10 hull boxes.
Freighters can be as stupidly big as you choose. If they're big enough, they can carry actual starships. Mind you, if someone does this, they've either won or they're about to lose.
Subsequent conversion of cargo spaces into fighter hangers or weapons racks costs 20% more than normal (because the engines cannae take it without extra strengthening brackets).
Freighters don't manoeuvre better when they're empty than when they're full. It wouldn't be economical.
Freighters can be as stupidly big as you choose. If they're big enough, they can carry actual starships. Mind you, if someone does this, they've either won or they're about to lose.
Subsequent conversion of cargo spaces into fighter hangers or weapons racks costs 20% more than normal (because the engines cannae take it without extra strengthening brackets).
Freighters don't manoeuvre better when they're empty than when they're full. It wouldn't be economical.
Oceanic Union Defence Forces and the Islamic Federation
Both fleets use modular weapons fits which can readily be swapped out. These should be costed as ship construction, not spare parts. So they count towards your 4000 pt cap on initial ship construction. They do not attract maintenance costs while not in use. They have to be placed in pre-designated locations. It takes a week to swap in a module. You can't swap two modules into a ship at the same time. Where the simplified fleet rule for maintenance is being used, the benefit is not suspended simply because module swaps have led to more than five distinct ship types, so as long as no more than five hull designs are being used at any one time.
Bugging out; when bad things happen to inept people
We've just addressed the time between arrival and combat.
It's unlikely that people are often going to arrive under fire, but in most cases, someone's going to leave under fire.
It's unlikely that people are often going to arrive under fire, but in most cases, someone's going to leave under fire.
- Standard rules for FTL'ing out apply. Executive summary, six inch spacing between ships, no use of manoeuvre drive and no weapons fired during the run-up to departure.
- Immediately write down your destination; that's where you're going to be in a week. You're going to want to think hard about whether you announce this before everyone else has written down their strategic move.
- You arrive at your destination travelling in the same formation, spacing and speed that you had when you left the last hell hole.
- This could conceivably be pretty horrible.
Travel to distant exotic suns, meet interesting people, assimilate their cultures Revised
Revised text in red
Strategic turns take a week. Battles take minutes. I hadn't overlooked this, but there's only so much I can fit into the outline rules before they look like ASL and everyone goes to play Chez Geek, including me.
Since space is big, it is assumed that ships arrive in system and stooge around trying to figure out what's happening. Eventually they get around to trying to kill each other. Isn't it terrible how people can't get along?
Before a move is made into a system, record your formation, speed and your tactical posture.
Formation can include breaking your task group into smaller subgroups. On the one hand, the opportunity to get on both sides of the enemy. On the other, the chance to get defeated in detail. It's really up to you
Tactical postures are Attack Standoff or Withdraw If Contested. Any fleets on Attack orders are committed to attack as soon as a target is detected. Fleets on Standoff do not attack, but can be attacked. If all fleets are on Standoff, each player chooses a fresh tactical posture secretly, repeating as necessary until one way or another the system has no more than one fleet in it. Alternatively, players can leave their fleets in place in standoff mode at the end of the turn. On the one hand, you'll interdict the system. On the other hand, you'll still be in that system next turn.
Fleets on Withdraw if Contested bug out as soon as they detect opposition but will pick up some data on what's there.
All fleets in a system dice for initiative. Highest initiative is assumed to have arrived first. Maybe it was a bank holiday for everyone else that week (just in case sarcasm isn't enough, I don't really care why someone shows up first, and don't want anyone else to try to make me). Player with the initiative gets half the difference (rounded down) in the dice rolls to use in making his initial dispositions more useful to him.
Anyone rolling a 1 arrives from FTL and has to put up with being in formation 6 inches apart from the moment of arrival. Don't roll 1, would be my advice.
Top of the table (Brian's end, if that helps), is equivalent to top of the campaign map. The bottom is equivalent to the bottom. Task forces enter the table from the side equivalent to the hex side they move through to enter the hex on the campaign map.
Those surplus initiative points can be used either to split the force, regroup split groups, close up from FTL formation or move point of entry around the the table from where it should have entered. On that last option, if you entered the system from the top hex side and beat the low roller by two, you have the option of coming in from either the top of the table or either of the top halves of the long sides. If you beat him by five, you can come in on any side except the one directly opposite your original entry point, and doing so in combat formation instead of FTL formation. And so on.
Fleets face each other. (It is assumed that task force commanders are not completely retarded.)
Strategic turns take a week. Battles take minutes. I hadn't overlooked this, but there's only so much I can fit into the outline rules before they look like ASL and everyone goes to play Chez Geek, including me.
Since space is big, it is assumed that ships arrive in system and stooge around trying to figure out what's happening. Eventually they get around to trying to kill each other. Isn't it terrible how people can't get along?
Before a move is made into a system, record your formation, speed and your tactical posture.
Formation can include breaking your task group into smaller subgroups. On the one hand, the opportunity to get on both sides of the enemy. On the other, the chance to get defeated in detail. It's really up to you
Tactical postures are Attack Standoff or Withdraw If Contested. Any fleets on Attack orders are committed to attack as soon as a target is detected. Fleets on Standoff do not attack, but can be attacked. If all fleets are on Standoff, each player chooses a fresh tactical posture secretly, repeating as necessary until one way or another the system has no more than one fleet in it. Alternatively, players can leave their fleets in place in standoff mode at the end of the turn. On the one hand, you'll interdict the system. On the other hand, you'll still be in that system next turn.
Fleets on Withdraw if Contested bug out as soon as they detect opposition but will pick up some data on what's there.
All fleets in a system dice for initiative. Highest initiative is assumed to have arrived first. Maybe it was a bank holiday for everyone else that week (just in case sarcasm isn't enough, I don't really care why someone shows up first, and don't want anyone else to try to make me). Player with the initiative gets half the difference (rounded down) in the dice rolls to use in making his initial dispositions more useful to him.
Anyone rolling a 1 arrives from FTL and has to put up with being in formation 6 inches apart from the moment of arrival. Don't roll 1, would be my advice.
Top of the table (Brian's end, if that helps), is equivalent to top of the campaign map. The bottom is equivalent to the bottom. Task forces enter the table from the side equivalent to the hex side they move through to enter the hex on the campaign map.
Those surplus initiative points can be used either to split the force, regroup split groups, close up from FTL formation or move point of entry around the the table from where it should have entered. On that last option, if you entered the system from the top hex side and beat the low roller by two, you have the option of coming in from either the top of the table or either of the top halves of the long sides. If you beat him by five, you can come in on any side except the one directly opposite your original entry point, and doing so in combat formation instead of FTL formation. And so on.
Fleets face each other. (It is assumed that task force commanders are not completely retarded.)
Allies
Your attention is directed to Campaign Rule 13. No-one can be allied outside their own species
Gentlemen, start your engines
Campaign will go live on Monday evening 23 April 2007.
Practical implications
1. Those of you who haven't notified fleets by then will be presumed to have adopted pacifism for the moment and will defend planets with Inherent Defence Factors, the fleet being mothballed as a relic of a bygone age of violence and insanity. The Savasku are considered to be a) scary and b) aloof from the affairs of others, so we can live with the notion of them not stirring for the moment; however, after a certain amount of time , their civilisation may fall prey to cosmic sniffles or something and their worlds be occupied by more energetic races.
2. It seems only fair that everyone should have some sense of at least what species the neighbours are, so I'd be grateful if people could notify by return their chosen species/affiliation and ally/sponsor. This will go public on the blog.
3. As soon as practical thereafter, notify fleets to me; this will not go public, but the more lead time I have to go over them, the more likely it will be that Monday will be a happy evening of people going "well here's me" and no-one else grumbling about fleet comps, points costs, illegal weapons and all that other stuff which people complain about.
4. The plan is to do a full economic turn on Monday evening. This may, or may not, involve actual battles.
5. Rules changes to the campaign rules;
Practical implications
1. Those of you who haven't notified fleets by then will be presumed to have adopted pacifism for the moment and will defend planets with Inherent Defence Factors, the fleet being mothballed as a relic of a bygone age of violence and insanity. The Savasku are considered to be a) scary and b) aloof from the affairs of others, so we can live with the notion of them not stirring for the moment; however, after a certain amount of time , their civilisation may fall prey to cosmic sniffles or something and their worlds be occupied by more energetic races.
2. It seems only fair that everyone should have some sense of at least what species the neighbours are, so I'd be grateful if people could notify by return their chosen species/affiliation and ally/sponsor. This will go public on the blog.
3. As soon as practical thereafter, notify fleets to me; this will not go public, but the more lead time I have to go over them, the more likely it will be that Monday will be a happy evening of people going "well here's me" and no-one else grumbling about fleet comps, points costs, illegal weapons and all that other stuff which people complain about.
4. The plan is to do a full economic turn on Monday evening. This may, or may not, involve actual battles.
5. Rules changes to the campaign rules;
- Formal version will go up shortly, but the gist of it is that expendable items will be billed at 50% of original build price, over and above my already exorbitant maintenance fees.
- The attention of players is drawn to rule 10.6 concerning interdiction of systems. It is possible, albeit risky, to put a small force into a planetary system and prevent its rightful owner from benefiting from its income. How unsporting that would be. I'm sure the idea would never have occurred to you.
- When constructing new ships, the first week's construction must specify the designed mass of the ship and its vessel type. In subsequent weeks, the building player should notify the umpire what's been built in each ship. Changes to construction already completed will be billed under Rule 16. Thus, you can change your battleship into a carrier or alter the weapons fit of a destroyer at the last minute, but it will cost you.
Monday 16 April 2007
Grasers; simplified cost benefit analysis
Grasers are heavy and expensive.
The smallest size costs 3 mass and 12 pts, the same as three class 1 beams in weight and 4 in cost terms. And that's with a three arc, not all round. All round would be 4 mass and 16 pts
Class 2 grasers cost 9 tons and 36 points for a single arc. A three arc class 2 beam costs 2 mass and 6 points. You could get four of them in mass terms and six in cost terms, although a class 3 beam is probably a more accurate comparison because the max range of a class 3 beam is the same as the max range of a class 2 graser and the arc is the same. Class 3 beams cost 4 mass and 12 pts. So two for the price of a graser in weight, three in money.
Class 3 grasers cost 24 mass and and 96 pts. For the same mass you can have 6 class 3 beams, or 3 class 4. Or 12 class 2, if all you want is tubes rather than range. If mass is no object, you can have 8 class 3 beams or 4 class 4 beams. The graser outranges either of them.
Interestingly, the weapons are directly comparable in damage terms, because they hit in the same way. For each die you roll, a graser does 2⅓ points of damage on average and a beam does ⅔ of a point, in both cases disregarding "burnthrough" damage from rerolls following a six. (Just trying to figure out what that might be makes my ears bleed).
So how do they compare? First thing to keep in mind is that weight comparisons are more valid than points comparisons, because taking a greater weight of weapons for the same apparent points cost will have knock on effects in drives and everything else (so you're paying stealth points later).
Within 12"
Class 1 grasers roll one die and the same weight of class 1 beams (or of a mix of class 2 and class 1 beams) will roll three, doing two points of damage on average, or a little less than the graser; the same points cost of beams will do exactly the same damage.
Class 2 grasers roll 2 dice and the same weight of class 2 beams roll 8 dice. On average 4⅔ for grasers damage vs 5⅓ for beams. The same weight of class 3 beams gives only six dice for an average of 4 points, but this is balanced by better range.
Class 3 grasers roll 3 dice, doing 7 points of damage on average; 12 class 2 beams would roll 24 to do 16, 6 class 3 beams would roll 18 to do 12 and 3 class 4 beams would roll 12 to do 8.
Within 24"
Class 2 grasers roll one die. The same weight of class 2 or 3 beams rolls 4 dice. Beams have a slight edge in damage done.
Class 3 grasers roll 2 dice. The same weight of class 2 or 3 beams rolls 12; beams have a decisive advantage here with an average of 8 points of damage vs 4⅔ for the graser
Within 36"
Class 2 grasers still roll one die. The same weight of Class 3 beams rolls 2. The grasers have a slight edge in damage done. (2⅓ to 2)
Class 3 grasers roll two dice = 4⅔; the same weight of Class 3 or 4 beams rolls six = 4
Within 48"
Class 3 grasers roll one die (2⅓); class 4 beams roll 3 (2)
Within 54"
Class 3 grasers can still hurt you....
It's actually worse than it looks for the grasers, because i've made no allowance for the differing arcs of class 2 beams and class 2 grasers. However, the longer range bands of the grasers give some sneaky edges on the margins, and class 1 grasers definitely outclass class 1 beams from that perspective. Whether they're better than a class 2 beam is a tough call to make.
What's interesting is that if you use the graser at the limits of its range, it's a little more cost effective than the competition; but inside that range, the same weight of beams is more effective, sometimes devastatingly so. The graser is a weapon for standing off from the enemy, not closing.
The high mass and cost of the system is reflected in the cost of UNSC ships, the main users. If you saw a Lake class with the mass equivalent in beams of its graser load, you'd think you were facing a light cruiser; it would have 4 (!) class two batteries and a class one.
The smallest size costs 3 mass and 12 pts, the same as three class 1 beams in weight and 4 in cost terms. And that's with a three arc, not all round. All round would be 4 mass and 16 pts
Class 2 grasers cost 9 tons and 36 points for a single arc. A three arc class 2 beam costs 2 mass and 6 points. You could get four of them in mass terms and six in cost terms, although a class 3 beam is probably a more accurate comparison because the max range of a class 3 beam is the same as the max range of a class 2 graser and the arc is the same. Class 3 beams cost 4 mass and 12 pts. So two for the price of a graser in weight, three in money.
Class 3 grasers cost 24 mass and and 96 pts. For the same mass you can have 6 class 3 beams, or 3 class 4. Or 12 class 2, if all you want is tubes rather than range. If mass is no object, you can have 8 class 3 beams or 4 class 4 beams. The graser outranges either of them.
Interestingly, the weapons are directly comparable in damage terms, because they hit in the same way. For each die you roll, a graser does 2⅓ points of damage on average and a beam does ⅔ of a point, in both cases disregarding "burnthrough" damage from rerolls following a six. (Just trying to figure out what that might be makes my ears bleed).
So how do they compare? First thing to keep in mind is that weight comparisons are more valid than points comparisons, because taking a greater weight of weapons for the same apparent points cost will have knock on effects in drives and everything else (so you're paying stealth points later).
Within 12"
Class 1 grasers roll one die and the same weight of class 1 beams (or of a mix of class 2 and class 1 beams) will roll three, doing two points of damage on average, or a little less than the graser; the same points cost of beams will do exactly the same damage.
Class 2 grasers roll 2 dice and the same weight of class 2 beams roll 8 dice. On average 4⅔ for grasers damage vs 5⅓ for beams. The same weight of class 3 beams gives only six dice for an average of 4 points, but this is balanced by better range.
Class 3 grasers roll 3 dice, doing 7 points of damage on average; 12 class 2 beams would roll 24 to do 16, 6 class 3 beams would roll 18 to do 12 and 3 class 4 beams would roll 12 to do 8.
Within 24"
Class 2 grasers roll one die. The same weight of class 2 or 3 beams rolls 4 dice. Beams have a slight edge in damage done.
Class 3 grasers roll 2 dice. The same weight of class 2 or 3 beams rolls 12; beams have a decisive advantage here with an average of 8 points of damage vs 4⅔ for the graser
Within 36"
Class 2 grasers still roll one die. The same weight of Class 3 beams rolls 2. The grasers have a slight edge in damage done. (2⅓ to 2)
Class 3 grasers roll two dice = 4⅔; the same weight of Class 3 or 4 beams rolls six = 4
Within 48"
Class 3 grasers roll one die (2⅓); class 4 beams roll 3 (2)
Within 54"
Class 3 grasers can still hurt you....
It's actually worse than it looks for the grasers, because i've made no allowance for the differing arcs of class 2 beams and class 2 grasers. However, the longer range bands of the grasers give some sneaky edges on the margins, and class 1 grasers definitely outclass class 1 beams from that perspective. Whether they're better than a class 2 beam is a tough call to make.
What's interesting is that if you use the graser at the limits of its range, it's a little more cost effective than the competition; but inside that range, the same weight of beams is more effective, sometimes devastatingly so. The graser is a weapon for standing off from the enemy, not closing.
The high mass and cost of the system is reflected in the cost of UNSC ships, the main users. If you saw a Lake class with the mass equivalent in beams of its graser load, you'd think you were facing a light cruiser; it would have 4 (!) class two batteries and a class one.
Big versus small
These thoughts may or may not get tested out tonight. Consider a typical SDN, which will have something between 50 and 70 hull boxes and cost on the order of 600 to 700 points - as much as six destroyers, which typically have 9-12 hull boxes apiece.
With average luck, an SDN can bug out of an engagement having taken between 25 and 35 hits and still be salavageable, and with good luck (all you have to do is get lucky with the FTL drive) as many as 40 to 60 hits. Repair cost of the hull boxes will not top 120 pts. Repair of the systems lost is harder to quantify but it's probably not insane to suggest that on a big ship you'll lose about the same points worth of stuff as you lose of hull; systems cost 3 pts a ton on average, and you'll lose one system in six for the first row of hull boxes, one in three for the second, and you really ought to be thinking about leaving before you get to losing one in two. So a big SDN on a bad day could take about 60 hits and cost you 240-300 pts in repairs. The same damage to a fleet of destroyers is going to take out 5 or six of them, and cost you 500-600 pts in reconstruction.
Suddenly, big ships start to look like more economically sustainable than small ones. The question remains whether in skilled hands, more numerous and agile small ships can do enough extra damage to make up for that. Small ships have a decisive advantage in close range firefights; for any given points total, the little guys can put more dice on the table than the big guys - in close. The flip side is that they're a wasting asset - every turn, you have fewer of them.
Unless you're so good that you can put your small ships into the other guy's six and deny him a firing solution. If you could be sure of that, then you're not losing whole frigates or destroyers at the same speed that he's losing chunks of hull, and then you have a chance of - for example - completely destroying 600 points worth of SDN for the cost of only three or four destroyers or frigates.
Mind you, for a light vessel to have any chance of thinking this way, you need a vessel with a very authoritative weapon system. Which is where K guns and grasers come in. K Guns in particular. I've been thinking about grasers and will put another post up about their comparative effectiveness shortly; simply put, the big ones are potentially very dangerous at long range compared to the competition, but at close range, the same mass of large beams will give you more punch for less cash. What I haven't figured out is whether small ones are worth the money.
With average luck, an SDN can bug out of an engagement having taken between 25 and 35 hits and still be salavageable, and with good luck (all you have to do is get lucky with the FTL drive) as many as 40 to 60 hits. Repair cost of the hull boxes will not top 120 pts. Repair of the systems lost is harder to quantify but it's probably not insane to suggest that on a big ship you'll lose about the same points worth of stuff as you lose of hull; systems cost 3 pts a ton on average, and you'll lose one system in six for the first row of hull boxes, one in three for the second, and you really ought to be thinking about leaving before you get to losing one in two. So a big SDN on a bad day could take about 60 hits and cost you 240-300 pts in repairs. The same damage to a fleet of destroyers is going to take out 5 or six of them, and cost you 500-600 pts in reconstruction.
Suddenly, big ships start to look like more economically sustainable than small ones. The question remains whether in skilled hands, more numerous and agile small ships can do enough extra damage to make up for that. Small ships have a decisive advantage in close range firefights; for any given points total, the little guys can put more dice on the table than the big guys - in close. The flip side is that they're a wasting asset - every turn, you have fewer of them.
Unless you're so good that you can put your small ships into the other guy's six and deny him a firing solution. If you could be sure of that, then you're not losing whole frigates or destroyers at the same speed that he's losing chunks of hull, and then you have a chance of - for example - completely destroying 600 points worth of SDN for the cost of only three or four destroyers or frigates.
Mind you, for a light vessel to have any chance of thinking this way, you need a vessel with a very authoritative weapon system. Which is where K guns and grasers come in. K Guns in particular. I've been thinking about grasers and will put another post up about their comparative effectiveness shortly; simply put, the big ones are potentially very dangerous at long range compared to the competition, but at close range, the same mass of large beams will give you more punch for less cash. What I haven't figured out is whether small ones are worth the money.
Thursday 12 April 2007
Turns. The ugly, expensive option
In FT, turns are always 1/12th of a circle. Eddie made the forceful point the other night that everyone should be turning in the same reference frame, so that every ship heading is an exact multiple of 30 degrees off the long axis of the table, for example. It's a good idea, except that the square pieces of the table aren't ever squared up to each other and it's hard to measure the offsets satisfactorily.
I think we can get a part fix with a big-gish 30/60/90 triangle; lay it alongside the ship with one side pointing straight ahead, and then move the ship down the other side. I will try to make up a couple of these about a foot long between now and Monday evening.
The other thing I can think of - the expensive option - is a hex cloth. Not to measure moves on directly, but to provide a reference frame. So your ship will always be lined up either with a hex spine or the nearest hex side, making it clear what the headings are and simpliflying arguments over arcs.
Hex cloths are not, however, all that cheap. So I'm inclined to throw aesthetics to the wind a bit and suggest that it makes more economic sense to buy them in blue so that they can be used for air and naval games as well.
Might be something to look out for at Salute
I think we can get a part fix with a big-gish 30/60/90 triangle; lay it alongside the ship with one side pointing straight ahead, and then move the ship down the other side. I will try to make up a couple of these about a foot long between now and Monday evening.
The other thing I can think of - the expensive option - is a hex cloth. Not to measure moves on directly, but to provide a reference frame. So your ship will always be lined up either with a hex spine or the nearest hex side, making it clear what the headings are and simpliflying arguments over arcs.
Hex cloths are not, however, all that cheap. So I'm inclined to throw aesthetics to the wind a bit and suggest that it makes more economic sense to buy them in blue so that they can be used for air and naval games as well.
Might be something to look out for at Salute
UNSC ships
Here is a pretty typical UNSC ship type from the website UNSC Preview which until recently was a direct link from GZG. Key things to note are the use of the graser weapon system and the three rather than four rows of hull boxes.
Having only three rows of hull boxes costs 3 per box instead of 2 per box. It's open to question whether this has been fully tested out, but the principal benfit is to make it take a little bit longer to get to threshold checks. Kind of academic with light vessels, which usually get blown right out of the sky too quickly for system degradation to be an issue. With this Lake Mk III it's the difference between a first row of three and then three rows of two, and the three rows you see. Pretty marginal with such a weak hull in the first place.
Also note the slightly mad false economy of a single fire control for four weapon systems. Anyone using this thing full time would be thinking about junking one of the PDS systems or one of the beam turrets to get a bit of redundancy in fire control. That said, you're probably going to be seeing a lot of Lake Mk IIIs, and it seems only fair to direct you to the source materials. It's fiddly enough putting in ship diagrams that I'm probably mostly going to direct you to the websites with them.
Having only three rows of hull boxes costs 3 per box instead of 2 per box. It's open to question whether this has been fully tested out, but the principal benfit is to make it take a little bit longer to get to threshold checks. Kind of academic with light vessels, which usually get blown right out of the sky too quickly for system degradation to be an issue. With this Lake Mk III it's the difference between a first row of three and then three rows of two, and the three rows you see. Pretty marginal with such a weak hull in the first place.
Also note the slightly mad false economy of a single fire control for four weapon systems. Anyone using this thing full time would be thinking about junking one of the PDS systems or one of the beam turrets to get a bit of redundancy in fire control. That said, you're probably going to be seeing a lot of Lake Mk IIIs, and it seems only fair to direct you to the source materials. It's fiddly enough putting in ship diagrams that I'm probably mostly going to direct you to the websites with them.
Wednesday 11 April 2007
After Action thoughts; four way battle of 10 April 07
John asked me to post the rules, so I have just done that. I'd like to have posted them as an attachment, but I can't figure out how to attach text documents. Pictures seem to be fine and so do links, so most of the time we're sorted out on that.
Next; some thoughts on the effort last night, because it throws up a couple of things which need to be thunk about.
Firstly, and obviously, four unconnected forces doesn't make for much of a game, but then that's what putting in place a campaign was all about. However, since Eddie - at least - wants to tinker some more with tactical concepts before committing himself to actual force composition, we may well see ourselves doing another fight of that kind before the campaign proper.
In an email to all of you I've already sketched out what I think THOSE battles ought to be like; they should be grounded more in the problems the campaign will throw up, and they should reduce the action to two sides, since FT doesn't work well with more that two sides.
Fleshing that out; the next exploratory game will have the following very loose scenario.
Each player brings a force which he considers adequate to the task of subduing a neutral system in the face of possible intervention from other players. Two things to keep in mind in putting this force together; Firstly you're working within the campaign's overall force limits of 4000 pts, and this is what you're sending to deal with a neutral. Secondly, the defence strengths of a neutral world in most cases will be below 105, so a force of more than 1100 pts will be overkill for planet busting.
Once the players are on table, they're paired up; largest with smallest, two middle players together. If there are only three players, largest goes up against the two smaller players together. In any case the system defences are thrown in on the side of the overall smallest force if there's still a serious imbalance.
From a purely hardheaded point of view, there's no point in thumping a neutral planet unless you generate more income from it than you're going to lose fixing up your fleet after you take it. Although there's always the thought that if you can ensure that someone else has taken even more damage - and thus become less of a threat - there's a profit in that as well.
With those thoughts in mind, take a look at the fight between Colin and myself.
I sent in 16 vessels and brought out 8 intact. On the one hand, everything which came out came out almost undamaged; on the other hand I lost both the heavy units entirely.
Colin lost all his lights and two heavies and only had ten hull boxes left on his three surviving heavies.
I came out facing a serious replacement bill, but almost no repairs were needed. The replacement bill was for more than 1000 - in effect, I was never going to replace the heavies in the course of the campaign, but the survivors were still a force in being, and could take on a similar sized force with a good chance of making a fight of it.
Colin had a small enough replacement bill, but all of his survivors needed to seriously repaired. Without seeing his list, I don't know just what was going to be involved, but actually, I'd be surprised if his actual economic cost of the battle was any higher than mine. The real difference was that the survivors were no longer combat capable. In fact, if he hadn't bugged out when he did, my survivors would have taken him out with the next round of combat.
I don't know that there are actually lessons learned here, but one thing which strikes me is that a big ship can hand you a big repair bill, but it's still cheaper over all to fix a big ship than to replace an equivalent points cost of small ones outright. When you replace a ship outright you pay for everything; when you repair a ship, you don't have to buy the hull all over again or any of the stuff you forgot to break.
This argues for either smallish ships which will be painless to replace, or large ships which are too big to knock out in the course of a cost effective engagement. If that's right, cruisers of all weights start to look like a bad idea; you're just too likely to lose them outright in a serious fight.
That said, how many really serious ships can you afford in the context of a 4000 pt fleet? My sketchy guess is that anything below 500 points is going to get blown to bits; my two UN heavies were about 300 points each and they fell apart in the space of two rounds of combat apiece.
Which leads me to what killed them.
Kravak K-guns are genuinely worrying things, and much though I hate to say this, if we're going to see them in heavy use, we're going to have to get more rigorous about fire arcs and turning arcs. The weapons are perfectly balanced in a world where a narrow firing arc means something. In our somewhat sloppier implementation, not so much.
MKPs - in the correct FB2 version - do an average of 2 2/3 points per shot out to 12". SMPs are not quite that good; they average 2 points at close range (6") 1 1/3 pts at medium (12") and 2/3 pt at long (18"). (It's too fiddly to work out the additional damage from hits on a 6, but I'd be surprised if it adds more than a half point at close range)
K Guns (and to be honest, most really heavy weapons of all kinds) are going to need us to get more serious about turning arcs. Thoughts on how to measure 1/12 of a circle easily are welcome.
MKPs and SMPs are a one shot weapon, and as such completely balanced as things stand (the MKP is more potent than an SMP, but on the other hand Kravak have no missiles or other long range weapons, so this is fair enough). My one concern with them is that logistically, expendable ordnance systems ought to be more of a chore to keep supplied than energy weapons. So I find myself considering the introduction of bills for expendable ordnance, if I can think of a way which is fair and doesn't involve crazy book keeping. At the moment, 1 credit for every shot seems fair; it's between a quarter and a third of the cost of replacing the entire system and it's easy enough to keep track of.
Next; some thoughts on the effort last night, because it throws up a couple of things which need to be thunk about.
Firstly, and obviously, four unconnected forces doesn't make for much of a game, but then that's what putting in place a campaign was all about. However, since Eddie - at least - wants to tinker some more with tactical concepts before committing himself to actual force composition, we may well see ourselves doing another fight of that kind before the campaign proper.
In an email to all of you I've already sketched out what I think THOSE battles ought to be like; they should be grounded more in the problems the campaign will throw up, and they should reduce the action to two sides, since FT doesn't work well with more that two sides.
Fleshing that out; the next exploratory game will have the following very loose scenario.
Each player brings a force which he considers adequate to the task of subduing a neutral system in the face of possible intervention from other players. Two things to keep in mind in putting this force together; Firstly you're working within the campaign's overall force limits of 4000 pts, and this is what you're sending to deal with a neutral. Secondly, the defence strengths of a neutral world in most cases will be below 105, so a force of more than 1100 pts will be overkill for planet busting.
Once the players are on table, they're paired up; largest with smallest, two middle players together. If there are only three players, largest goes up against the two smaller players together. In any case the system defences are thrown in on the side of the overall smallest force if there's still a serious imbalance.
From a purely hardheaded point of view, there's no point in thumping a neutral planet unless you generate more income from it than you're going to lose fixing up your fleet after you take it. Although there's always the thought that if you can ensure that someone else has taken even more damage - and thus become less of a threat - there's a profit in that as well.
With those thoughts in mind, take a look at the fight between Colin and myself.
I sent in 16 vessels and brought out 8 intact. On the one hand, everything which came out came out almost undamaged; on the other hand I lost both the heavy units entirely.
Colin lost all his lights and two heavies and only had ten hull boxes left on his three surviving heavies.
I came out facing a serious replacement bill, but almost no repairs were needed. The replacement bill was for more than 1000 - in effect, I was never going to replace the heavies in the course of the campaign, but the survivors were still a force in being, and could take on a similar sized force with a good chance of making a fight of it.
Colin had a small enough replacement bill, but all of his survivors needed to seriously repaired. Without seeing his list, I don't know just what was going to be involved, but actually, I'd be surprised if his actual economic cost of the battle was any higher than mine. The real difference was that the survivors were no longer combat capable. In fact, if he hadn't bugged out when he did, my survivors would have taken him out with the next round of combat.
I don't know that there are actually lessons learned here, but one thing which strikes me is that a big ship can hand you a big repair bill, but it's still cheaper over all to fix a big ship than to replace an equivalent points cost of small ones outright. When you replace a ship outright you pay for everything; when you repair a ship, you don't have to buy the hull all over again or any of the stuff you forgot to break.
This argues for either smallish ships which will be painless to replace, or large ships which are too big to knock out in the course of a cost effective engagement. If that's right, cruisers of all weights start to look like a bad idea; you're just too likely to lose them outright in a serious fight.
That said, how many really serious ships can you afford in the context of a 4000 pt fleet? My sketchy guess is that anything below 500 points is going to get blown to bits; my two UN heavies were about 300 points each and they fell apart in the space of two rounds of combat apiece.
Which leads me to what killed them.
Kravak K-guns are genuinely worrying things, and much though I hate to say this, if we're going to see them in heavy use, we're going to have to get more rigorous about fire arcs and turning arcs. The weapons are perfectly balanced in a world where a narrow firing arc means something. In our somewhat sloppier implementation, not so much.
MKPs - in the correct FB2 version - do an average of 2 2/3 points per shot out to 12". SMPs are not quite that good; they average 2 points at close range (6") 1 1/3 pts at medium (12") and 2/3 pt at long (18"). (It's too fiddly to work out the additional damage from hits on a 6, but I'd be surprised if it adds more than a half point at close range)
K Guns (and to be honest, most really heavy weapons of all kinds) are going to need us to get more serious about turning arcs. Thoughts on how to measure 1/12 of a circle easily are welcome.
MKPs and SMPs are a one shot weapon, and as such completely balanced as things stand (the MKP is more potent than an SMP, but on the other hand Kravak have no missiles or other long range weapons, so this is fair enough). My one concern with them is that logistically, expendable ordnance systems ought to be more of a chore to keep supplied than energy weapons. So I find myself considering the introduction of bills for expendable ordnance, if I can think of a way which is fair and doesn't involve crazy book keeping. At the moment, 1 credit for every shot seems fair; it's between a quarter and a third of the cost of replacing the entire system and it's easy enough to keep track of.
The Campaign Rules Proper
Full Thrust Campaign
1. Strategic Space
1.1. Hexagon of hexes, 6 hexes on a side.
1.2. Planet present in any given hex on 1-3 on 1d6.
1.3. On a roll of 1, planet is on a “charted route”. Roll 1d6 and charted route points out of that hex side, linking to the nearest world in that direction. If there is no world within four hexes or the stub goes off the edge of the field, roll again. At end of planet generation, all charted route stubs are linked up to create the charted routes through local space.
2. Player worlds
2.1. Each player dices for starting world location in turn.
2.2. Once each player has a starting world, each rolls a d3 and adds 4. This gives the number of additional worlds. These worlds are assigned sequentially - each player in turn chooses a world which they already own, and rolls one d6. The nearest unoccupied world in that direction is added to their empire.
2.3. This process continues until all players have claimed all additional worlds. Any left over are neutral and can be squabbled over. Neutral worlds can be attacked all out, or scouted by single light elements, which will allow the scouting player to find out the local level of development/likely opposition without risk. Because this is not a game with a neutral umpire, scouting reveals the worth of a system to all players. Any other approach was either too much trouble or involved too much trust.
3. Player world income
3.1. Income is in ship construction points, because that’s all it’s going to be used for, although the decision can be justified by the “fact” that the FT rules actually equated construction points to megacredits.
3.2. Income is 3d5 x10
4. Neutral world income
4.1. On 1-2 the world is unsettled - no income; on 3-4 2d6 x 10; and on 5-6 3d6 x 10.
4.2. This roll will only be made when a player attacks the world or scouts it.
5. Turns
5.1. One strategic turn is a week. A single jump takes one strategic turn.
5.2. 6 strategic turns is an economic turn. Each economic turn, each world under your control generates the indicated income.
5.3. The campaign is envisaged to have two speeds; when it's in the foreground of attention for the club, it should move at a rate of at least one economic turn per Monday evening. At other times, it should move at a rate of one strategic turn per Monday evening.
6. Starting forces
6.1. Starting capital for military spending is 10 x total planetary income. Up to 4000 can be spent on ships (Your citizens won’t stand for reckless military capital spending). This is sufficient to buy 40 standard destroyers, 20 light cruisers, 10 battlecruisers or 6 capital ships.
6.2. Remainder can be used to
6.2.1. buy spare parts in advance. Pre-positioned spares cost 75% of the normal cost of installed systems but must be pre-positioned on a specified world at the beginning of the economic turn in which they’re acquired. It is not necessary to specify what kinds of parts are pre-positioned; in effect you have spent the money on setting up a naval base. This can be replenished from income, but only at locations specified at the start, only to the levels set at the start, and replenishments only become available in the following economic turn.
6.2.2. or spent on planetary defences (for the effect of this spending, see below, undefended worlds). Any points spent here are added to the system's Inherent Defence Points. Because this has a multiplier effect, this is a one-off expenditure which can only be done during set up.
6.2.3. or simply kept as reserve cash.
7. Maintenance
7.1. Fleet maintenance costs 10% of construction cost of currently deployed units per economic turn. This covers fuel, salaries and consumables. Ships obtained at a discount still incur maintenance costs based on the full list price.
7.2. Players may elect to reduce this spend.
7.3. Fleets constructed to save money can be maintained for 7.5% of their construction cost. To meet this criterion, all ships in each size class must be identical, there can be no more than five size classes in the entire navy, and all task groups must be structured on similar lines. Size classes are the standard FS2 codes like DD CL CH and so on. In essence, there can be only five kinds of ship in the entire fleet.
7.4. Players can opt to cut fleet maintenance to 5% but will make all damage checks at one level worse than normal.
8. Movement
8.1. It takes on jump to enter an empty hex from any other hex. It takes one jump to move between any two worlds not more than three hexes apart. (This simulates the difference between travelling between known neighboring worlds and moving through uncharted empty space. Actually it just makes it easier to move around as long as you don't mind getting in a fight, but a handwaving explanation is always needed for seeing off quibblers)
8.2. Travel along a charted route takes one week between any two points on the route unless interdicted by hostile forces occupying an intermediate point on the route.
9. Conquest
9.1. Defeating an opposing fleet in a planetary system will lead to immediate combat with system defences. See below
9.2. So that there can be no argument about this later, a fleet counts as defeated if it is destroyed, is driven off or elects to leave the system.
9.3. Conquering a system makes no difference to the money coming out of it; rationalise this by imagining that the conquerors are less scrupulous than the original owners when it comes to grinding the peasantry down.
10. Attacking system defences
10.1. Where there is no opposing fleet present, the incoming player must defeat the local system defences.
10.2. As a convenient abstraction, Inherent Defence Points are assumed to be identical to the planetary income. Multiply Inherent Defence Points by 10 and compare with the points value of the incoming fleet. The incoming fleet gets +1 on the combat dice roll for every multiple of the defence points value it has; so if the incoming fleet has three times as many points as planetary defences have, the invaders get +2. The invading fleet gets a further +1 if it has defeated a defending fleet prior to the attack on the system defences. The fleet gets -1 if it has fewer points than the system defences. A fleet must have at least 50% of the strength of the system defences to mount an attack at all. (Because otherwise you would all just send in one scout ship after another hoping to roll a 6 eventually. And that would be wrong.)
10.3. Roll 1 d6.
10.4. On a natural or modified 6, the planetary defences surrender.
10.5. The planetary defences are assumed to take damage as a result. Roll 1 d5; on a 2, they are completely destroyed. On a 3, Inherent Defence Points are reduced to one third. On a 4, IDPs are reduced to two thirds. On a 5, the defences are effectively intact. Replacing planetary defences is expensive and time consuming. It will cost five times the IDP to replace losses and take one economic turn per third of the defences being replaced.
10.6. On 2-5, the system is interdicted for that strategic turn, with both sides tied up in indecisive skirmishing. Any planet which is interdicted at the beginning of an economic turn provides no income.
10.7. On a 1, the incoming fleet is repulsed taking damage equivalent to the planetary income. This damage need not be specifically allocated unless the incoming fleet finds itself in combat with another force before the next economic turn.
10.8. If the player finds himself in combat before he repairs the damage or elects not to repair all damage in the next economic turn (in other words, if it becomes necessary to evaluate damage before it can be deemed to be repaired), damage is allocated simply by dividing the Inherent Defence Points of the repulsing system by three; this number of hull boxes is knocked off the repulsed fleet, spread evenly over the participating ships. Where this results in a complete row of hull boxes being stripped out, system checks follow. This may well result in a much bigger repair bill than expected. Serve you right for scrimping and thinking that was just a minor leak in the intercooler.
11. Repair
11.1. Damage can only be repaired in a system from which you have drawn income this economic turn and which you still hold. For avoidance of doubt, this means that if you conquer a system just before an economic turn should start and remain there, you can draw the income and carry out repairs in the first strategic turn of the new economic turn. It's unfair, but it's equally unfair to everyone and it encourages people to attack, which is usually considered to be a good thing.
11.2. The general rule is that repair to combat damaged systems is charged at the same price as the original construction of the system.
11.3. Exceptions to the general rule on costs
11.3.1. Pre-positioned parts have already been paid for and are installed for free by your engineering staff.
11.3.2. Parts can be stripped from identical ships in the same task force and installed for 10% of the normal cost.
11.3.3. Parts can be stripped from other ships (including captured enemy vessels) and installed for 20% of the normal cost; but these parts will always test for damage at one level worse than original specification parts. To forestall quibbling, organic vessels are assumed to have individual DNA type signatures and will have rejection issues with bits grafted on from other vessels. Captured parts can be used only if they are functionally identical to the part being replaced. For avoidance of doubt, this expressly bars installing alien weapon systems in human vessels (and vice versa) and installing weapon types other than those originally installed in the weapon station.
11.3.4. Combat damaged systems which were repaired during combat have been jury-rigged and at least have to be recalibrated; during refitting roll 1 d6 for any such system. On a 1-3, the part has passed inspection. On 4-6 it needs to be completely replaced.
11.4. Minor repairs take a week. Major repairs take two weeks. Major repairs involve any weapon or drive system with a number higher than 3 (Including wave guns, nova cannon and anything generally weird), all core systems, the FTL drive, simultaneous repair to more than one hangar bay and level two shielding or any system equivalent to that Doubling the speed of repair doubles the cost.
11.5. Crew replacement was an issue but was considered not to be worth the bookkeeping.
12. Capture
12.1. Anything left drifting in a system after a battle is considered to be captured by the victorious fleet. Boarding is not covered well by the rules and is not worth the extra trouble to worry about.
12.2. Captured vessels can be rebuilt, stripped or sold on.
12.2.1. Rebuilding is only practical where at least two rows of hull boxes remain intact and and at least three of the five major systems (three core services, main drive and FTL drive) have not been completely knocked out. Rebuilding is done at normal costs. If the vessel is not a type already in service with your fleet, add 20% to repair costs.
12.2.2. Useful parts can be stripped out and reused subject to the repair rules above. What is left is effectively useless and has no resale value
12.2.3. The capture can be sold on as is to unscrupulous scrap dealers for 10% of construction cost per intact row of hull boxes.
13. Construction
13.1. Ships can be built in game time at a rate of 100 pts per week per keel laid down. Alternatively, they can be bought on the open market at the beginning of each economic turn, but only from the designs in the Fleet Books or on designated websites. Any one navy can be designated as an ally, and their designs are available at 20% off. No-one can be allied in this sense outside their species (you would need alien crews to operate the ships, and alien crews are not available on the open market).
14. Abstracted battles
14.1. To speed things up, battles between task forces can be carried out in any manner that the engaged parties decide on. It may prove convenient to run a battle on hex paper with counters in the margins of something else. Players are encouraged to be imaginative. (But see 13, below).
15. Task groups and pre-battle recce
15.1. Strategic movement is by task group. Each task group gets one counter on the strategic map. A task group can be as many or as few ships as the player wishes. When a player has two or more task groups together in the same location, he may re-organise freely. Task groups may be split up at any time. Players are required to maintain a record of what each counter represents.
15.2. Each fleet gets one dummy counter per capital unit (BB, SDN, CVA, CVH, CVL). All other counters used for strategic movement must represent at least one ship. (to forestall the inevitable complaints - fleets with a lot of capital units will have relatively few light units to use for recce and masking; fleets with few capital units will have LOTS of light units).
15.3. The composition of a task group will not be known to opponents until after it is contacted. The rules in FT2 will be used to govern scouting and spotting of the enemy. Read them, and consider the use of weasel boats and decoys at appropriate costs.
15.4. Movement each turn is pre-plotted and simultaneous. In the case of arguments over legality of movement, whichever umpire is not involved will decide the issue. Email move notifications, when necessary should be sent to whichever umpire is less likely to be affected by the move - this way the umpire's knowledge of the move is less likely to have any impact on his own plans.
16. Weird races and weirder weapons
16.1. Anything listed in the Full Thrust rule book, in either of the two fleet books, More Thrust or the GZG website (at present this covers only two UNSC weapon systems) is considered standard. Any ship designed using only these sources and utilising the technology of only one race is considered standard. Standard parts and ships can be repaired anywhere.
16.2. Everything else is considered non-standard, and can be used only with the prior approval of the umpires at game start and after notification to all other players. Players may, for the purpose of subterfuge, clear and notify technologies they do not intend to use, but should be mindful that the umpires have limited patience and will simply disallow requests of all kinds once they start to feel put upon. Approval is likely in the case of the following designs already documented on the web: UNSC, IJN, New Israel, Arab League, OUDF. On a case by case basis, some of these ship designs may be deemed standard when used by that player; this will only happen if the entire fleet is constructed in that design idiom. Non-standard weapons will never be deemed to be standard, not least because very few non-standard weapons have been fully play-tested to the stage where points values are reliable. A list of links to (probably) acceptable websites is appended to these rules.
16.3. Non-standard ships and equipment can be repaired or replaced only through pre-positioned stocks or at your capital. Anything not indigenous to the technology used in the majority of the fleet construction costs 20% more to install (and thus consequently to repair) and can only be repaired or replaced through pre-positioned stocks or at your capital. Thus, players choosing (for example) to install K-guns in otherwise human fleets will be penalised for doing so.
1. Strategic Space
1.1. Hexagon of hexes, 6 hexes on a side.
1.2. Planet present in any given hex on 1-3 on 1d6.
1.3. On a roll of 1, planet is on a “charted route”. Roll 1d6 and charted route points out of that hex side, linking to the nearest world in that direction. If there is no world within four hexes or the stub goes off the edge of the field, roll again. At end of planet generation, all charted route stubs are linked up to create the charted routes through local space.
2. Player worlds
2.1. Each player dices for starting world location in turn.
2.2. Once each player has a starting world, each rolls a d3 and adds 4. This gives the number of additional worlds. These worlds are assigned sequentially - each player in turn chooses a world which they already own, and rolls one d6. The nearest unoccupied world in that direction is added to their empire.
2.3. This process continues until all players have claimed all additional worlds. Any left over are neutral and can be squabbled over. Neutral worlds can be attacked all out, or scouted by single light elements, which will allow the scouting player to find out the local level of development/likely opposition without risk. Because this is not a game with a neutral umpire, scouting reveals the worth of a system to all players. Any other approach was either too much trouble or involved too much trust.
3. Player world income
3.1. Income is in ship construction points, because that’s all it’s going to be used for, although the decision can be justified by the “fact” that the FT rules actually equated construction points to megacredits.
3.2. Income is 3d5 x10
4. Neutral world income
4.1. On 1-2 the world is unsettled - no income; on 3-4 2d6 x 10; and on 5-6 3d6 x 10.
4.2. This roll will only be made when a player attacks the world or scouts it.
5. Turns
5.1. One strategic turn is a week. A single jump takes one strategic turn.
5.2. 6 strategic turns is an economic turn. Each economic turn, each world under your control generates the indicated income.
5.3. The campaign is envisaged to have two speeds; when it's in the foreground of attention for the club, it should move at a rate of at least one economic turn per Monday evening. At other times, it should move at a rate of one strategic turn per Monday evening.
6. Starting forces
6.1. Starting capital for military spending is 10 x total planetary income. Up to 4000 can be spent on ships (Your citizens won’t stand for reckless military capital spending). This is sufficient to buy 40 standard destroyers, 20 light cruisers, 10 battlecruisers or 6 capital ships.
6.2. Remainder can be used to
6.2.1. buy spare parts in advance. Pre-positioned spares cost 75% of the normal cost of installed systems but must be pre-positioned on a specified world at the beginning of the economic turn in which they’re acquired. It is not necessary to specify what kinds of parts are pre-positioned; in effect you have spent the money on setting up a naval base. This can be replenished from income, but only at locations specified at the start, only to the levels set at the start, and replenishments only become available in the following economic turn.
6.2.2. or spent on planetary defences (for the effect of this spending, see below, undefended worlds). Any points spent here are added to the system's Inherent Defence Points. Because this has a multiplier effect, this is a one-off expenditure which can only be done during set up.
6.2.3. or simply kept as reserve cash.
7. Maintenance
7.1. Fleet maintenance costs 10% of construction cost of currently deployed units per economic turn. This covers fuel, salaries and consumables. Ships obtained at a discount still incur maintenance costs based on the full list price.
7.2. Players may elect to reduce this spend.
7.3. Fleets constructed to save money can be maintained for 7.5% of their construction cost. To meet this criterion, all ships in each size class must be identical, there can be no more than five size classes in the entire navy, and all task groups must be structured on similar lines. Size classes are the standard FS2 codes like DD CL CH and so on. In essence, there can be only five kinds of ship in the entire fleet.
7.4. Players can opt to cut fleet maintenance to 5% but will make all damage checks at one level worse than normal.
8. Movement
8.1. It takes on jump to enter an empty hex from any other hex. It takes one jump to move between any two worlds not more than three hexes apart. (This simulates the difference between travelling between known neighboring worlds and moving through uncharted empty space. Actually it just makes it easier to move around as long as you don't mind getting in a fight, but a handwaving explanation is always needed for seeing off quibblers)
8.2. Travel along a charted route takes one week between any two points on the route unless interdicted by hostile forces occupying an intermediate point on the route.
9. Conquest
9.1. Defeating an opposing fleet in a planetary system will lead to immediate combat with system defences. See below
9.2. So that there can be no argument about this later, a fleet counts as defeated if it is destroyed, is driven off or elects to leave the system.
9.3. Conquering a system makes no difference to the money coming out of it; rationalise this by imagining that the conquerors are less scrupulous than the original owners when it comes to grinding the peasantry down.
10. Attacking system defences
10.1. Where there is no opposing fleet present, the incoming player must defeat the local system defences.
10.2. As a convenient abstraction, Inherent Defence Points are assumed to be identical to the planetary income. Multiply Inherent Defence Points by 10 and compare with the points value of the incoming fleet. The incoming fleet gets +1 on the combat dice roll for every multiple of the defence points value it has; so if the incoming fleet has three times as many points as planetary defences have, the invaders get +2. The invading fleet gets a further +1 if it has defeated a defending fleet prior to the attack on the system defences. The fleet gets -1 if it has fewer points than the system defences. A fleet must have at least 50% of the strength of the system defences to mount an attack at all. (Because otherwise you would all just send in one scout ship after another hoping to roll a 6 eventually. And that would be wrong.)
10.3. Roll 1 d6.
10.4. On a natural or modified 6, the planetary defences surrender.
10.5. The planetary defences are assumed to take damage as a result. Roll 1 d5; on a 2, they are completely destroyed. On a 3, Inherent Defence Points are reduced to one third. On a 4, IDPs are reduced to two thirds. On a 5, the defences are effectively intact. Replacing planetary defences is expensive and time consuming. It will cost five times the IDP to replace losses and take one economic turn per third of the defences being replaced.
10.6. On 2-5, the system is interdicted for that strategic turn, with both sides tied up in indecisive skirmishing. Any planet which is interdicted at the beginning of an economic turn provides no income.
10.7. On a 1, the incoming fleet is repulsed taking damage equivalent to the planetary income. This damage need not be specifically allocated unless the incoming fleet finds itself in combat with another force before the next economic turn.
10.8. If the player finds himself in combat before he repairs the damage or elects not to repair all damage in the next economic turn (in other words, if it becomes necessary to evaluate damage before it can be deemed to be repaired), damage is allocated simply by dividing the Inherent Defence Points of the repulsing system by three; this number of hull boxes is knocked off the repulsed fleet, spread evenly over the participating ships. Where this results in a complete row of hull boxes being stripped out, system checks follow. This may well result in a much bigger repair bill than expected. Serve you right for scrimping and thinking that was just a minor leak in the intercooler.
11. Repair
11.1. Damage can only be repaired in a system from which you have drawn income this economic turn and which you still hold. For avoidance of doubt, this means that if you conquer a system just before an economic turn should start and remain there, you can draw the income and carry out repairs in the first strategic turn of the new economic turn. It's unfair, but it's equally unfair to everyone and it encourages people to attack, which is usually considered to be a good thing.
11.2. The general rule is that repair to combat damaged systems is charged at the same price as the original construction of the system.
11.3. Exceptions to the general rule on costs
11.3.1. Pre-positioned parts have already been paid for and are installed for free by your engineering staff.
11.3.2. Parts can be stripped from identical ships in the same task force and installed for 10% of the normal cost.
11.3.3. Parts can be stripped from other ships (including captured enemy vessels) and installed for 20% of the normal cost; but these parts will always test for damage at one level worse than original specification parts. To forestall quibbling, organic vessels are assumed to have individual DNA type signatures and will have rejection issues with bits grafted on from other vessels. Captured parts can be used only if they are functionally identical to the part being replaced. For avoidance of doubt, this expressly bars installing alien weapon systems in human vessels (and vice versa) and installing weapon types other than those originally installed in the weapon station.
11.3.4. Combat damaged systems which were repaired during combat have been jury-rigged and at least have to be recalibrated; during refitting roll 1 d6 for any such system. On a 1-3, the part has passed inspection. On 4-6 it needs to be completely replaced.
11.4. Minor repairs take a week. Major repairs take two weeks. Major repairs involve any weapon or drive system with a number higher than 3 (Including wave guns, nova cannon and anything generally weird), all core systems, the FTL drive, simultaneous repair to more than one hangar bay and level two shielding or any system equivalent to that Doubling the speed of repair doubles the cost.
11.5. Crew replacement was an issue but was considered not to be worth the bookkeeping.
12. Capture
12.1. Anything left drifting in a system after a battle is considered to be captured by the victorious fleet. Boarding is not covered well by the rules and is not worth the extra trouble to worry about.
12.2. Captured vessels can be rebuilt, stripped or sold on.
12.2.1. Rebuilding is only practical where at least two rows of hull boxes remain intact and and at least three of the five major systems (three core services, main drive and FTL drive) have not been completely knocked out. Rebuilding is done at normal costs. If the vessel is not a type already in service with your fleet, add 20% to repair costs.
12.2.2. Useful parts can be stripped out and reused subject to the repair rules above. What is left is effectively useless and has no resale value
12.2.3. The capture can be sold on as is to unscrupulous scrap dealers for 10% of construction cost per intact row of hull boxes.
13. Construction
13.1. Ships can be built in game time at a rate of 100 pts per week per keel laid down. Alternatively, they can be bought on the open market at the beginning of each economic turn, but only from the designs in the Fleet Books or on designated websites. Any one navy can be designated as an ally, and their designs are available at 20% off. No-one can be allied in this sense outside their species (you would need alien crews to operate the ships, and alien crews are not available on the open market).
14. Abstracted battles
14.1. To speed things up, battles between task forces can be carried out in any manner that the engaged parties decide on. It may prove convenient to run a battle on hex paper with counters in the margins of something else. Players are encouraged to be imaginative. (But see 13, below).
15. Task groups and pre-battle recce
15.1. Strategic movement is by task group. Each task group gets one counter on the strategic map. A task group can be as many or as few ships as the player wishes. When a player has two or more task groups together in the same location, he may re-organise freely. Task groups may be split up at any time. Players are required to maintain a record of what each counter represents.
15.2. Each fleet gets one dummy counter per capital unit (BB, SDN, CVA, CVH, CVL). All other counters used for strategic movement must represent at least one ship. (to forestall the inevitable complaints - fleets with a lot of capital units will have relatively few light units to use for recce and masking; fleets with few capital units will have LOTS of light units).
15.3. The composition of a task group will not be known to opponents until after it is contacted. The rules in FT2 will be used to govern scouting and spotting of the enemy. Read them, and consider the use of weasel boats and decoys at appropriate costs.
15.4. Movement each turn is pre-plotted and simultaneous. In the case of arguments over legality of movement, whichever umpire is not involved will decide the issue. Email move notifications, when necessary should be sent to whichever umpire is less likely to be affected by the move - this way the umpire's knowledge of the move is less likely to have any impact on his own plans.
16. Weird races and weirder weapons
16.1. Anything listed in the Full Thrust rule book, in either of the two fleet books, More Thrust or the GZG website (at present this covers only two UNSC weapon systems) is considered standard. Any ship designed using only these sources and utilising the technology of only one race is considered standard. Standard parts and ships can be repaired anywhere.
16.2. Everything else is considered non-standard, and can be used only with the prior approval of the umpires at game start and after notification to all other players. Players may, for the purpose of subterfuge, clear and notify technologies they do not intend to use, but should be mindful that the umpires have limited patience and will simply disallow requests of all kinds once they start to feel put upon. Approval is likely in the case of the following designs already documented on the web: UNSC, IJN, New Israel, Arab League, OUDF. On a case by case basis, some of these ship designs may be deemed standard when used by that player; this will only happen if the entire fleet is constructed in that design idiom. Non-standard weapons will never be deemed to be standard, not least because very few non-standard weapons have been fully play-tested to the stage where points values are reliable. A list of links to (probably) acceptable websites is appended to these rules.
16.3. Non-standard ships and equipment can be repaired or replaced only through pre-positioned stocks or at your capital. Anything not indigenous to the technology used in the majority of the fleet construction costs 20% more to install (and thus consequently to repair) and can only be repaired or replaced through pre-positioned stocks or at your capital. Thus, players choosing (for example) to install K-guns in otherwise human fleets will be penalised for doing so.
Introduction
Campaign resources, including the map, rules and permissible SSDs will live here. It should also provide a place to comment on things.
In a perfect world I'd have a web site, but I'm too lazy to figure it out.
In a perfect world I'd have a web site, but I'm too lazy to figure it out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)