More evasive maneuvering questions.
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
Thanks for the reply MJWest.
The rule is what it is, and we now know that. I was never really happy with the way that I thought it was meant to be either, but it seemed clear enough so I accepted it. That was my main issue in first couple of posts - how it could be interpreted to mean what you were saying. However, moving away from what the rule is currently, can I ask when the rules get tidied up that those involved consider other possibilities:
a) Simply go to what I (and others by the looks) thought it was meaning anyway.
I always understood the desire to avoid paying twice, however, that is an artifact of the turn system that we live with for other things. The turn break creates a variety of issues either in terms of mechanics or 'realism', If I tractor someone on impulse 8 I have to promptly pay for it again, whereas if I tractor on impulse 1 I am not automatically forced to repay for 8 impulses. If I fire on 8 I immediatley get to fire again on 1, (unless it was a particle cannon?). Yet if I fire on impulse 1 I have to wait 8 impulses, why the inconsistent fire delay? Note they are rhetorical questions, I am not complaining or anything, just pointing out that the turn break creates oddities. The thing is with those oddities they do not break the basic concepts of the game to try and get round the turn break issues, we just accept that in the interests of simplicity and a clean system unburdened by rule exceptions in every section that they exist.
The need for actually having the power and not using it on 8 may appear to mitigate against the preventing paying twice, but not paying that power still provides siginificant advantages, you can use it to fire weapons, reinforce shields, boarding, upgrading plasma, tractors etc. Even if you do not use it, the fact that it is retained for batteries next turn is itself a significant bonus.
Not having to have the power as we have discussed adds more anamolies than the issue it was trying to address, and does it in a way that is counter to one of the fundamental premises of the game - having power to do things. The double payment issue is not IMO such a massive issue that it requires such a massive change.
b) go to a cloak style system, OK you've said it has already been proposed and knocked back, and hence is probably uber unlikely to happen.
I had already considered that the EM cost doesn't break down into an impulse cost to well, which is why I also proposed doing it as a prepayment system for 8 impulses like the cloaks prepayment system for 4 impulses. At the moment you get EM for potentially up to 1 turn, ie. 8 impulses for that fixed cost. Having it as a definate 8 impulse EM (or until you cancel without refund) solves both the turn break and double payment issue and also as a bonus allows the 'mandatory' 2 impulse duration to actually be mandatory (an impulse 7 or 8 declaration isn't at the moment due to the turn break). Working like cloak prepayment also keeps the rules more consistent, and there would be no need for either of the 2 rules exception in EM.
c) Accept that you pay twice and get rid of the exception altogether. Whilst I speak for myself, I consider it a minor issue, it is as I noted above not unlike other turn break oddities. If you want to be EM on 1 you declare and pay on previous impulses like you have to on any other impulse. You still 'benefit' from EM on 8 - you can't be tractored or boarded. You may even force someone to fire a multi turn weapon on 8 when they really wanted to wait until next turn. You also stop things like being able to launch/tractor/board after EM declaration which are currently unique to an impulse 8 declaration as a side effect of the exception.
The rule is what it is, and we now know that. I was never really happy with the way that I thought it was meant to be either, but it seemed clear enough so I accepted it. That was my main issue in first couple of posts - how it could be interpreted to mean what you were saying. However, moving away from what the rule is currently, can I ask when the rules get tidied up that those involved consider other possibilities:
a) Simply go to what I (and others by the looks) thought it was meaning anyway.
I always understood the desire to avoid paying twice, however, that is an artifact of the turn system that we live with for other things. The turn break creates a variety of issues either in terms of mechanics or 'realism', If I tractor someone on impulse 8 I have to promptly pay for it again, whereas if I tractor on impulse 1 I am not automatically forced to repay for 8 impulses. If I fire on 8 I immediatley get to fire again on 1, (unless it was a particle cannon?). Yet if I fire on impulse 1 I have to wait 8 impulses, why the inconsistent fire delay? Note they are rhetorical questions, I am not complaining or anything, just pointing out that the turn break creates oddities. The thing is with those oddities they do not break the basic concepts of the game to try and get round the turn break issues, we just accept that in the interests of simplicity and a clean system unburdened by rule exceptions in every section that they exist.
The need for actually having the power and not using it on 8 may appear to mitigate against the preventing paying twice, but not paying that power still provides siginificant advantages, you can use it to fire weapons, reinforce shields, boarding, upgrading plasma, tractors etc. Even if you do not use it, the fact that it is retained for batteries next turn is itself a significant bonus.
Not having to have the power as we have discussed adds more anamolies than the issue it was trying to address, and does it in a way that is counter to one of the fundamental premises of the game - having power to do things. The double payment issue is not IMO such a massive issue that it requires such a massive change.
b) go to a cloak style system, OK you've said it has already been proposed and knocked back, and hence is probably uber unlikely to happen.
I had already considered that the EM cost doesn't break down into an impulse cost to well, which is why I also proposed doing it as a prepayment system for 8 impulses like the cloaks prepayment system for 4 impulses. At the moment you get EM for potentially up to 1 turn, ie. 8 impulses for that fixed cost. Having it as a definate 8 impulse EM (or until you cancel without refund) solves both the turn break and double payment issue and also as a bonus allows the 'mandatory' 2 impulse duration to actually be mandatory (an impulse 7 or 8 declaration isn't at the moment due to the turn break). Working like cloak prepayment also keeps the rules more consistent, and there would be no need for either of the 2 rules exception in EM.
c) Accept that you pay twice and get rid of the exception altogether. Whilst I speak for myself, I consider it a minor issue, it is as I noted above not unlike other turn break oddities. If you want to be EM on 1 you declare and pay on previous impulses like you have to on any other impulse. You still 'benefit' from EM on 8 - you can't be tractored or boarded. You may even force someone to fire a multi turn weapon on 8 when they really wanted to wait until next turn. You also stop things like being able to launch/tractor/board after EM declaration which are currently unique to an impulse 8 declaration as a side effect of the exception.
For turn break exception one: exactly when in energy allocation do you announce and pay for continuing evasive maneuvers? Before declaring base line speed, after, at the same time as Orion engine doubling, continuing a tractor beam?
This circumstance comes up in many games but we never really thought about it and when its announced can have strong implications on other decisions then.
I have long thought that Fed Com needs a nitpicking sequence of play just like SFB. Any possibility of that happening?
This circumstance comes up in many games but we never really thought about it and when its announced can have strong implications on other decisions then.
I have long thought that Fed Com needs a nitpicking sequence of play just like SFB. Any possibility of that happening?
Mike answered this one here:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... allocation
...near the bottom of the page
http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... allocation
...near the bottom of the page
