Carriers
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
I had considered that. Drones are perfect for that sort of thing, they have a more or less set movement they are going to do, they can't shoot at you, and are not affected by things like stacking. There is no major reason that they need to move 1 hex at a time.
I had also wondered about fighters/ships using a similar system.
Fighters always move after ships as is, so moving both hexes after ships may not be such a big thing, but it does reduce the opportunity to react to the fighters, and given stingers have a lot of firepower at close range it can be quite important whether you managed to keep them 1 hex further back or not. It probably wouldn't be quite so important against drone fighters. Also I'm not sure quite how much it would actually speed up fighters, because they don't have a forced movement rule, the owner would still be considering each move a bit to make sure they were positioned correctly, shooting the right shileds, and didn't fall foul of stacking etc. I don't think you'd gain so much benefit with fighters. That isn't to say I might not try it.
Ships, that is where I'd definatley like to keep it how it is. I see FC as a ship based game, and a lot of the tactics of the game are about how they move, decel or HET in response to what the enemy did etc. The other stuff around ships can be abstracted to various extents (like fighter flights, or a single seeker phase), without unduly affecting the feel of the game at a ship level, as IMO they are not the focus of the game.
There are time where I may just move all my ships in one go. If there is nothing that is going to affect my movement, e.g as we closed on the Starbase the other night, it didn't matter what the enemy did as the Gorn ships were committed to going straight at it by that point, so we just moved all their ships and then left the Feds to work out how they wanted to move, even though they were practically at point blank range already.
I had also wondered about fighters/ships using a similar system.
Fighters always move after ships as is, so moving both hexes after ships may not be such a big thing, but it does reduce the opportunity to react to the fighters, and given stingers have a lot of firepower at close range it can be quite important whether you managed to keep them 1 hex further back or not. It probably wouldn't be quite so important against drone fighters. Also I'm not sure quite how much it would actually speed up fighters, because they don't have a forced movement rule, the owner would still be considering each move a bit to make sure they were positioned correctly, shooting the right shileds, and didn't fall foul of stacking etc. I don't think you'd gain so much benefit with fighters. That isn't to say I might not try it.
Ships, that is where I'd definatley like to keep it how it is. I see FC as a ship based game, and a lot of the tactics of the game are about how they move, decel or HET in response to what the enemy did etc. The other stuff around ships can be abstracted to various extents (like fighter flights, or a single seeker phase), without unduly affecting the feel of the game at a ship level, as IMO they are not the focus of the game.
There are time where I may just move all my ships in one go. If there is nothing that is going to affect my movement, e.g as we closed on the Starbase the other night, it didn't matter what the enemy did as the Gorn ships were committed to going straight at it by that point, so we just moved all their ships and then left the Feds to work out how they wanted to move, even though they were practically at point blank range already.
Well, the current rules require each fighter to control it's own drones.
If fighter drones were around, I'd just do the same thing - all movement at once.
Fighters I'm not sure about. Will ships get caught out because they are unable to react to the Ftrs first move? Since there's only 2 moves for Ftrs, does that mean ships should be able to predict their movement well enough to make all ship movements before fighters?
If both Ftrs and drones were involved, and Ftrs moved last like drones, I'd do the following:
1) Move all ships normally
2) Move all ftrs their two spaces
3) Move all plasma their 4 spaces
4) Move all drones their 3 spaces
5) Move all SS their 1 space
If any SW was targeted on another SW, it would move after the target moved in accordance with the rules.
I'd have to test out the fighter movements before I signed off on moving ftrs separate from ships.
If fighter drones were around, I'd just do the same thing - all movement at once.
Fighters I'm not sure about. Will ships get caught out because they are unable to react to the Ftrs first move? Since there's only 2 moves for Ftrs, does that mean ships should be able to predict their movement well enough to make all ship movements before fighters?
If both Ftrs and drones were involved, and Ftrs moved last like drones, I'd do the following:
1) Move all ships normally
2) Move all ftrs their two spaces
3) Move all plasma their 4 spaces
4) Move all drones their 3 spaces
5) Move all SS their 1 space
If any SW was targeted on another SW, it would move after the target moved in accordance with the rules.
I'd have to test out the fighter movements before I signed off on moving ftrs separate from ships.
Speed is life; Patience is victory
Anyone ever thought of dividing the Impulse into 2 subpulses instead of 4? The first would be for movement of ships that would have moved during the official 1st and 2nd subpulse. The second would be for ships that would have moved during the 3rd and 4th subpulse.
Before dismissing it out of hand, think about it.
Before dismissing it out of hand, think about it.
Mike
=====
Sandpaper gets the job done, but makes for a lot of friction.
=====
Sandpaper gets the job done, but makes for a lot of friction.
Mike,
Not sure I understand what you're saying.
If it's everyone moves 2 spaces instead of 1 over 2 impulses instead of 4, I personally don't like it.
By having ships move more without allowing a reaction movement, you do away with the whole impulse movement concept and became my turn, your turn.
The attraction of FC and SFB is being able to react to each others movements impulse by impulse instead of turn by turn.
Having SW move all at once doesn't really affect that IMO because SW's have very limited movement options and can be predicted. Ships and fighters can be unpredictable.
Let's say someone is going 24+1 and the other is moving 16.
In 4 impulses, the movement would be like this
-Fast move
-slow move
-fast move
-fast move
-slow move
-fast move
If I understand your proposal right, 2 impulses would be like this:
-slow move
-fast move
-fast move
-slow move
-fast move
-fast move
That swings the advantage more to the fast mover. All 4 moves are in reaction to the slow mover, while only 1 of the slow movers movement is reaction to the fast mover.
In the 4 impulse set up, 2 of the slow movers movement are reactive to the fast mover and 3 of the fast movers movement are reactive to the slow mover. Much more balanced. Faster has an advantage and the last move, but slower isn't totally screwed.
Is that what you meant? Did I misunderstand?
Not sure I understand what you're saying.
If it's everyone moves 2 spaces instead of 1 over 2 impulses instead of 4, I personally don't like it.
By having ships move more without allowing a reaction movement, you do away with the whole impulse movement concept and became my turn, your turn.
The attraction of FC and SFB is being able to react to each others movements impulse by impulse instead of turn by turn.
Having SW move all at once doesn't really affect that IMO because SW's have very limited movement options and can be predicted. Ships and fighters can be unpredictable.
Let's say someone is going 24+1 and the other is moving 16.
In 4 impulses, the movement would be like this
-Fast move
-slow move
-fast move
-fast move
-slow move
-fast move
If I understand your proposal right, 2 impulses would be like this:
-slow move
-fast move
-fast move
-slow move
-fast move
-fast move
That swings the advantage more to the fast mover. All 4 moves are in reaction to the slow mover, while only 1 of the slow movers movement is reaction to the fast mover.
In the 4 impulse set up, 2 of the slow movers movement are reactive to the fast mover and 3 of the fast movers movement are reactive to the slow mover. Much more balanced. Faster has an advantage and the last move, but slower isn't totally screwed.
Is that what you meant? Did I misunderstand?
Speed is life; Patience is victory
What do folks think of this? We got distracted from it a couple of days ago.
If fighters ever make it into FC, something will have to give somewhere. Neither side can get everything they want.
There's going to have to be a solution for map clutter and bogging the game down. However that solution is going to have to balance with the current rules and maintaining distinct fighters instead of a pseudo ship.
Flights may not be the solution, but they could be the starting point for the brainstorming...
What if, we kept the intent that the flight idea is going for without having flights. For example, introduce rules stating
1) All fighters from a single ship must be within the same hex and have the same heading. The background would be this is required for mutual support.
2) Fighters are exempt from the 3 unit firing limit
3) When firing, fire from all fighters from a single ship must target units that are sharing the same hex. (can't get that wording right; basically you can target multiple targets if all the targets share the same hex; they don't have to be in the same hex as the fighters)
4) Not all fighters are required to fire when fighters from the same ship fire. (This would mean you could fire a couple of shots at a weak ship and save the other fire for later in the turn.)
5) Fighters land and launch independently of their shipmates
6) Fighters are targeted and take damage independently of their shipmates
It has the effect folks are looking for from flights, but maintains each fighter as a separate and independent unit.
Speed is life; Patience is victory
Point #1 makes them a single ship. One flight per CV regardless of the size? ESG's will love this as well as Web users.
#2 makes sense
#3 is per impulse? Including seeking fire? This is way more restrictive than a single ship of equal value. If I fly the opposing squadron one hex apart I can game this rule.
#4,5,6 change nothing.
I am hoping for more subtle enhancements.
#2 makes sense
#3 is per impulse? Including seeking fire? This is way more restrictive than a single ship of equal value. If I fly the opposing squadron one hex apart I can game this rule.
#4,5,6 change nothing.
I am hoping for more subtle enhancements.
My opinion is that I am still unsold on flights. However, I'll just go with it here ...
First, I think flights have to have a maximum size, but still be able to deal with any number fighters up to that maximum. For the most part we have tended to look at 3, but I am slowing changing my mind that the maximum should be six.
Second, (4A3a) is still important. So, we can't just ignore it. At best a flight will count as a single ship. At worst, it might count as the full limit (forcing flights to be in their own hexes for the most part).
Third, landing will have to be handled by flights. If this breaks things, it breaks things. The point of a flight is to be effectively indivisible, and you can't have it suddenly divide for just one action, even that action doesn't happen all that often.
Still not sure on the best way to handle fire from a flight. The easiest way is to just let anything go (within the existing rules, of course). If they were a single unit, that's how it would work, and I can't really justify additional restrictions on that.
First, I think flights have to have a maximum size, but still be able to deal with any number fighters up to that maximum. For the most part we have tended to look at 3, but I am slowing changing my mind that the maximum should be six.
Second, (4A3a) is still important. So, we can't just ignore it. At best a flight will count as a single ship. At worst, it might count as the full limit (forcing flights to be in their own hexes for the most part).
Third, landing will have to be handled by flights. If this breaks things, it breaks things. The point of a flight is to be effectively indivisible, and you can't have it suddenly divide for just one action, even that action doesn't happen all that often.
Still not sure on the best way to handle fire from a flight. The easiest way is to just let anything go (within the existing rules, of course). If they were a single unit, that's how it would work, and I can't really justify additional restrictions on that.
Federation Commander Answer Guy
Monty, you're right 4,5,6 don't change anything. They were there for clarity and to encompass all the points we've been discussing.
I'm not sure I buy off on flights, either.
It appeals to the fighter mindset I've picked up from reading Sci-Fi like the starfire series and playing Battletech all those years ago.
But does it fit in SFU...don't know.
The sticking point is what other option are there to keep the game from bogging down and turning into SFB? I'm stumped.
I'm not sure I buy off on flights, either.
It appeals to the fighter mindset I've picked up from reading Sci-Fi like the starfire series and playing Battletech all those years ago.
But does it fit in SFU...don't know.
The sticking point is what other option are there to keep the game from bogging down and turning into SFB? I'm stumped.
Speed is life; Patience is victory