Beta Rules Clarification--Small Ships

[CZuschlag]

I think the situation is faintly reminiscent of a situation that WWII wargame designers have had to deal with for quite a while.

On the Russian front in 1942, the Germans enlisted the help of a lot of foreign power formations, from Italians to Finns to Romanians to what-so-have-you. They also had strategic control and the initiative in the Summer of 1942.

However, when they get the Italian 1942 reinforcements, they knew that there was no way the Italians were going north to Leningrad. There were historical reasons why that was infeasible. Fine, said Scorched Earth (from the Europa series), we rule that an Axis player must keep them in the Southern weather zone.

Then, however, came the comment, what if someone makes you retreat out of the Southern weather zone?

The game designers started making rules about you have to get back to the south as soon as possible, then started what "as soon as possible" meant, couldn't get folks to agree.....

.... until the designers, possibly in a fit of pique, said the equivalent of, "Oh, just scr#w it. If you actually deploy them out there like that so it can happen, and it does, that's your own fault. The entire division is eliminated. Hah! So don't put them in position where it can happen."

No one complained.

So, I might be at the "Oh, just scr#w it" stage here. If your squadron involving tiny ship is set up such that you have to move it out of coherency for some reason, you just lose the 1/2 Patrol size ship. So don't.

Reasonable?

 

[Triggy]

Mummy, I don't like the big bad world out there on my own, it's full of nasty big boys who want to hurt me. Without you I'm just going to go over there and hide instead... don't forget me!

 

[CZuschlag]

Quite right, Triggy. It's a bit like the twit smacking someone in the face with a herring while running back and forth. It's all silly and stupid until someone bigger than you wallops you in the head with a large halibut into the canal.

 

[Burger]

That is funny but this is funnier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

 

[Greg Smith]

what happens if the squadron is forced to break?

If I have ons Sho'kov that is crippled and adrift (moving 3") squadroned with a second that has no special actions (has to move 6"), the squadron is going to break.

Leaving aside they vanish in a puff of rules confusion, what happens?

Simply changing the restriction from 'destroyed' to 'crippled or adrift' eliminates most possibilities.

Ok, maybe the Brakiri could mess up your headings with a gravitic shifter while the Abbai cause you to fail special actions so you can't stay together, but I'm sure you get the point.

 

[Enalut]

I didn't realize I was opening up such a pandora's box with my inital question. It seems to me that forcing a squadon is to complicated of a rule mechanic for all the reasosn discussed above. My solution (albeit a special rule) would be to change the small ships rule so that:

Initiative units must be at least 1 full patrol point (with the exception of a remainder when 1 2:1 ship is destroyed). This would mean, that the small ships do not necessarily need to be squadroned (or remin in one) but means that they cannot be used individually as an initive sink.

In short they have to move as if in a squadron with another ship, but if they break the squadron formation restriction, they do not get to shoot as if a sqaudron.

This would allow them to be paired together with each other or squadroned with larger ships. And would incourage thier use in a squadron (they would alreay have the inititave penatly, but need to obey the squadron rules to get the shooting benifit); without having to create even more exceptions and complicated rules.

Thoughts?

 

[Burger]

I would say give twofers a boost, and make them cost a patrol point each. Problem fixed.

 

[Ripple]

Actually, Enalut has a good idea there...

What are we trying to do by forcing them to squadron? Save on sinking correct? Why not just force you to activate them as full patrol points. Forget all the squadroning stuff that causes rules confusion... just say you must always activate a full patrol point or more.

It gives all the advantages we really want, reduces sinks (killing any one will reduce sinks... but you may need to kill 3 to reduce it again... still good though) without all the bizarre 'can I move' 'can I fire' 'can I SA' 'can I go out and play' questions.

- the mommy commentaries don't necessarily apply as the little buggers can fun off into a corner with their friends if they want.

Ripple

 

[Ike]

Great idea Enalut


I like annoying crazy 2fors to much, and being unable to drop them out of a squadron cause they are slowing things down, or just want to go harass something, that particular ship wants to run away or my personal favourite, is guarding a ship that surrendered to a stand down and prepare to be boarded SA (havent pulled it off yet) kind of puts a whole wrench in the works


so special movement rule
"When activating an unsquadroned 2for in the movement phase of a raid level or higher game, one additional unsquadroned 2for must also activate unless no such ship exists."
Flavour text
"In larger battles, small ships tend to get lost in the confusion, unless flying in concert or directly for your view screen."



it still lets you do all the wonderfully crazy stuff you can with 2fors, gets rid of 1/2patrol sink. but still means that the other side must kill atleast one patrol point before that sink goes away



kudos to Ripple too

 

[Target]

Just up the stats & make them 1fers. It's the simplist way.

 

[Burger]

Just up the stats & make them 1fers. It's the simplist way.

QFT!!

 

[Methos5000]

What about the Haven escorts duty for the Centauri? This can give the Centauri free sinks as they can just break the squadron if they want to. It should really be clarified kind of like my idea earlier. Since these are described as escorts why can they break squadron and go off and do whatever they want. It says they always accompany the ship but there is no rule to back that up.

 

[Ike]

just thought I should bring this back to the top as the new small ship rule bugs me

as a narn player having the only patrol choice being a 2fer and my standard 5 point raid consistently being 3 varnics, 1 dagkar, a shokar and 4 shokov or shokos (depending on opponent), I tend to use them alot

and in battle leaping in on smaller ships, chasing down dreaded vorchans, finishing off the dreaded vorchans that get crippled,

my biggest issue is not being able to break squadron unless others are destroyed. they cant do their job if they are waiting around for an adrift guy, or crippled or slowed, or having to escort one of their off for a tactical withdraw

or the one that came up the other day I had 4 shokovs squaded and my opponent split his 2 patrol squad, yet under the rules im not allowed to split mine to match

im all for not allowing 1/2ers to sink but dont nerf the ship because thats what some people use them as

incidently shokos/shokov and the narn CBD 4+ is ridiculous

 

[The_Mhor]

or the one that came up the other day I had 4 shokovs squaded and my opponent split his 2 patrol squad, yet under the rules im not allowed to split mine to match

As long as you had all four still you could split it just fine into two pairs. It's when you've only got three left you'd be stuck.

 

[Ripple]

Upping the stats is the worst way as you have to rebalance the whole set. We haven't been so good with that.

Forcing the change to the 'activation' part (must activate a full patrol point if possible) fixes where almost all the issues are, fix that and what is the issue with the ships?

Using that wording - Must activate a full patrol point if possible - is a one line fix, and even does away with the 1/2 point left being used to sink. This way you could leave the Havens from other duties completely alone. They just act as part of a patrol point.



Ripple

 

[l33tpenguin]

Upping the stats is the worst way as you have to rebalance the whole set. We haven't been so good with that.

Forcing the change to the 'activation' part (must activate a full patrol point if possible) fixes where almost all the issues are, fix that and what is the issue with the ships?

Using that wording - Must activate a full patrol point if possible - is a one line fix, and even does away with the 1/2 point left being used to sink. This way you could leave the Havens from other duties completely alone. They just act as part of a patrol point.



Ripple

This would discourage buying up, though Unless activating more than 1 point let you skip your next activation.

 

[Da Boss]

incidently shokos/shokov and the narn CBD 4+ is ridiculous

Kinda agree with that - we decided that it might be best to declare when the Shokov etc are NOT on CBD and assume it is otherwise.

they becoem virtually unkilliable - not a major problem for my Centauri as I can ignore them and double damage does eventually wear them down - like when you fire a Primus side battery, 8AD ion cannons of a Elutarian and the full armament of a Sullust at one - and it just about dies :lol:

However I worry that boresight style ships/fleets just won't be able to kill them - esp those without damage multipliers.......

The Narn need something (or rather certain ships do) but Not sure this is it?

 

[Ike]

This would discourage buying up, though Unless activating more than 1 point let you skip your next activation.

how would this change the rules from what it already is, the current small ship p&p rule is put in place just to keep you from using single 2fers as ini sinks in games of raid or larger

which in concept is great but in current implementation i feel lacks finese and hurts the ships ability to manuever if their squad mates are hurt

(which seems to happen to me alot especially with the CBD4+)

im full on behind ripple here on the must activate a full patrol point if able

yes people can still run them to corners and be cheesey but its just as easy to do that with a normal patrol point, they are just in 2 locations instead of 1, they also are worth 2x the victory points

 

[Ripple]

how would it discourage buying up? (...or discourage it more than currently proposed rules?)

It's the same basic idea we already are getting, but without the worst abuses of the squadron rule. As far as I can tell the only real difference would be that e-mine fleets don't get free kills this way, and I don't have to argue with folks over what it means to squadron vs be small shipped.

Can I leave behind a cripple (squadrons I can)
Can I leave behind a ship unable to follow my move (pointed in the opposite direction)
Can I leave a squadron if I'm forced to go beyond distance (two adrift ships moving at a diverging angle to each other, already at max distance?)

What the proposed rule is trying to do is stop free sinking, not make the ships more vulnerable to a specific weapon group, or create rules headaches. Here we have a simple elegant rule that fixes the issue.

It even fixes the issue that a 2 for 1 is better than regular patrol points for sinking because you have to kill two to stop the sink. Now if you end up with stray half point survivors they end up going last unless you have two. Might feel bad once in a while for a specific Narn or EA fleet, as you end up moving you Warlock next to last instead of last... but overall I think it evens up the playing field more than hurts it. Right now if your Narn or EA you end up having to buy a few 2for1's just to be competitive and the Drazi end up suffering in comparison without the option.

Ripple