Floating an idea: Battle groups

[mthomason]

If this idea has merit, I'll take it to S&P and see if they'll let me write it up If it's an awful idea, feel free to tell me why.

I keep reading that people have problems with "balance" issues between ships. This ship and that ship are the same PL but one is better than the other, therefore anyone with their head screwed on the right way is going to take as many of the better one as they can and avoid the other ship altogether.

This in turn leads to people accusing others of having "cheesy" fleet choices, of being power gamers, etc.

Now to me the point of this game is to put oneself into the B5 universe as the commander of a group of ships, and see how well you perform - not to sit with a calculator working out which ships are the best to take in order to beat your opponent. Lets face it, most commanders are stuck with whatever their high command allocates to them, and can't go to the shipyard and say they'll have a couple of extra Var'Nics in exchange for those G'Quans.

So the idea I've got is that the lists should force you to pick "battle groups" instead of whichever individual ships you want.

Each group would contain a mix of ships that would feasibly be fielded together, for example a large cruiser with a couple of destroyers providing support.

As the groups are larger, it would be easier to tweak them up or down a bit to balance them against one another by adding or subtracting smaller ships. Each race could have a decent selection of battle groups to choose from in order to give variety, while preventing people from saying they'll just take ten of the best possible ship.

Workable idea, or not? It's just popped into my head so there's obviously a lot of work to do on it, and I'm open to ideas for tweaking it

Essentially, it's a way to keep fleet selection "simple" without adding the complexity of points values for individual ships - it also should mean a far more realistic choice of ships on the table.

 

[Burger]

It does sound good for a little extra thing to try, but only really as a gimmick or special event (open day or demo at a convention). In tourneys and normal campaigns you really need the freedom to choose whatever ships you like.

 

[H]

for the odd event it might be nice, but people approach things in such different ways. look at any tourney, and same races have very different fleets, a ship that one person says is useless, is a favourite of another player and so on. The idea behind allowing individual choices, gives players the chance to express themself, and play to their own strengths.
I don't see why it "wouldn't" work in demos and suchlike though

 

[emperorpenguin]

It's quite a decent idea and fits the "order of battle" approach to wargaming.

there is certainly support for it in the Centauri factbook which lists the different types of battlegroups in which various centauri warships operate.

 

[mthomason]

In tourneys and normal campaigns you really need the freedom to choose whatever ships you like.

That does seem to be half the problem people are complaining about though

To pick your own example from the other thread: This could, for example, allow a Drazi player to field three Stormfalcons for the price they would pay for two individual ones.

I do agree though - this is aimed more at ensuring that "fun" games remain "fun" and don't turn into games of "who can work out which ship is the best" (which of course should be the exclusive realm of tournament games )

 

[Burger]

In tourneys and normal campaigns you really need the freedom to choose whatever ships you like.

That does seem to be half the problem people are complaining about though

People always complain, no matter what. Its when half the people complain that something is too good and half complain that it's not good enough, you know it is just right. Personally I am looking forward to when we can use Variants in tourneys, I want more choice not less

To pick your own example from the other thread: This could, for example, allow a Drazi player to field three Stormfalcons for the price they would pay for two individual ones.

Ah I see what you mean, give players more ships to make up for inadequacies. Yeah I guess that would make thigns a little fairer but still in touneys the lack of freedom of choice would be a bad thing IMO.

 

[mthomason]

Ah I see what you mean, give players more ships to make up for inadequacies. Yeah I guess that would make thigns a little fairer but still in touneys the lack of freedom of choice would be a bad thing IMO.

Yup, I'm mostly looking for some way that keeps the ship stats realistic. I hate the idea that everyone wants everything "balanced" as in all ships at the same PL should "cost" exactly the same. Some ships really belong between two PLs. Some ships are *supposed* to suck

It's a way to compensate for that, as opposed to the way most people suggest - tweaking the stats. I believe a rules system should be made to fit the "reality" it is based on, and not the other way around.

 

[Hash]

Matt - A most excellent idea! Would be very keen to see an S&P article on that...and of course playtest any existing group you've though up

For those seeking to customise battlegroups I guess some wings/squadrons could be optional/choice based, perhaps even allowing for refits or exceptional captains for some vessels?

 

[Silvereye]

If this idea has merit, I'll take it to S&P and see if they'll let me write it up If it's an awful idea, feel free to tell me why.

I think the idea has some merit of tournament play, as that is where the problem seems to have come from. In a campaign setting players tend to pick balanced fleets as they cannot guarentee playing at a set PL. Also the playtesters are not likley to try and fight a campaign or a quick game using just a fleet made up from a single ship type, unless that was all was available to them.

I keep reading that people have problems with "balance" issues between ships. This ship and that ship are the same PL but one is better than the other, therefore anyone with their head screwed on the right way is going to take as many of the better one as they can and avoid the other ship altogether.

This in turn leads to people accusing others of having "cheesy" fleet choices, of being power gamers, etc.

I think the PL system works very well with dealing with balance aspects when taken in a sensible fleet context. Some ships are better than others in a particular role than another ship, as they are designed around different roles in a fleet context. However in tournament play sensible fleets seem to go out of the window as players take out the number crunchers and examine the ships in minute detail for every advantage they can squeek from the fleet rosters because they go out to try and win a prize, rather then play for the enjoyment.

So the idea I've got is that the lists should force you to pick "battle groups" instead of whichever individual ships you want.

Each group would contain a mix of ships that would feasibly be fielded together, for example a large cruiser with a couple of destroyers providing support.

As the groups are larger, it would be easier to tweak them up or down a bit to balance them against one another by adding or subtracting smaller ships. Each race could have a decent selection of battle groups to choose from in order to give variety, while preventing people from saying they'll just take ten of the best possible ship.

Workable idea, or not? It's just popped into my head so there's obviously a lot of work to do on it, and I'm open to ideas for tweaking it

Essentially, it's a way to keep fleet selection "simple" without adding the complexity of points values for individual ships - it also should mean a far more realistic choice of ships on the table.

The battlegoup idea is certainly an interesting one, however I feel that battlegroups would be created to fight a particular enemy. So this might create a lot of jack-of-all-trades fleets that are uninteresting to play with as they would follow more or less routine tactics to play effectively. However, there are some fleets that are limited in their choices of ships at particular levels, e.g. the ISA, the Shadows and the Minbari below Raid.

An easier waymight be simply to put numerical limits on the choices that can be made as part of a tournament fleet, much in the same way that exotic or powerful units are limited in other war games.

So a Saggitarius might remain Skirmish level, but it is limited to 0-2 units as part of the tournament fleet roster. A Command Hyperion might be 0-1, and a Hermes might be 0-3 (just to represent that it would be uncommon to see more in a 'typical' fleet). While White Stars would be 0-5 as they are the most common ship in ISA service.

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

I support that idea, it kinda works lilke the `platoon taking` in Flames of War, and i like that game engine on selecting forces as well...

 

[mthomason]

Trying to tie this up now with a bit of "common sense" fleet selection.

Lets say you have five Battle FAPs.

No "real" force is going to consist of five Battle-level ships, there will be numerous support vessels attached to the fleet.

So an example of Battle-level Battle groups (may have to rename them because of the word "Battle" making it confusing there) could be:

Earth Alliance Omega Battle Group
Cost: 2 Battle FAPs
Composition:
One of: Omega-Class Heavy Destroyer
One of: Nova-Class Dreadnaught, Hyperion-Class Cruiser
Three of: Artemis-Class Heavy Frigates, Olympus-Class Corvettes

The idea being to present an Omega with the ships assigned to support it.

There would be a number of other groups available to EA at Battle level as well, making it possible to get a better selection. The idea is not so much to restrict freedom of choice as to ensure a decent mix of ships. There would also be other groups that also allow Omegas, Novas, Hyperions, etc to be selected in different mixes.

The above has not been playtested or even properly researched for authenticity, it's just an example so you get the idea thats in my head

 

[mthomason]

Just another thought on the naming of these things. In the interest of keeping it simple:

Patrol Groups
Skirmish Groups
Raid Groups
Battle Groups
War Groups

No need then to refer seperately to which PL the group fits into

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Task Force is the proper naval term.

I like the idea. It removes a lot of the chances for cheese and with tweaking numbers you could get unused ships onto the table without changing their stats.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

I like the idea, but I'd rather see it as an optional rule than one in firm useage. I also like the idea of limiting the number of ships of a given class you can take.

 

[Burger]

It also negates thinking "outside the box" and ties you down to standard fleets for your race.

Maybe the groups could be used in addition to the normal selection, like a set menu at a Chinese takeaway... you get better value for money (more FAP's worth) when choosing the set menu, but lose the versatility.

 

[mthomason]

I like the idea, but I'd rather see it as an optional rule than one in firm useage.

I doubt I can get Mongoose to make it an official change on my say-so

I'm thinking of it as a "variant" style of game for people that want to use it, to keep games more in line with how the forces would operate in the B5 universe and to help counter powergaming.

 

[mthomason]

It also negates thinking "outside the box" and ties you down to standard fleets for your race.

Maybe the groups could be used in addition to the normal selection, like a set menu at a Chinese takeaway... you get better value for money (more FAP's worth) when choosing the set menu, but lose the versatility.

Ooo, *that* I like!
It would give people who want to use "realistic" fleets an added incentive to vary their fleets, while still allowing the addition of extra ships from here and there to fill the extra leftover point - meaning all the "groups"/task forces can be 2 points exactly to keep the number needed to be written to a minimum. The trend would then be to take two predefined groups plus a point of anything else you want

 

[Reaverman]

I like the idea, but I'd rather see it as an optional rule than one in firm useage. I also like the idea of limiting the number of ships of a given class you can take.

I agree with this, and disagree as well. Yes, making people take the right ships, but also no. Becuase its going to bring up another mound of trouble, when people say "I dont have those ships, and I am not going to get anymore".

Rather than tell people to take the ships. or force them. Why not educate people, on the benifits of a balanced fleet.

 

[mthomason]

Rather than tell people to take the ships. or force them. Why not educate people, on the benifits of a balanced fleet.

If the game used points values instead of FAPs I'd put the focus purely on education.

There seems to be an opinion that some ships are not "balanced" in the first place, and thus get underused. I'm thinking of this not only as a way to ensure a mix of ships on the table, but as a crutch to lever those "weaker" ships into the game - if a given skirmish ship isn't quite as good as all the other skirmish ships, it shouldn't have its stats "tweaked" to get it there - you should just be able to take - say - four of them instead of three. That makes them more attractive to use, compensates for any perceived "weakness", and at the same time removes any need for artificial tweaking to make them fit neatly into a little box.

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

Limitations seem to be the easiest way though to make something viable without the need for overthrowing the system...

For example, taking the Narn, a G`Quan would have no limit to take, a Thentus perhaps 0-5 and a specialised support ship like the Dag`Kar like 0-2...

Seems the `easiest` way to get it all a bit more creamed off cheese.