Fwurg

[Brend]

Related to Assault on Azaryan Homeworld Sector 9 -4 <BATTLE>

In one of the battle threads, Mercury points out the following about the Damage rules for fleet battles:

I noticed an issue with the combat system - because you now actually damage the Briikase Bes'laar, it is no longer off balance. Which is sort of peculiar... o_O I am making a battle-field ruling that if you are damaged and lose an effectiveness level, this causes you to go off balance.

Though I won't have a problem with fighting out that specific battle under the ruling. In general, I am opposed to this ruling. I would like to explain why the rules have this peculiarity, and why I think that we should not change it.

When I designed the rules, I intended for them to mirror the Jedi combat rules. With the introduction of effectiveness levels, I noticed the peculiarity Mercury talks about as well. I decided to leave it in, for the following reasons:

1. Fleets are not Jedi. They have less options in the parry mechanism, since it is more difficult to gain more formations, and fleets don't have interchangeable weapons like the Jedi do. So, making use of the parry mechanism to make a comeback is more difficult.
2. It stands to reasons that a fleet will regroups and re-enter formation after losing effectiveness, to make optimal use of their current availability of material.

Because of these two reasons, I decided to keep the 'not being off-balance after a 3-ring hit' peculiarity. This allows a fleet under heavy assault to have an opportunity for a come back, as they are not doubly penalized for losing an effectiveness level (by going off-balance as well as losing the level).

If the fleet always goes off-balance when it loses an effectiveness level, the 3-ring hit will also give the fleet an -1 an all rings. Since switching ratings is more difficult, there is a high probability that the next attack will also be a 3-ring hit, putting the fleet into the -1 effectiveness. Together with the incurred off-balance, this would put the fleet at a -2 to all rings. I think that having a 3-ring hit incur off-balance as well will create a downward spiral in each battle once the first serious hit is scored. (In which case the effectiveness levels are little more than a delay on losing).

That's my two cents on the topic. I'm interested in your ideas on this.

[Elmer]

I agree with Brend. If you are still off balance after loosing an effectiveness level, there is little chance of recovery, undoing the idea of effectiveness levels.

[Mercury]

Off balance causes you to lose offensive capability (due to the -1). This could lead to cases where putting an enemy off balance can win you the combat (as you survive an extra round), but causing them to lose an effectiveness level (which is a bigger win than just off balance) would mean you are taken out yourself, thus losing.

Admittedly the situation is not very likely, but it can happen, which I would find odd.

I'm not saying either solution is better, but this situation should be considered before a final decision is made.

[Brend]

There's a few ways to go about this.

1) We can leave it how it is, but Mercury's point is true, that would be a bit weird.

2) We can change the effectiveness levels from -0/-1/-1 to -1/-2/-2.

3) We can also get rid of the effectiveness levels as a whole, and just use the '3-hit is out' rule the Jedi use.

I have not yet thought about them, so I'll keep it at that.

[Dragonmaster352]

I'll add something to this.

First I am firmly against option 3, here's why: I think that the effectiveness levels offer a piece of realism especially due to the way they are described on the rules page. This in turn adds to the roleplaying experience.

Second while I technically don't have anything against options 1 and 2. I like option 1 better.

Third I have another option for you: Change the rule to something like this: If a fleet is off balance in the turn it loses an effectiveness level it remains off balance next turn.

You could possibly add a tech that allows your fleet to regain it's balance when it loses an effectiveness level or maybe it could be done with a new formation.

[Brend]

Third I have another option for you: Change the rule to something like this: If a fleet is off balance in the turn it loses an effectiveness level it remains off balance next turn.

That would effectively work out to the same as going off-balance with a 3-hit: your opponent will just try to put you off-balance first so he can keep you at -2 from then on.

[Brend]

Though the actual implementation of this will be postponed, I think that further discussion would be beneficial.

The opinion of the other fleet-using players would be appreciated.

[Chriz]

I would say off-balance or losing an effectiveness level. This gives meaningful choices since both have a different outcome and it ensures that you are not defeated after losing 2 effectiveness levels. The choice would be being pushed in a corner for a nasty situation next turn or sacrificing part of your fleet to come back at almost full strength from a new direction.

[Brend]

So the idea would be that you choose either off-balance or lose an effectiveness level? Ill always chose off-balance.... You can't evet destroy my fleet then -- or do I misunderstand?

[Chriz]

Let me explain. I am in favor of the not getting off balance when you are overcome on three rings. Because when an enemy is capable of overcoming you on three rings you can either choose to take a DCA and go off balance or take an advantage action and loose an effectiveness level because he still overcomes you on three rings. The last option means you sacrifice some units but come out with an advantage in the next turn. You can of course only do this once since you only have one 0-level, but it still is a choice.

[Brend]

(Bumping because triggered by Fleet Rules Discussion after Mandalorian War!)

I agree with Chriz, as that was how I envisioned the rules when I wrote them.

[Gerben]

I'll second Chriz's proposal as well, it should provide for more interesting option in combat.

[Elmer]

I like to go for Chriz proposal as well as this create a more meaningful choice in battle. If this happens to be not working or not fun, we can always change the rules then.

[Brend]

There has been little discussion here. I count 4 in favour of Chriz' explanation. This explanation still suffers from Mercury's example, but at least it has been taken under consideration.

Unless someone wishes to discuss this further, I say that the discussion is over and that the rules stay as they are. If Mercury (or any other ST) plan on making a combat-ruling countering these rules because they still find it weird, they should mention so now!

I'll consider this thread closed in two weeks time, at which point I'll add a note in the rules to alert people to this discussion.

[Brend]

I'll give this one more week due to time-consuming rules changes being moved through.

[Brend]

I think this thread has had enough time to get the necessary discussion. At this moment five players (Dragonmaster352, Chriz, Gerben, Elmer and Brend) are in favour of the current rules, even with the strange quirk in it.

I'm closing this, and I'll add a note to the Fleet Battle rules.