Mocha II Talk

[SWSF Hoppus]

Sorry, I am taking awhile to do my post. Figuring out tactics, rules, etc. I will try to post first thing in the AM!

[SWSF Hoppus]

Capturing some thoughts impressions: I almost wish each unit had only 1 attack choice in a turn, rather than multiple weapons to spend individualized AP to fire? I feel like that would have simplified things in my previous post? Like - VultureDroids have a Dogfight Attack and Bombing Attack rating. Capital ships have primary arc, secondary arc, anti sf. Caps could use 2 of 3 in a turn but not against the same target? I dunno.

That being said I can see the joy in the AP system. It was time consuming just because math and matching attacks to tolerances... It would be a little more interesting if there were a way to move the game away from that tight number crunching to something higher level - I am not sure how to put into words exactly what I mean.. but make it less about finding exactly how many lasers you need to kill unit X and more about how you engage and tie up units... i dont know.


Anyway, fun! Just took my awhile and my time is really limited this week.

[SWSF Hoppus]

Oh and the other thing is that this system still encourages dog piling, I think the shield banks have that unfortunate consequence. The only thing that prevents it would be limiting each grid space to one capital ship. Then ranges, deployment, etc becomes more of an element, too.

[SWSF Hale]

Good point. I think dogpiling is inevitable.

I think if we adopted some sort of "unit packing limit" per each grid space, then we could expand the whole space grid to give tactical movement more room.

Maybe a good rule of thumb would be 2 Heavy Capitals per grid, which can reduce to 4 Light Capitals per grid; or a combination of 1 Heavy and 2 Light.

[SWSF Hoppus]

I dislike rules that get that specific and have to be held in the head. I think keeping it simple and streamline would be worth trying out first - 1 Capital Ship or platform per grid space. SF/AUX unlimited.

I think how CSP is set up is also more complicated than a straightforward engagement rule - you end the turn in an grid space with enemy fights, you are engaged. If you are engaged, you cannot move or attack another target than those you are engaged with. Caveats: Bombers don't prevent enemies from moving away; Interceptors must be outnumbered to be prevented from moving away; Escort fighters must be attacked before other fighters in the grid space can be attacked. So, 1 squad engages ALL enemy fighters that enter a grid space. Even if I send 6 X/W against 1 T/F those X/W are engaged. They will destroy the T/F, but still stuck for that turn. If X/W and Y/W in a grid space, T/F that enters has to attack X/W. Y/W cant go anywhere (its engaged with T/F), but X/W is shielding it from being destroyed so it can get to its eventual bombing run. This will also make deployment and positioning important.

The combination of those two changes would mean no more eveything dies in a turn, and more strategy. But remains to be seen. I would be up to test it out after this mock for the sake of seeing if it actually helps, hinders, or makes no real difference.

[SWSF Eidolon]

FP Warbook rule inconsistency?


COMBAT SPACE PATROL
1. This is a special task that only SF/AUX can do. After being deployed, SF/AUX can be assigned a single grid space to protect. Their job is to intercept all incoming enemy SF/AUX that enter that grid. Doing so prevents enemy SF/AUX from being able to attack friendly capital ships in the same grid space.
2. So in order for the enemy to attack a friendly capital ship, they must engage your SF/AUX first on a 1-for-1 basis (1 SF/AUX for 1 SF/AUX). Note that SF/AUX cannot attack and then go on CSP in the same turn. It's one or the other.
3. When starfighter/auxiliary unit A engages starfighter/auxiliary unit B (that is on CSP), starfighter/auxiliary unit A cannot break away from the dogfight until starfighter/auxiliary unit B cancels its CSP or is destroyed. Note: it is still possible to attack CSP from a distance using warheads, but this does not count as "engaging the CSP." Starfighter/auxiliary unit A has to enter the same grid as starfighter/auxiliary unit B (that is on CSP) in order to engage it.
 
ATTACK RUNS
Starfighters and Auxiliaries can perform Attack Runs on enemy units during battle for 2 AP. During an Attack Run, any or all warheads can be fired at a target. Because some warheads have non-zero range, it is possible for one SF/AUX unit to engage another SF/AUX that is on CSP without ever entering their grid space!





what am I not getting that this sounds contradictory to me?  Should the verbage in Attack Runs not use the term 'Engage' but instead 'Attack' orrrrr ?




Based solely on what Mocha II shows us to this point..

1) Hops SVs smoked = Consider giving SF/AUX units only a dying shot.  Maybe like half of their AP available at start of the next turn they'll be dying that can be used for Attacks only.  ? Just a thought.  Always seems lame to me any time any unit is dead without firing a shot.





Lastly, are there any rules changes discussed here and implemented for Mocha II that are not updated in the FP Warbook rules that I should be considering in my currently formulating post?

[SWSF Eidolon]

Regarding unit massing/dogpiling, I'm not at all against it but I also think in some context we have to consider a potential larger picture scheme..

If we were to move foward FP to an Ongoing Sandbox game with hypothetically say 25 planets even, are our units spread out across the Galaxy more and thus not able to particpate in the same battle en masse?, so is a battle with..

4VSDs & 4 RAFs & 24 SF/AUX vs 4 PBCs, 2 MCRVs and 40 SF/AUX something we are going to see in that arena?  or is this more like the Battle of Jakku scenario in the FP Universe?   Personally, I think there's more strategical benefit to placing your ships apart anyways.  At the very least, you need to cover 2 different headings even from the same grid space to make sure your field of fire is a little wider.. at least that's my modus..  i'd rather be shooting at you with multiple units from multiple directions vs multiple from one even if it's only for the sake of meaningless narrative in my head ;p




Also, you run in to the problem of grid size.  If its' 2 Heavy per grid space, well you're already spilling over in to the G Column because you cannot deploy 8 Heavys (4VSDs, 4RAFs) in the 3 H grid spaces.







Consider perhaps phasing it in but in a lighter fashion at first.  Phase 1 if this grid space occupancy limitations route would be like..

1 Grid Space per Players Capships.

That is, Opposing Capships CANNOT end their turns in the same grid space.  If an Enemy ship moves in to and ends it's turn in your grid space, it is considered to have Rammed you, taking 50% of it's current hull strength in damage itself and dealing 33.3% of it's hull strength to one opposing ship in that location.




So then in the game it plays out also more organic kind of as a deliberate move thats bad for everyone as opposed to just an overhead limitation.


Not you would have to END your move in the same grid space as opponents capships, moving through in the course of a full move has no effect.

[SWSF Hale]

RE: warbook
Yeah I think I just slipped up with my verbiage there regarding attack runs. It should simply read "...it is possible to ATTACK another SF/AUX on CSP..."

Good catch.


RE: scaling
Remember the original intent of this game was to have fewer worlds, and a limited number of resources to use for both offensive and defensive purposes.

My opening fleet at launch time (12 OCT 19) consisted of 2 PBCs, 3 DREADs, and 2 HHFs. 

With that sort of scale, a massive battle like Mocha II really would be decisive, given how the fleets we're using would effectively be 80-90% of what we'd have at a start up. I would wager that we'd only bring 50-60% of our total force to a battle, which means the scales we're seeing at Mocha II probably won't actually happen in practice.

[Ramano]

Umm i think its important to point out these grid spaces in reality are 3D ie: x, y, and z axis and would be 10s of thousands of km square. Why are we limiting ships per grid? Realistically each grid could "hold" dozens of SSDs. Seems a mechanic just to have a mechanic. Unnecessary if you ask me.

[SWSF Hale]

That's another good point too. I think we should err on the side of minimal rules, and just accept dogpiling as a brute fact.

[SWSF Hoppus]

I will vote in favor of looking at the grid as a gameboard, and not thinking to hard. If one ship per grid leads to a more fun game that is reason enough to do it!

[SWSF Eidolon]

i like spacing, is not about representing any sort of 'reality' as it pertains to a fantasy but a well structured game

I think it could be beneficial to adopt some minimal form of it.  Even something like only 1 players capships can be in a grid space.  This naturally allows you to either group in one or space/angle out for more field of fire or build a blocking wall (useful to prevent troop landing ships from rushing to a planet).

Just a thought.









Re: Scaling

  That doesn't mean would couldn't use a minimal set sandbox for the freaks who are stuck on that sorta thing ;p (me)

[SWSF Hoppus]

Yes, limiting to one faction per grid space reaps some benefit. But I remain bullish on 1 ship per grid space! Even if that means expanding the grid slightly to accommodate it. It would radically change how ships engage each other. Allowing unlimited same-faction ships in 1 grid space doesnt stop a world where all ships fire at all ships, we occupy 2 grid spaces the whole battle, etc.

Imagine a world where smaller cap ships can be used to delay, block, corral the enemy ships, or to screen your high value targets (maybe troop transports, for example, for rebs who don't have ISDs to haul things around). Also only so many enemy ships will be in range in this new world, which means a more diverse set of engagements (and choices to make). It's not all my cap ships fire on your 1 ship and kill it. Its I can only maneuver 2 of my ships to even get in range and fire on my primary target, etc. I mean so many cool possibilities here!

[Medivh]

What about a maximum meterage per space?  I understand Ramano is technically correct- space is vast, but for gameplay purposes, a meterage limit could be helpful.  It could also create some interesting tactical maneuvers.  For example, if you want to shut another player's capital ships out of a grid, you could fill it up (though of course, that leaves your ships possibly more vulnerable to being surrounded/less flexible), or if you want to make an attack on an opponent, it might need to come from multiple directions/grid spaces.

Also, cap ships not only take up space but need space to maneuver (otherwise you end up with a scenario like in ESB, where the star destroyers got too close and hit each other)

That might be more complicated than "1 cap ship per side per grid", though of course, a cap ship could be 300 meters or 8000 meters.

It's been a while since I've looked into rules, but the issue of grouping/dogpiling has been one of the hardest parts of creating a set of rules.

[SWSF Eidolon]

Re: 1 ship per grid space + bigger grid to accomodate, Im not saying its not a cool prospect, just that it's the most mental jogging of the options to adjust grid occupancy/positional relationships for a little more optimal process of battle.

There is nothing keeping a person from placing their ships spaced out now and there isn't necessarily a tactical advantage to just lumping all your stuff in one spot.  Hale and I both deployed spread out, the nature of the moves to keep our 'line of battle' and the least use of AP to keep headings optimal for field of fire dictated that my 2 pairs of RAFs ended 2nd Round in same grid space as each other albeit with different headings*.  Hale is now even more spaced out, almost trying an enveloping maneuver.

With all your ships in 1 location and 1 heading, you can dogpile yeah, doing the exact thing in gameplay you express disdain for ;p  but that was your choice.  I don't think there's necessarily an ignrained tacticla benefit one way or the other, just that whatever your opponent does and based on strength of forces, it may be more beneficial to duplicate that.

I'd rather see spaced out battles to, so deploy and move your shit spaced out ;p  shrug, just my view of it tho




Ok, Ima be focusing on my battle post before engaging in any other discussions!  I may need to adjust some stuff after I post if I am not following adjusted CSP/SF rules in play appropriately, just lemme know if so