Rules Discussion: Expansion to Neutral Worlds

[RanesDsane]

At this time, the following are considered Notable Feats: Destroying an enemy vessel > 1000m, capturing an enemy world, forcing the retreat of an aggressive fleet.

So, I'm working my way through the rules and this one concerns me a little.  As a non-main faction, I'm going to be pretty limited militarily because I'm not going to have access to Star Destroyers, MC-80s, etc.  Combat isn't something that's going to work well for 'independents' in many cases.  Some of that we can address with introduction of new technology, or faction specific ships, which I do plan to propose a few of, but that aside, I'd like to see some expansion on "notable feats."  The ones below would only apply to a specific planet and wouldn't count as feats for other planets.  That said, I think these are also interesting feats that would be usable by everyone.

Proposed ideas:

• Bribery and Corruption - The faction wishing to gain control may 'bribe' the government by spending 250MC and requires 7 turns (14 days) and 7 storylines of merit in relation to the actual bribery/corruption.  This storyline is separate from the Diplomacy option which is available after the planet is activated.  The first month after control is gained through diplomacy the planet produces 1/2 income (the rest of the bribe).   The annexation option is still available (i.e. the activation story is that the bribe is failed) and does not have the income penalty.
• Foment Rebellion - The faction wishing to gain control may foment a rebellion against the local government with the goal of having a government friendly to them installed.  This costs 150 MC (weapons, supplies, etc) and requires 7 turns (14 days) and 7 storylines of merit in relation to the actual formation of the rebellion and its success.  This storyline is separate from the Diplomacy option which is available after the planet is activated.  The first month after control is gained through diplomacy the planet produces 1/2 income (repairs from the damage).  The annexation option is not available via this activation.  The world is already on edge, well armed, and too ready to repel an attack.
  
• Friendly Subterfuge - The faction wishing to gain control may attempt to influence the government into viewing them favorably.  This requires no payment, but does required 14 turns (28 days) and 14 storylines of merit covering the advances and development of the relationship.  This storyline is separate from the Diplomacy option which is available after the planet is activated.  Once the planet is activated, the normal options for gaining control become available.  However, if the annexation option is then used, there is penalty (you just made friends!) of the planet producing only 1/2 income for the first 2 months.
  
• A Deal You Can't Refuse - The faction wishing to gain control may openly influence the government with offers of a contract that grants significant control to the faction.  i.e. an exclusive export contract for the main goods of the planet.  This requires an upfront payment of 100MC and requires 4 turns (8 days) and 4 storylines of merit in relation to the actual negotiations and implementation of the contract.  Diplomacy is the only option open after this type of activation.  After control is gained, a recurring 50MC 'maintenance' cost is incurred on planet production for a minimum of 3 months.  During this 3 months, you may spend requires 7 turns (14 days) to produce 7 storylines of merit where you gain control of the government and no-longer have to pay the maintenance cost.  You may choose not to do this, or to do this at a later date.  The fee can't be reduced further than 3 months and will continue until this is complete, however.
  

In all cases, the storylines above could be combined with the diplomacy storyline as far as content.  i.e. Bribery and Corruption with a Diplomacy option could produce a contiguous storyline of 14 turns (28 days) and 8 'storylines'.  Or it could produce two separate storylines all together that are simply related by the second occurring after the end result of the first.  All the MC amounts are based/scaled off a planet producing 250MC/month; if that changes, the numbers should be reconsidered.

I would note also that, I hope, all these turns/storylines are actual count and don't necessarily need to be consecutive, though they should be reasonably compact in their development time.

[SWSF Hoppus]

Hey Ranes!

The rules around activating neutral systems are not meant to extract a price. They are designed to force player v player interaction. What has tended to happen in every game in the last decade here is people go after neutral worlds battling PDF forces, and by the time players attack each other's worlds, its all fallen apart.

This universe rewards interaction (combat, specifically) with unlocking neutral planets for expansion.

That being said, I can see where you are coming from. Still, the point of the simming universe is for players to battle, and storylines are a fun side product. Otherwise we'd just be doing an SL-only game, right? If you want to do subterfuge and other Storylines around on other worlds, that's awesome and fine. You just won't get in-game bonuses (income) from those worlds. They would set a great pretext for you engaging anyone who DOES try to conquer worlds where you have storyline-based relations set up.

I am open to adding more notable feats, but for now, I would only be interested in feats that involve player v player interaction as that is what the rules are designed to incentivize.

[RanesDsane]

I get it that it's meant to encourage interaction.  The purpose of putting rather high prices and long timelines on the other options was to give incentives to going for those vs the cost of these.  They're options, but not easy or encouraging ones.  I'd be all for someone coming in on them, too, and 'interfering' in one way or another.

That said, I'll approach the (perhaps only perceived) issue via tech/ships instead.  The only other types of pvp feats I can think of would just complicate the rules I think.

- Ranes

[SWSF Hoppus]

I get it that it's meant to encourage interaction.  The purpose of putting rather high prices and long timelines on the other options was to give incentives to going for those vs the cost of these.  They're options, but not easy or encouraging ones.  I'd be all for someone coming in on them, too, and 'interfering' in one way or another.

That said, I'll approach the (perhaps only perceived) issue via tech/ships instead.  The only other types of pvp feats I can think of would just complicate the rules I think.

- Ranes

Let me read through your stuff more carefully and see if we can have at least one version of them in the ruleset. I'll get back to you via PM later today or tomorrow.

[SWSF Hoppus]

Also: If you're concern is not having ships > 1000m, I don't think its as big of an issue as you imagine. DREDs, Bulk Cruisers, Neb and CRVs make a pretty powerful fleet here, thanks to the rules around how SF combat works and how ships x3 larger can't focus all weapons on a unit.

I have debated bringing in a Venator Cruiser, which would be > 1000m, as well. Also, some tech (like Gr75s) needs to be moved to Neutral. Probably VSD-Is as well.

I wouldn't mind having a few CSA fighter craft and their Etti Frigate (think its called that) as well. Give me a few days to piece together some specs.

[RanesDsane]

(Last paragraph addresses the post that you did while I was working this up. )

I appreciate it, but don't feel pressured if you don't think the proposals fit.  I absolutely agree that I don't want expansionism to just be:  "Okay, let's go pound this PDF now."  There needs to be some interaction or we can just go write stories all on our own.  (Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, it's just not the point of this!)  Like I said in my earlier reply, we can probably address my concerns through technology, too.

Here's probably waayy too much detail in where I'm coming from based on what I can see now.  I fully admit, there's information I don't have or don't know and I'm willing to say "Okay, I trust you" if you read this and say "don't worry."

To detail, here's my concern with the current feats all requiring significant combat:

1)  Only the Imperial and Rebel factions can be targets for the >1000m feat.  The largest 'common' ship is 756m.  Given the price of these, they're not likely to be many of them for a long time, too.  I don't mind them being rare.  I absolutely agree with this being a feat, it makes sense, I'm just pointing out that it's going to be a very rare one.  So that leaves us with either conquering or beating back an attacker.  Only one of those I have control over happening.

2)  I admit that I don't really have all the information necessary to assess how difficult the other two will be to do.  i.e. What are starting fleets going to look like?  How much can we build (is it just MC limited? or will there be shipyard limits?).  How will PDFs of player-owned planets start/look?  I'm sure the answers to these will come with time, the questions aren't meant to push or hurry, simply to illustrate my known holes in information.  I don't think I can make a fully fair assessment here, but looking at the currently available tech, I see these as very challenging for non-aligned fleets.

Let's put together a sample fleet from our first month's collection.  Say 10 planets, 250MC each, so I can use 2,500 MC to build a fleet.  Below won't necessarily be the best choices for ground combat, but first you have to get to ground combat, which is why I'm here.

Imperials:  1 VSD + 2 TIE Squadrons, 2 Lornar Strike Crusiers + TIE Squadrons for each, 1 Carrack Light Cruiser + TIE Squadron = 2,366.  We could use the remaining 134 to upgrade fighters and put some troops on board.  That's 870 potential damage (not counting ion or fighters) per turn and a total of 4,387 health (not counting fighters).  5 Fighter Squadrons.

Rebels:  1 MC-60 + 2 X-Wing Squadrons, 3 Rebel Assault Frigates + X-wings = 2,338.  Again, the remainder can be troops, fighter upgrades, etc.  That's 829 potential damage (not counting ion or fighters) and a total of 5,450 health (not counting fighters).  5 Fighter Squadrons.

Neutrals:  1 Dread + Z-95s, 1 Bulk Cruiser + 4x Z-95s, 1 Neb-B + Z-95s, 2 C. Corvettes = 2,369.  Again, the remainder can be troops, fighter upgrades, etc.  That's 520 potential damage (not counting ion of fighters) and a total of 3,080 health (not counting fighters).  6 Fighter Squadrons

Now, I admit that I don't understand fighter squadron damage listings at the moment, so that's why I didn't calculate those in. 

So, in summary:

	Imperial	Rebel	Neutral
Ships	4	4	5
Fighter Squadrons	5	5	6
DMG Potential / Turn	870	829	520
Total HP	4,387	5,450	3,080
Total Build Cost	2,366	2,338	2,369
Upkeep	223	214	215

This, I think, actually has some really interesting data.  For one, there's some really good parity here in some areas.  In particular the quantities that can be built/maintained for a similar amount of MC.  The rebels/imperials actually have a really good parity, I think.  What concerns me is the massive difference you see when you look at those two and the neutrals, though.  For the same cost, neutrals produce only 2/3 of the damage and have only 60-70% of the damage absorption capability.

While I was working through all that, I see you posted again.  Happy to give you time, input, help, whatever you need.   That's what this is all about, it's meant as feedback not criticism.  I'm not too worried about the >1k bit, though having more potential >1k targets would be nice.  I actually prefer the idea (for my faction at least) of more, smaller ships.  However, I'm just concerned about bang-for-the-buck.  I can't see how I can hope to compete as is because I can't put enough damage or suitability on the field.

Some CSA stuff would probably help, and fits for me for sure.  If I recall, they had a >1k 'dreadnaught' type ship, too, which may be worth looking at if you want to go that way.  I'd have to go digging to find my sourcebooks though and I'm just about to move.  Even just an 'upgrade' to the existing ships might help.  Say an "advanced" Dreadnaught that has had it's Turbolasers upgraded to Heavy Turbolasers and it's troops reduced by 1000 to make room for another squadron of fighters.  Could be endless, won't keep writing here in this already incredibly long post.

Excited to play all the same, like I said, feedback, not criticism here.

[SWSF Hoppus]

Interesting and thank you for taking the time to do that. I have a feeling I forgot to update specs/cost in common thread. I have a spread sheet for all units that calculates the MC cost - Damage Tolerance, Damage Output, Onboard capacity, are all weighted and its graded on a scale (with the SSD being the highest water mark). This formula is used for *every* unit, only sf, aux ,troops, etc have their cost divided by 4 as they are more perishable and to capture scale a bit.

I'll look into why the disparity in common tech. It should be much closer. I think part of the difference might be troops - theres a good ground force in that Neutral fleet. Also there are 7 squadrons in the neutral fleet.

What don't you understand about fighter damages by the way?

  2 Laser Cannons (1/2/1)

(damage per cannon/total damage for all cannons/range) <- Is this the hang up?

For warhead launchers that take both CM or PT, its just representing both options.

[RanesDsane]

Thanks, it's the kind of analysis that comes naturally to me so I end up doing it a lot.  I have a partial spreadsheet now for comparison, too.   I only did the under 1k capital ships, though.

There's definitely some nice troop options fleet-side in the neutrals, no doubt.  I haven't looked at the actual troops in detail yet.

And, yes, the key to reading the numbers is what was missing for me with the starfighters.  So a squadron of 12 fighters that have 2 laser cannons would produce 24 damage at a range of 1.

By the way, I noticed in the capital ships that the Dual Laser Cannon is mentioned, but it's not in the rules damage chart.  I assumed it was 2x a laser cannon.  Also, the Rebel Assault Frigate is missing it's Launch Bay size specification.

[SWSF Hoppus]

Thanks, it's the kind of analysis that comes naturally to me so I end up doing it a lot.  I have a partial spreadsheet now for comparison, too.   I only did the under 1k capital ships, though.

Here's the excel sheet for the power calc: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n1b93vayd9ph9zp/SWSF-unit-power-calc.xlsx?dl=0

Let me know if the link doesn't work for you.

There's definitely some nice troop options fleet-side in the neutrals, no doubt.  I haven't looked at the actual troops in detail yet.

And, yes, the key to reading the numbers is what was missing for me with the starfighters.  So a squadron of 12 fighters that have 2 laser cannons would produce 24 damage at a range of 1.

That's right.

By the way, I noticed in the capital ships that the Dual Laser Cannon is mentioned, but it's not in the rules damage chart.  I assumed it was 2x a laser cannon.  Also, the Rebel Assault Frigate is missing it's Launch Bay size specification.

An oversight. They are on 'umbilical cords' or some such. But I will add a bay size to keep it simple. Thank you. Feel free to PM me any other catches so we can get any wrinkles ironed out.

[RanesDsane]

Link worked fine.  Added two columns:  Faction (color coded) and Category (Capital, etc).  Quick sort of Category (to group) and then by the various Power/Damage columns.  Made a quick assessment doing that.

There's a clear raw-power advantage to Rebel/Imperials, but I think that's mostly the factor of just having larger ships.*  That, as we already said, isn't necessarily unbalanced.

Troops look well balanced.  Elite troops are, of course, more powerful and I imagine factions will want to develop their own elite troops at some point, but I can't see how 'elite' and 'common' would go together.

Vehicles:  I think the T-47 should be considered for going common.  Rebel T-47s were modified commercial models and it fills a hole in air for everyone.  It also fits nicely into the mid-range power where only the rebels have something.  You said you were going to consider the GR-75 for common, I think you might need to to give Common some vehicle capability.  A dread with 8 is the bottom of the capable list.  Alternatively, a "ground strike" version of the VSD, which I think is canonical.

That brings us to fighters...  Going to do some pondering here, but I think we need another common fighter that'll come in around the .26 power level.  Everything currently over that is the best of the best.    Anything matching that should be faction specific I think.



* The large ship I was thinking for the CSA:  http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Invincible-class_Dreadnaught_Heavy_Cruiser  I don't think this should be on the common list.  Actually, the more I think about it, I think the VSD should be top of the common list.  There's good power there with that and anything higher should be faction specific.

[SWSF Hoppus]

These rules were from GRU - a Rebel/Imperial sim (at least at the time of the version of warbook I had). Hence, the neutral tech is a bit light.

I am in the process of adding several new units to the common list. I think they will fill some gaps. Also, Rebel ships don't have great fire power. They rely on fighters and shielding. Imps have it, and always have had it.

[RanesDsane]

Understandable.  Common was common, not neutral/third party.  Agree on the rebels vs Imperials.  I think that power balance for capital ships looks good overall.

I may poke around in some of my old stuff and see if I can come up with some reasonable 'faction' stuff for me.

[SWSF Hale]

I submit the following for player use in the event annexing a neutral world occurs. It favors a healthy split in distribution of forces between space/ground that is designed to provide (2-3) rounds of defense in space and another (2-3) rounds of defense on the ground, against an ISD (or equivalent force) before surrendering.

NEUTRAL SYSTEM PDF TEMPLATE
SPACE (656 MC)
(1) Nebulon-B Escort Frigate (495 MC)
w/ (24) Z-95 Headhunters (Stock)
w/ (3) Lambda Shuttles (Stock)
(1) Corellian Corvette (161 MC)
w/ (600) Standard Infantry (Stock)

GROUND (344 MC)
(40) Standard Heavy Infantry Companies (240 MC)
(30) AT-PT Walkers (90 MC)
(2) Speeder Bikes (4 MC)

PDF DOCTRINE
1. 3D - Deter, Delay, Distress.  This is the primary goal of all PDF forces, as their strategy is to slow and frustrate an adversary in order to buy time for their distress signal to reach a third-party faction, who will respond and rebuff the hostile forces.

PDF TACTICS
1. Skirmish. Space forces will prefer to make invasions costly, therefore, they will engage "targets of opportunity" (aka "bottom up targeting") by isolating weaker units and attacking those first in order to maximize hostile casualties. Time and energy will not be wasted on large capital ships in excess of 300 meters.
2. Reinforce. If a large and overwhelming space force is presented, then the CORV will attempt a ground landing to supplement the Defense Army with its additional troops if deemed necessary.
3. Surrender. The system will surrender if its ground forces fall below 18 units/companies. (For example: (10) SHICs and (8) AT-PTs.)

[RanesDsane]

GROUND (344 MC)
(40) Standard Heavy Infantry Companies (240 MC)
(30) AT-PT Walkers (90 MC)
(2) Speeder Bikes (4 MC)

I agree with most of what you posted.  This seems...oddly unbalanced.

I'd expect to see something more like:
(11) Heavy Infantry (66)
(30) Standard Infantry (150)
(6) Conscript (24)
(30) AT-PT Walkers (90 MC)
(2) Speeder Bikes (4 MC)

No number basis here, just a matter of what's a planet likely to have?  Probably not all heavy.

[SWSF Hale]

I agree with the concept of a "realistic" disposition of units to some extent, but the system will surrender either way when 75% of its ground forces are killed. The shift from 40 Heavy Infantry to 46 Mixed Infantry doesn't really give the system a strong deterrent capability (standard infantry do 0 damage to vehicles). I'm basing all of this on the 3D Doctrine.  At the end of the day, it's just a template -- so players can modify as they wish. I would only temper/check any modifications with what you or any other player would actually use to defend our worlds, and go from there. In that context, I doubt we'll see Conscripts, ever.