SFB Campaign Movement Options

[john]

We're going to use this tread to hammer out movement rules for the next campaign. We've identified a number of issues with the existing system and would like input from everyone as to what we should do about them.

If Kevein would be so kind as to summarize what Chris, I and he have discussed to date that should get things rolling.

[cheethorne]

We have identified the following problems:
* An attacker has very few ways to be "clever" when he attacks other than through raids.

* The defender has too many ways to defend against an approaching enemy: reaction movement where he gets to choose what he reacts to, reserve movement that lets him reinforce any point he wants.

* Strategic movement allows both attackers and defenders to continually pile ships into a narrow front, leading to longer pile up of fights inside a single hex instead of spread over several hexes.

[john]

We also talked about the extra movement that can be gained through shifting ships through the raid pool.

The biggest problem seemed to be that a defender could easily get numerous fleets into position with very little fore-thought about his actual deployment.

My suggestion to date have been along these lines;
-Get rid of most of the extra movement options.
-Allow movement between raid points for fast or x-ships only. (Other units could still raid adjacent provinces but could only enter a raid pool from the hex that the raid pool is in.)
-All movement(s) are limited by the provinces CC

And on a related topic, target selection and target value...
Chris has argued in favour of making the disruption or blockading of various targets more disruptive.
This ties in to what we are talking about above in that if the various minor targets cost the controlling player more when they are taken out or blockaded, then there is way more chance of battles spreading out instead of concentrating around planets.

[cheethorne]

Ah yes, I had forgotten about moving stuff around through "raiding point" transfers. Probably because it is the silliest extra type of movement we have.

john said:

The biggest problem seemed to be that a defender could easily get numerous fleets into position with very little fore-thought about his actual deployment.

I would agree with that. One of the problems is that we complete all operational movement on an impulse by impulse basis before any of the reaction / reserve movement takes place, giving them defender the ultimate choice of what to defend against, simply because they can wait until impulse 3 or 4 before doing any reaction movement.

Sept 13, 2010 11:55:11 GMT -4 john" said:

My suggestion to date have been along these lines;
-Get rid of most of the extra movement options.
-Allow movement between raid points for fast or x-ships only. (Other units could still raid adjacent provinces but could only enter a raid pool from the hex that the raid pool is in.)
-All movement(s) are limited by the provinces CC

I can easily agree with the second point. In fact, I would say just get rid of movement between Raid Points completely. If you want ships in one raid point to go to another raid point, then you have to move them manually. Of course, this would also eliminate hidden raid points, but that's probably a good idea anyway.

As for the first point. I can easily agree with getting rid of Reserve Movement. It does too much given the fairly dense nature of our territory. A single CU can protect too much territory.

However, making Reaction Movement cost CC resources is not a very good idea since it will cause a lot more paperwork (we'll always have to care about which CU is activated every turn, where as right now we paper over it for most of them) and it won't do much because since each CU can protect out to two hexes and it doesn't take much to get 2 CC in any given province, that is a fairly big area that reaction movement can cover. I could even have a few CU's on two sides of a province line to effectively get 3, 4, 5, or even up to 6 CU's capable of reaction movement. All it would do in the end would prevent the provinces that I am attacking from not be very capable of defending against a counter-attack on the same turn, which isn't much of a penalty.

Sept 13, 2010 11:55:11 GMT -4 john said:

And on a related topic, target selection and target value...
Chris has argued in favour of making the disruption or blockading of various targets more disruptive.
This ties in to what we are talking about above in that if the various minor targets cost the controlling player more when they are taken out or blockaded, then there is way more chance of battles spreading out instead of concentrating around planets.

The problem with this is systemic. Either planets are more valuable then space resources or they are not. If they are more valuable, regardless of how much more valuable they are, then they will be more heavily defended.

Also, one of the ways players leave planets to defend the outlying resources is through reaction movement, which you are almost suggesting we get rid of. If planets are even remotely more valuable than a black hole (a supply point, large project bonus, possible provincial capital, better built-in defenses), then I am far more likely to simply stay there and wait for you to come to me since it is very hard for you to justify leaving me behind your lines as you fly past.

[john]

Sept 13, 2010 11:55:11 GMT -4 john said:

And on a related topic, target selection and target value...
Chris has argued in favour of making the disruption or blockading of various targets more disruptive.
This ties in to what we are talking about above in that if the various minor targets cost the controlling player more when they are taken out or blockaded, then there is way more chance of battles spreading out instead of concentrating around planets.

The problem with this is systemic. Either planets are more valuable then space resources or they are not. If they are more valuable, regardless of how much more valuable they are, then they will be more heavily defended.

Also, one of the ways players leave planets to defend the outlying resources is through reaction movement, which you are almost suggesting we get rid of. If planets are even remotely more valuable than a black hole (a supply point, large project bonus, possible provincial capital, better built-in defenses), then I am far more likely to simply stay there and wait for you to come to me since it is very hard for you to justify leaving me behind your lines as you fly past.

You seem to be missing the basic point. We are not making them any more valuable to the economy of the controlling player. The penalty for not controlling them or losing them to a raid will be higher and/or for a longer period of time.

[cheethorne]

john said:

We are not making them any more valuable to the economy of the controlling player. The penalty for not controlling them or losing them to a raid will be higher and/or for a longer period of time.

How would you suggest we do that? Right now a small resource provides +1 to the province's special project and +0.5 to a single trade route that goes through that hex, for a total possible bonus of +1.5. Are you suggesting that disrupting the resource should incur a penalty of -2 or something like that?

Probably the bigger problem for this particular thing is that it is impossible to permanently take away another player's small resources without using a tug of your own. It is easier to take away a player's Colonies (using Razing) then taking away their black holes and that is just silly. By allowing players to more quickly and more permanently plow through another player's small resources, that might incur enough of a penalty on its own (ie. if I don't protect that black hole, I have to bring a tug back out here to get it back).

[john]

Well, there are a number of ways that this could be handled.
To keep things simple I'm thinking along these lines.

A resource that is eliminated gives that province -2x its value for the first turn and stays knocked out for a number of turns equal to its value, each additional turn past the first turn the penalty to that province special project is equal to the value of the resource.

If a trade route passes through a resource that has been taken out then the trade route and its value are 'knocked out' until that resource is reclaimed.

If ships are blockading or a base is captured or placed and control has shifted to the attacking player then of course that resource and/or trade route are under another players control or disrupted and can not contribute to the other players economy until such time as that player drives the other one out.

This more or less takes what we already have in the rules and expands on it a bit. Notably the double penalty for the first turn of loss of control, also the resource and trade route being a combined loss instead of just the resource lost.

Lastly, the reclaiming of said resource should require a tug action or base action from within the province.


Getting back on topic with Movement;

If we get rid of Strategic Movement we eliminate one of the movement types that makes the least sense. Something similar can be set up with warp points and given the 'value' of this type of movement having warp points as special projects makes sense.

I'm also all for getting rid of Reserve Movement, with the possible exception of each province having a Reserve Movement option for a National Guard fleet if said province has national guard.

Raid Movement; I think taking away hidden raid points and special movement options for Fast and X-ships is a bit premature at this point. These units are special for a reason and would be fun to explore some of the things we've proposed for this, rather that throwing the baby out with the bath water...

Movement Sequence; Talking with Kevin yesterday he suggested that we process the movement segment of the campaign turns differently. He suggested an initiative sequence, with reaction movement interspersed throughout the movement sequence, rather than being lumped together at the end. Makes sense to me and would likely spread battles out a bit, especially if combined with greater penalties for loosing the minor resources we should see the battles spread out, rather than just congesting around planets.

[cheethorne]

To expand on what John alluded to above with the proposed movement changes, this is what I got for it so far:

* Players activate units based on the C&C level of each province during the Plotting Phase as per the current rules.

* During the Plotting Phase, at the beginning of each year, players determine initiative for that year (four turns). Some projects may provide a bonus to that roll.

* In initiative order, the players move one CU, including breaking that CU up into smaller pieces, its full operational movement (ie. four hexes) or pass.

* As each CU moves into each hex the CU is scanned and each player, determined by initiative order starting with the next player, can respond to that movement with Reaction Movement as per under the current rules, but can move the full two hexes of movement for CU that have accumulated two reaction movement points.

* Once a player has declined to use reaction movement against a CU for that one hex of movement, he cannot later choose to react to that same CU until it moves another hex or until the next turn (ie. I can`t wait to see what else you move before deciding what to react to).

* Once a CU has been moved by operational movement, even if it is only one hex, it cannot be moved again that turn.

* Once a CU has moved by reaction movement (one hex or two hexes depending), it cannot move again that turn, either with reaction movement or with operational movement.

* Each player has a chance to pass or move a CU until all players pass or all CUs have been moved (most likely all players will pass first).

* Ships with fast movement (ie. fast ships and x-ships) simply move an extra hex when they move and can now accumulate two reaction movement points even when not on a base, planet, or grouped with a scout.

* Players do all deployment after the end of the operational movement phase.

* Players raze after the end of the operational movement phase, but razing is ~4 times more powerful to compensate.

* Sorties will be treated as if they were separate CU`s capable of operational movement and reaction movement.

[cheethorne]

john said:

A resource that is eliminated gives that province -2x its value for the first turn... each additional turn past the first turn the penalty to that province special project is equal to the value of the resource.

Ok, I can agree with this. It makes sense that if you are getting some special resource or something from some place, then the disruption of that resource is biggest right away before you adjust to living without it. Makes sense.

john said:

If a trade route passes through a resource that has been taken out then the trade route and its value are 'knocked out' until that resource is reclaimed.

This I don't agree with, at least as far as I understand it. If I have a trade route between two major planets and that route happens to go through an asteroid hex, I don't see why that whole trade route should be disrupted if the asteroid resource is lost. Sure, the trade route is smaller because the asteroid hex is no longer contributing to it, but there is no reason to disrupt the entire route.

john said:

Lastly, the reclaiming of said resource should require a tug action or base action from within the province.

Agreed. Similar to how when a colony is destroyed, it doesn't magically return after a few turns, it stays dead. Small resources should be the same way.

john said:

If we get rid of Strategic Movement we eliminate one of the movement types that makes the least sense. Something similar can be set up with warp points and given the 'value' of this type of movement having warp points as special projects makes sense.

I can agree with this as a compromise. All of the reasons I feel strategic movement should be kept can be accomplished by building a small network of warp points and warp gates, which will actually make the movement even faster. The big question for me is should the projects be cheap (relatively speaking) or should they be expensive but players get one free warp point and two free warp gates, that way everyone has one, but aren't likely to build more than one for quite a while.

john said:

I'm also all for getting rid of Reserve Movement, with the possible exception of each province having a Reserve Movement option for a National Guard fleet if said province has national guard.

Those sorts of things are better explains with hand waving and the "option" of reinforcing a hex with that National Guard ships as opposed to a physical CU that needs to be tracked.

john said:

Raid Movement; I think taking away hidden raid points and special movement options for Fast and X-ships is a bit premature at this point.

I wasn't suggesting getting rid of raids, just getting rid of raid point transfers (ie. moving from one raid point to another). If we remove the time it takes to move into and out of a Raid Pool, then forcing a player to move his ships in real space won't be a huge burden (moving between two raid points that are 5 hexes or less apart will take one turn instead of 2-3 right now because of how and when ships can go to the Raid Pool).

The hidden raid points makes the above rule not work very well since ships would have to move to a hidden raid point before disappearing. However, hidden raid points have other problems with them, including the fact that no one is building them, not even the player that has done the most raiding of anyone. I don't think we'll miss them much if they are no longer invisible, since you can still build extra raid points.

[john]

Sept 14, 2010 13:07:29 GMT -4 cheethorne said:

john said:

A resource that is eliminated gives that province -2x its value for the first turn... each additional turn past the first turn the penalty to that province special project is equal to the value of the resource.

This I don't agree with, at least as far as I understand it. If I have a trade route between two major planets and that route happens to go through an asteroid hex, I don't see why that whole trade route should be disrupted if the asteroid resource is lost. Sure, the trade route is smaller because the asteroid hex is no longer contributing to it, but there is no reason to disrupt the entire route.

I believe, as it stands in the rules now, ships (and bases?) in a resource hex only disrupt that resource, not the trade route. But in all other cases, except an actual resource hex, the trade route is disrupted... how does that make sense.

I can agree with this as a compromise. All of the reasons I feel strategic movement should be kept can be accomplished by building a small network of warp points and warp gates, which will actually make the movement even faster. The big question for me is should the projects be cheap (relatively speaking) or should they be expensive but players get one free warp point and two free warp gates, that way everyone has one, but aren't likely to build more than one for quite a while.

I'd say make them mid-range in price, as for startup options though, I'd say that this should be one of the options for startup, but not mandatory. Someone with three small provinces is likely not going to want it whereas someone with three really large or stretched out provinces may feel its required at the start.

john said:

Raid Movement; I think taking away hidden raid points and special movement options for Fast and X-ships is a bit premature at this point.

I wasn't suggesting getting rid of raids, just getting rid of raid point transfers (ie. moving from one raid point to another). If we remove the time it takes to move into and out of a Raid Pool, then forcing a player to move his ships in real space won't be a huge burden (moving between two raid points that are 5 hexes or less apart will take one turn instead of 2-3 right now because of how and when ships can go to the Raid Pool).

The hidden raid points makes the above rule not work very well since ships would have to move to a hidden raid point before disappearing. However, hidden raid points have other problems with them, including the fact that no one is building them, not even the player that has done the most raiding of anyone. I don't think we'll miss them much if they are no longer invisible, since you can still build extra raid points.

I was never suggesting getting rid of raids, I was just suggesting that Fast and X-ships get to use raid point movement and that we keep the hidden raid points. As it stands we could make a hidden raid point useful. Take away the hidden aspect and then all that we are really doing is allowing people the option of building a base in an advanced position or building secondary raid points in areas that are already controlled.

As I said, the Fast and X-ship option should allow for some cool things, besides just raiding. And your argument that it has not been used yet is a bit week, especially when you consider there is a great many things in the game that have not been done yet and some things that have taken many campaigns before we actually tried them.

My arguments for this option are based on what it costs a player to use the Fast/X option. Main fighting hulls are being diverted for raiding, raiding units will be restricted to fighting in their originally launched group or breaking up into single units, there will no longer be an option to make standard fleets out of various raiding groups or have raiding ships join other fleets.

Anyways, running out of time, have things to do, will pick this up later.

[cheethorne]

I believe, as it stands in the rules now, ships in a resource hex only disrupt that resource, not the trade route.

I don't think so. In 2.3.2.3 it says that an unpinned CU in a hex of a trade route disrupts that trade route (its trade value becomes 0). If that CU disrupts a resource on a trade route and then leaves that hex, the trade route stops being disrupted, but it doesn't get the value from the resource.

I'd say make them mid-range in price, as for startup options though, I'd say that this should be one of the options for startup, but not mandatory.

Good idea.

As it stands we could make a hidden raid point useful.

Well, as you said, maybe we just haven't given them a chance yet.

As I said, the Fast and X-ship option should allow for some cool things, besides just raiding.

Like what? They can already do deep raids, move 5 hexes per turn, and if we go through with the big movement change above, they can do 2 hexes of reaction movement without needing a scout or a planet, so that's pretty cool.

[jasonsearles]

someone fill me in on what happened last week?

[cheethorne]

Wish I knew.

I'm still waiting as well.