The First Chronicles of the Star League

[RTGPete]

Is the fire control rating adjusted every round to account for ships destroyed and damage taken to ships not destroyed?

 

Is there no chance at all that some ship will not follow the leader and fires on something else?

 

I believe it recalculates from time to time - it's buried deep in the code but probably does.

[orin]

So if it is 'side of battle' then you can make a megga command carrier(s) (all computers/armor) and keep it at the back.. and then benifits would go to the whole fleet ?

[RTGPete]

So if it is 'side of battle' then you can make a megga command carrier(s) (all computers/armor) and keep it at the back.. and then benifits would go to the whole fleet ?

Yes.

[octagon999]

How do you know what the bridge output is for each bridge system, since there isn't anything in the description like there is for engines?

 

Can I make a bid for this info to be included in the description? And for other systems where the percentage of tonnage is applicable?

[Paradigm]

The 4,000 figure could be seen on battle reports as it shows total bridge values. I'm also going to add it to your FOB results so that you won't have to run a battle to find out.

 

ANZ results same thing - bridge #'s will show up for those soon.

You might want to take a look at the ANZ wording in general. Overall the computer ANZ's imply to me that you only need 1 computer per ship which I think is misleading to green players.

 

". . . It is pointless to install large number of computers on a ship that has little

else, but it is a good idea to give your warships at least one high quality Computer

System so that it can function at maximum efficiency. . . ."

 

Even the first part is not really true if you consider dedicated command ships. A battleship that can only target one enemy unit per round I would not consider to be operating at "maximum efficiency". Even worse is that such a ship somehow pulls down the targeting ability of other ships in the fleet.

 

Also, if you are going to update the ANZ's with bridge ratings, and perhaps others like tractors with tow ratings, I think you should post the ratings for the first few generations in the GM Notes section of the turn results. We really shouldn't have to re-ANZ things. I'm thinking here more about the players that don't frequent this BBS (the rest of us can easily trade the data). I do strongly support making these values public. The FOB change will be welcome as I should not have to fight battles to learn the targeting abilities of my ships/fleets. It's also not really fair to the loner players that can't arrange test battles. Why not also list the fleet targeting value in the fleet summary section like the fleet tow ratings are now? It would save players from doing a lot of math (we do more than enough already).

 

The more I think about it the less I like the fleet targeting equation. It would be better if each ship had it's own targeting value, and perhaps received a bonus from other ships so command ships would still be of value.

 

I also maintain that we should clearly be told which weapons are short range, etc. I understand the reasoning for not giving out all of the weapons ratings and such, but there are basic things we need to know to design our ships that are currently hidden. Things that we should easily be able to determine from an in-game perspective.

 

Finally a question: How do fighters / drones target? I assume they are independent of their carriers? If I have 10,000 assault fighters and a crummy fleet targeting value of 1, does that mean my 10,000 assault fighters can only target 1 enemy unit per round?

[Eldred]

So it would seem that bigger and bigger battleships are not necessarily the way to go (unless of course you have superior bridge tech or are prepared to incorporate large amounts of computers in the design). Alternatively your war fleets will have to drag a command centre round with them.

 

Right then.... if have a 1,000,000 ton warship that is able to target 3 ships at once. It might be attacked by a hundred 10,000 ton destroyers with limited fire control....On each round only 3 of the destroyers would be targetted by the warship, whilst the rest of the destroyers would be able to focus their attack without fear of damage....So even if the warship has awesome weaponry the damage it can do on each round is limited to just 3 destroyers, whilst it would have to absorb whatever damage can be delivered from all of the remaining destroyers.

 

Have I missed something or is there a clear advantage here to having lots of little ships instead of one big ship?

[Locklyn]

Eldred, apparently so despite what Pete has said before.

 

I agree with Paradigm and I would also stress that this is a much more serious issue of being able to know the ground rules when you play the game instead of having surprises sneaking up on you on basic matters which should have been available since day one and not have to be dragged out on the boards where they're not only not available to all players equally and fairly. Why is it this way?

 

This comes down to the rulebook needing to be looked at NOW, not later, not worked on, but now. We're paying and playing the game now with a very loose and very vague set of rules for everything except production and we've pretty much accepted that for the last two years but we're meeting up now, we're fighting now and to two years into the game finding out such critical information that we all asked for and pleaded for on the old boards is simply not kosher. I for one have millions of tons of warships that were "Guessdesigned" since there were no real explanation of ranges, of how combat worked and what affected what. Sure, I can bring em back now and scrap em and rebuild better ships, too bad about all the Experience and Morale they've gained during that time. E&M also needs to be explained in the combat rules when they're done.

 

 

We didn't even have the FOB then and had to guess and how are we supposed to even continue guessing with rating descriptors that make no real sense compared to the odd battle result we see? I was among those who asked way back that if we could be allowed to do mock combats with our own fleets we could calculate these things since LFEs brings nothing information wise but since Pete has to oversee all battles that was ruled out. Then allies started having test battles and could start to figure some things out but like this thing with Brigde Rating of 4000, how should we have known? Why wasn't it there from the beginning? I agree with Paradigm that noone should have to reanz for information that should have been there to start with. Perhaps all defensive systems like armor, sensors, shields etc should gain numerical ratings instead of the Poor-Fair-Adequate rating to better reflect reality and help us design ships that actually work.

 

There are more areas in the game that are supposed to be "basic" like stability, characters and more that we have no information in the rules about at all, perhaps a bit more transparency and clarity with the rules from RTG would help alleviate alot of frustration from players like me? I think so...

 

Some areas that interest me in being cleared up are:

 

Stability:

I've come to the point where I can build installations that can affect stability alot according to the INST but I have no way of measuring what the levels of stability are on my hw, colonies or conquered worlds. Now way of knowing if it is ready to burst or if the Holo Caverns did their work and made people happy again. The only thing we've ever been told about Stability is that if it is high people will move into the popgroup. I've seen that happen ONE turn in all my turns despite experimenting. I've yet to see a conquered world rise in arms against deplorable rule or even the fact that the King is suddenly a purple lobster. I've spoken with Pete repeatedly over the last year about Stability and the ability to measure it and gotten the response that he was looking into it but if it is a part of the game why isn't it just reported like everything else? What is the problem with an integral part of the game?

 

Leaders:

Aside from Special Agents not being coded and worthless to all those who decided to go Darlok with their race theme there is a spew of other issues regarding characters. When will the SAs come into play, what abilities can we expect from them? Also the merchants, the priests and the diplomats seem ´just to be glorified administrators with very little other game effect than being able to affect production. If it is so please just tell us otherwise they're basically just administrators.

 

More detail is needed on what specific areas LCs affect in naval combat and ground combat especially after the comments about needing LCs for capturing ships, and here I was reading my ANZ and thinking the heavy stun beams would be enough to peacefully capture a ship and then bring it in with grapples, darn those armament salescreatures, misleading me all the time and killing alien creatures left and right *sigh*

 

Diplomacy:

Is it ever going to be anything but deciding who not to shoot at in this game? I seriously hope so, I really fell in love with the diplomacy section of the rules when I read it the first time and was miffed when I found out it was just vapor in the game.

 

There are alot of other issues that I've voiced on the boards before as well as run by both Pete and Russ many times. I keep getting the same "I'm looking into that" answer all the time and while I respect both the workload you guys have here and elsewhere it has been two years guys, sure two years of many changes, fixes and the modifications but the documentation part of it all has been poorly executed in my book... at least give me and us a decent set of ground rules to play with while you tweak, bugfix, and program the stuff that you didn't get round to in the first go.

Also please, start giving us ETAs on projects so we know stuff is happening with basic game code.

 

When I look at the techtree and some of the more advanced stuff you've put into it I am constantly amazed at the balance of it and the depth in the descriptions of those items and I long for a deeper more intricate universe to explore but with so little data and when the data we do have is constantly changing it comes out like a chaotic spreadsheet where the formulas keep changing and you'd better be on the boards every day to have a chance to actually keep up with the running and thats just no fun and I want to have fun and I pay serious money every month to have fun and please please pretty please, update the rules to reflect reality as well as give us the information we need to play efficiently at least.

 

Now that was my first major whine in a very long time, those that know me from the old board must be amazed at my self restraint all this time and I'll just go sit in the corner now with my pointy hat while people pelt me with Advanced Plantfoods for saying such nasty things

 

 

/Locklyn

[Turok]

Very articulate and straight to the point.

 

Pete/Russ perhaps you have inadvertently given out a little too much information?

 

Personally I am too bothered, as if we are all left in the dark no-one gains an advantage.

 

However I can certainly see Locklyn's point and it is very difficult to disagree

[General Miles Avatar]

cant fault you Locklyn. The things you are saying are very true. Id like to see the benefits of SA's

especially since I originally picked espionage as a tradition and have been blessed with many

of those types of leaders.

 

The rule book is another subject that also needs to be addressed. I remeber from the get go that there was an order discribed in the rulebook under ground combat that doesnt even exist!

 

Everyone remember the Disembark Army Force order? Its still in there on page 6-2. there is also

something about troops shuttles which as it turns out arent needed at all.

 

I too LOVE the game for its depth and balance but I echo Locklyn's sentiments about going into

a dark room with only a match to light the way.

[RTGPete]

If fishes were wishes, we'd all throw out lines.

 

Doing my best to provide information, can't go back in time and retroactively give out details on particular rules until somebody develops a TimeDistorter5000.

 

Back to the Fire Control topic: sure, lots of small ships are helpful. However, they have an annoying tendency to....die. And those ships won't have expensive transwarp drives, so when on the attack, they get used up very quickly and are very hard to replace far from home. On the other hand, a fast transwarp flagship loaded with bridge gear is very easy to move instantly to the front.

 

If you don't want to develop better bridge technology, that's fine. Build your own small ships if your fleet commanders consider them "all that". It's entirely up to you. A combination of the two, to counter the enemy, might be needed, or perhaps not - it all depends on the kind of battle you expect to fight.

 

Fighters/Drones require Fire Control as well, or you'd rightfully complain about how they are too good. Or that other weapons are not good enough. In the end, Fire Control is a way to multiply the size of your fleet by adding fluff to it. Easily destroyed by a much smaller high Fire Control enemy raiding force, it's a gamble.

 

As an aside, I personally would not build ridiculously large numbers of junk screening ships. A balance of some Fire Control with a moderate screen of decent ships (not junk) would give me more survival potential in an extended fight far from home. At home, perhaps a larger screen would be warranted - anything to hold off the enemy who could very well arrive unprepared and overconfident. A one-shot survival strategy at the homeworld might be worth it. Your mileage may vary.

[The Boo Consulate]

Maybe we could get an updated version of the rules incorporating the newly revealed information so that all current and future players could be on the same page in terms of future play. We certainly can not change what has or has not been done, but a comprehensive update at some designated point in the future might work to assuage some player angst.

[crossroads]

I agree that info/guides are well behind reallity. We would all appriciate that if changes are being made that the guides are adjusted right away. No adjustment in the game without an adjustment in the guides.

 

In general i think too many basic things are too vague. Discovery is a fine aspect of the game but at times we feel lost in the dark. So, please more clearity.

[SargonKingOfSlith]

Now that was my first major whine in a very long time, those that know me from the old board must be amazed at my self restraint all this time and I'll just go sit in the corner now with my pointy hat while people pelt me with Advanced Plantfoods for saying such nasty things

 

 

/Locklyn

Good rant Locklyn! I share your sentiments; I just haven’t voiced them as you have. I’m going to add my comments in another topic, since they are about more than just fire control.

[Galreth]

I support Locklyn's thoughts as well. It's becoming very frustrating to build ships and organize production queues only to find they must be changed, at the cost of many orders and thus $, every turn. Granted one doesn't HAVE to spend the money, but then you cede the advantage to others when you don't. And THAT is not in the brochure anywhere, nor is it right.

 

We've gone far beyond the baseline rulebook now and desperately need an updated document with information that is now critical to gameplay at the stage we are all at--the areas Locklyn describes. RTG could get away with some "holes" a year and a half ago, but now diplomacy, battle reports, warship design, population stability, special characters, etc are a MUST, no longer just nice to have extras. I sympathize with RTG that this is not an easy task, but there has to be some sympathy coming the other way as well. We play the game blind in too many areas and turns and turns of production and planning go down the tubes when suddenly a new detail doesn't fit the "planning."

 

I love the game, I really do. It's a great concept...but we need the conceptual to become concrete. Pete/Russ, is there something you need to make a bunch of the "holes" disappear? Can we as a community of players help you out in terms of a skipped turn to give you more time?...would a moratorium on ship movement help (no battles, thus time for you to implement battle report/engine changes)?...just trying to think of what might help us all get the areas that seem incomplete up to snuff.

[RTGPete]

I don't disagree with what Locklyn has to say, but some of the issues are being resolved even as I type this. It doesn't do any good to cry "why weren't all of the details given to us in the beginning?" That's a moot point. No game of this magnitude can possibly provide every conceivable detail ahead of time. Give me my TimeDistorter5000 and I can go back and change things in the time stream., miraculously knowing ahead of time what players might or might not want on every single game detail, some of which weren't even discovered back then.

 

The key thing to remember is that well over 95% of the game hasn't seen any change, works just as expected, and (I have to say) makes for one darned fun game.

 

More details to come in space combat, FOB's, special agents and so forth. I can't say when on everything, because I don't know when on everything. Just doing my best to give out more and more details where appropriate.