How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Home of SOLAR STARFIRE, 6th edition, rules based on the upcoming history of the Terran Solar Union.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Postby procyon on Tue 15 Nov 2016 01:39

Ok, busy night at work but I will try to address what I can.

SCC wrote:You don't even need to get the drone, from the description it's broadcasting the Code Omega broadbeam, so if there's anything within 50 sH, like ICN stations, it gets heard.


Ok, this part all my players use so my oldest daughter can't complain if I share. It doesn't apply all the time, but nebula are a favorite place for most to go raiding.

P1.06
Range Reductions to Communications
Broadbeam communications are completely unusable in a nebula. Tightbeam communications are limited in some types of Nebulas:

Reflective Nebula, –50% Range
Emission Nebula, –75% Range
Maser Nebula, maximum range 1 tH


Which pretty much boils down to the fact that you have to be in the same sH as the FT that was hit to even hear the Omega broadcast. Assuming there was even a fixed location unit it could tightbeam to. Unless the drone gets away.

Point about the report but that doesn't make it any better, from what he's saying the raiders could be inflicting a 100% casualties in the system and because the CFN never receives a report it still considers it safe to travel trough, that shouldn't be happening.


As cralis said, that should be covered by SOP. In our games, FT get diverted enough that the players don't automatically mobilize a war fleet to deal with a missing FT1 that is only overdue by a week. It may have been a victim of a raid. Could be a victim of CFN incompetence and be a month or two behind schedule. May have been snagged by a graded leader for another purpose - that was not forwarded on (or a drone got lost or one wasn't available).

So for us, if the players get notice that a single CFN ship is unaccounted for - they likely won't mobilize a fleet. They will often dispatch some system patrol ships or divert some convoy escorts to investigate further. If a ship misses a 'ping' as cralis calls them - then the patrol ship goes out. (Unless it had orders to travel on 'blackout'. Which happens regularly for us. Ships transporting large amounts of income, carrying maint in a contested system to a war fleet, carrying a graded leader, etc - all will travel without announcing their presence regularly. But they are also going to travel with a military escort if possible.)
But expending thousands of MC seeding a system with sensor buoys/drones and warship patrols for that FT1 that is a week off schedule...not likely.


Point about the report but that doesn't make it any better, from what he's saying the raiders could be inflicting a 100% casualties in the system and because the CFN never receives a report it still considers it safe to travel trough, that shouldn't be happening.


I never said that. I am just saying that they won't know why they are losing ships. If they lose over a certain amount (set by the SOP), the CFN will refuse to traverse a system without being in escorted convoys. Or will completely cease and require a dangerous system pool.

Cralis wrote: I read his statement as saying that they never GET A REPORT from the system. No communications message, no omega drone, nothing. Just "ship that loaded at System A never arrived at System B."


Pretty much this.
I would say that over 90% of the time, if the piratess hits a target - they only know that ships are missing with no clue what happened. Only that they were underway, and then 'fell off the map'. And my other players will tell you it is annoyingly difficult to catch the raiders if you have absolutely no clue what happened and only the most general idea of where it occurred.
And if you do get a message - you often have to be profoundly careful. Because she wants you to respond to it.

She very much adheres to the old adage about chess players. "The winner is the player who makes the next to the last mistake." If she 'makes a mistake', it is because she is sure you will make the one in response that seals your fate.
(I am deeply thankful that she has turned out to be a good and ethical person. Because I am painfully aware that if she had chosen to be a bad one, this world would likely be much the worse for her presence.)

I truly wish I could share some of her gambits and ploys. They and the stories that go with them make for some amazing tales. But so far the only ones who know them are the piratess and myself. Well, other than the one other member who (for reasons unknown) has been given one of her (now obsolete for us) ploys.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Postby Elminster on Tue 15 Nov 2016 04:06

procyon wrote:If they lose over a certain amount (set by the SOP), the CFN will refuse to traverse a system without being in escorted convoys. Or will completely cease and require a dangerous system pool.

Wait, your players voluntarily establish SOP which will paralyze their CFN in such a system and forcing them to act? :shock:

I now a few players who would laugh about such foolishness. :)
In memory of Gary Gygax
In memory of Leonard Nimoy
In memory of Christopher Lee

In memory of Albert Einstein
E = MC^2 + 1d10
User avatar
Elminster
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1996
Joined: Tue 22 Jun 2010 00:54
Location: Ganderkesee, Germany

Re: How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Postby procyon on Tue 15 Nov 2016 04:59

Elminster wrote:
procyon wrote:If they lose over a certain amount (set by the SOP), the CFN will refuse to traverse a system without being in escorted convoys. Or will completely cease and require a dangerous system pool.

Wait, your players voluntarily establish SOP which will paralyze their CFN in such a system and forcing them to act? :shock:

I now a few players who would laugh about such foolishness. :)


It all depends on the circumstances - but it has been added in as a reaction to my oldest daughter and her raiding ploys.

Most of her ploys simply 'nickel & dime' the other players. They lose a small lone FT, perhaps once every 10 to 50 turns. So little that they often do not see it as worth the effort to try and locate the raider - as they feel they will lose more trying to catch something when they aren't even sure what they are looking for.

But a few of her ploys are much more aggressive and will result in dozens of FTs and other vessels being lost in a very short period of time. Some even depend on creating a 'contested system' that shuts down communication between the capital/ICC's and entire branches of an empire. And in the absence of a graded leader who can assume command, or prewritten SOP direction - the CFN may continue to operate in systems where they will begin to pile up losses.
And the other players have discovered that the faster they shut down all commerce in those areas and quarantine them - the less they will lose.

So, the players have (mostly) written SOP's that allow the CFN, in the absence of direction from the capital, ICC, or graded leader - to shut down any system with a number of ships late to destination or that fail to respond to an SOP indicated 'roster call' in a system. And often the entire CFN will be directed to some location dictated by the player's SOP and all passage at WP restricted/shut down (remember, one of her favorite targets is a trade partner - so her ships are supposed to be moving through these systems and WPs...).
Then any ships located in zones not dictated by SOP are subject to immediate attack and active armed AP will be seeded in those same 'CFN exclusion' zones. At that point other ships (generally the armed Govt 'CFN' ships -ie armed Imperial FT leased to the CFN) will begin complete 'boarding and inspection' of every vessel in system - with any not cataloged being treated as 'hostile' if encountered in system or trying to transit a WP into or out of a 'quarantine' system.

So yes. The players have SOP that allow the CFN, in the absence of imperial direction and with certain levels of 'unaccounted for vessels/assets' - to completely shut down a system to all traffic.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Postby SCC on Wed 16 Nov 2016 02:01

Elminster wrote:
procyon wrote:If they lose over a certain amount (set by the SOP), the CFN will refuse to traverse a system without being in escorted convoys. Or will completely cease and require a dangerous system pool.

Wait, your players voluntarily establish SOP which will paralyze their CFN in such a system and forcing them to act? :shock:

I now a few players who would laugh about such foolishness. :)

That was why I said that it was an SM matter.

Also I'm getting the feeling that in procyon's game there is little to no WP infrastructure, not even ICN stations, which is a little strange given how much his youngest likes raiding
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Re: How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Postby Cralis on Wed 16 Nov 2016 02:06

SCC wrote:Also I'm getting the feeling that in procyon's game there is little to no WP infrastructure, not even ICN stations, which is a little strange given how much his youngest likes raiding


You need to understand that they keep their costs and maintenance values so high that the typical empire fields dozens of ships, not hundreds of ships. So they can't defend a WP like we expect in a typical game of Starfire.

So no, they don't have the same kind of infrastructure. It would be cost ineffective.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10541
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Postby procyon on Wed 16 Nov 2016 03:56

SCC wrote:Also I'm getting the feeling that in procyon's game there is little to no WP infrastructure, not even ICN stations, which is a little strange given how much his youngest likes raiding


There are WP stations and pickets.
Perhaps not as much, but every known WP has a unit by it.

Even at the start of the game the players have a FT0 stationed on each side of a WP to transmit messages. The capital/admiral/ICC/whatever broadcast the message to the FT0 at the WP, and then the FT transits the WP and replays the message in the next system. Afterward the FT0 transits back to the original system.

When CC arrives, most of those FT get leased to the CFN.

Not sure what WP infrastructure has to do with losing ships. The bases at the WP don't go looking for lost ships. They may know that some ships entered the system from another WP (if that can be broadcast). But all they will know is that someone is off schedule when no one shows up or fails a routine check in.

Cralis wrote:You need to understand that they keep their costs and maintenance values so high that the typical empire fields dozens of ships, not hundreds of ships. So they can't defend a WP like we expect in a typical game of Starfire.

So no, they don't have the same kind of infrastructure. It would be cost ineffective.


This is true. I limit habitable planets to at most one in ten systems. That keeps the 'upward economic spiral of doom' at bay for much longer than in most games. By 100 turns in, our players likely have a total fleet of around 100 warship, spread out over a couple dozen systems - where a 'standard' game probably has that many ships in each of its (many) war fleets.

So piling up defenses at a WP is a bad plan. A small base and perhaps a system patrol ship is all you will find at most WP (unless it is the border to another race).

So the standard 'empire' in our game has a couple 'core planets/populations' sprawled out in an empire with nine times that many systems with nothing bigger than settlement. So the income to maintain a huge amount of WP bases in systems with no major populations or assets just isn't there. That doesn't mean that they leave any WP unmonitored. Just that sending one of your few war fleets to a remote system with little in it - because you are missing a single FT - tends to be a very bad idea.
And spending those thousands of MC to hunt for why that FT is missing - may also just be another bad idea. Especially when it shows up a few weeks later due to a CFN error.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Postby SCC on Thu 17 Nov 2016 20:04

Bases at the WP are important because I'm pretty sure (CC) has to be withing 1 tH of a WP, which means that no matter what the defenders will see someone transmitting
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Re: How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Postby procyon on Sat 19 Nov 2016 01:36

SCC wrote:Bases at the WP are important because I'm pretty sure (CC) has to be withing 1 tH of a WP


They do have to be within 1tH of the WP if they are used for WP message transmissions. But you can put a CC anywhere. If nebula systems my players often have one in a base near the system's star (they call it the stellar CC) to handle communications as the WP bases often lack the range to transmit to each other.

The stellar bases also allow the player to have a central unit that can handle communications should an admiral or such need to make system wide broadcasts. (It is also easier to tow the stellar base to a WP to replace a base lost to enemy action than to come up with a new base.)

which means that no matter what the defenders will see someone transmitting


I guess I am not sure what you are referring to with this part of the statement.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Postby PracticalM on Sun 04 Dec 2016 14:11

I use the raiding rules all the time to see if a fleet surveying the system can be detected and/or detect any FT traffic in the system. With WP visibility rules and chances for missed WP, I use these rules all the time.

Most players don't raid so much as take the opportunity to find FTs wandering around unescorted.
--
Jeffrey Kessler
PracticalM
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed 15 Jul 2009 10:27
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: How many have used the V2 Raiding Rules?

Postby Cralis on Mon 05 Dec 2016 03:57

PracticalM wrote:I use the raiding rules all the time to see if a fleet surveying the system can be detected and/or detect any FT traffic in the system.


Now I'm curious... do you just evenly distribute the survey ships evenly around each zone? Or do you have some other method trying to determine the actual movements of survey ships from zone to zone?

Most players don't raid so much as take the opportunity to find FTs wandering around unescorted.


The raiding rules pretty much assume that a raider is just randomly looking for freighters in the system. So it would work for exactly what you mention above. Procyon and I recently discussed that the next set of raiding rules need to be a little more specific about how WPs used as chokepoints, populations, etc. will have higher concentration of freighters, to the point that all freighters coming through a WP should be detected by any raiders watching the WPs. I thought it was obvious, but I can see his point that someone taking the rules literally (and the fact that it does not mention this) may not think it is obvious.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10541
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Previous

Return to Solar Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests