Fleet Commentary

[Adm Garm Bel Iblis]

IMO, the "building rules" are silly and meaningless. And I say this even when the 250 meter a day rule was my idea (It was my single contribution to the current rules draft that stuck). But it was a compromise to play along with the way things were done at the time.

I never really cared how many ships a group has. Waiting x number of days before you can have a ship is ridiculous. All that really matters is the size of a battle group you bring in per engagement.

In all honesty, all the rules do is protect the fleet mongers who want to muscle in on everyone else's RP and feel powerful. Most people hate these fleet RPs because they put too much focus on dishing out massive damage and taking planets for no reason. Those bad old days of thinking are pretty much behind us, though. Most people are just sick of fleets and want out.

If everyone could be trusted to play fair, work together, and show common sense, we could throw the rules out. Do you really think Timothy Zahn, Michael Stackpole, or A.C. Crispin really went, "Now if the Empire has x shipyard factilities, they can turn out X meters of capital ships per day adding up to a fleet of..."

Please.

I want to try and put this in perspective. The fleet downsizing of last year didn't even come close to what it should have been. There never was a rule for a maximum number of ships a group can support. Ultimately I'd love to see fleets stop growing entirely, and the number of ships used per engagement have a set cap so as not to be so overwhelming. The majority of those should never see planetary assault duty because they are too busy on defense and/or chasing pirates and smugglers.

I went to the Imperial Source Book from West End Games as a benchmark for how big a collected group of ships should be. Here are the estimates:

Heavy Attack line = 4 to 8 med-heavy Cruisers
Attack line = 3 to 6 assorted Frigates/Cruisers
Pursuit line = 4 to 10 light Cruisers/Corvettes
Recon line=2 to 4 light Cruisers/Corvettes
Skirmish line = 20 assorted Corvettes/Gunboats/Shuttles
Troop line = 2 transports and 2 escorts

One ISD is the equivalent of a heavy attack line.
One VSD is the equivalent of any other 1 line.

1 Squadron = 4 to 5 Lines depending on mission or up to 20 med-heavy cruisers with 40 assorted light ships (or 4-5 Star Destroyers total). This is the largest concentration of ships assigned to a single system. It has enough firepower to subjugate a planet. Anything larger requires a direct order from a Moff.

One SSD is the equivalent of a typical squadron.

A good illustration of a fleet size is Hoth. Darth Vader (commander in chief of the Imp Navy at the time), gathered 1 SSD, 3 ISDs, and a couple Lines for the top priority task of taking out the rebel cell where Luke Skywalker was hiding.

Another good illustration is The Bacta War from the EU. Isard had 1 SSD, 1 ISD, and 1 VSD protecting Thyferra. This was considered more than adequate by any military standard.

In other words, bringing more than 4 Star Destroyers and assorted smaller ships to a single engagement is overkill that would make Grand Moff Tarkin blanch.

1 Systems Force = 2-3 heavy squadrons and 2 to 3 light squadrons. The different kinds of Forces are meant to cover a several systems. (e.g. 1 SSD, 2 ISDs, 1 VSD, and 2 misc squadrons)

A Sector Force consists of anywhere up to 15 squadrons under the direct command of a Grand Admiral or Grand Moff.
The term "sector" is a bit ambiguous here. Most regions referred to as sectors are only 2-5 planets. A Sector Force is described as being able to cover a whole region of space, more like a quadrant.

That's say 3 SSDs and around 60 SDs or equivalent for an entire REGION of space, with at most 1 SSD and 4 SDs or equivalent assigned to a given mission (the SSD or equivalent command ship normally doesn't even engage the enemy directly).

I tried to model Peregrine Fleet (http://www.swforums.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=11748) after the sourcebook guidelines. Even it, I feel, is a little too big. But I had to somehow be able to survive against the forces used out there.

That's it. I'm not going to try to convince anyone of this. It's not worth it to argue over. It's just something that I wanted to say a year ago, but never got a chance to. Now that the fleet situation is much better than it was back then, I hope that enough people will consider taking the next step to normalcy.

[Jyanis Scorpion]

The overkill observation in fleet movements is very accurate. I read somewhere that the presence of one or two ISDs was enough to quell serious uprisings on some planets.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

As pertinent as the "boys with toys" argument is, and has been with respect to fleeting for the past 2 years, I don't see yet another downsize as an option. Frankly, if thats what comes of this, it will be met with my disapproval. Somebody whines, and gets a downsize, and then in cyclic fashion, will whine again in 8 months, which is really ridiculous.

I would LOVE to see a total build cap, much like a shipyard cap was determined. That way, the NR has X amount of meters/kilometers they can build with, and the Empire has Y amount, with maybe TSO, TCP, and the Conclave having other amounts.

Not only would you not get ridiculous proliferation, but you'd also be compelled to use your meters wisely. People would be careful, and less likely to build 10 SSDs which could be overrun by 500 nebulon frigates. It would work towards negating the number factor, and go back into things like strategy, tactics, R&D, and other things.

[Sumor Rayial]

I'd tend to agree with things said.

Personally I don't think that downsizing will work because as Anbira has stated it's only a matter of time before it needs to be done again and that's useless IMO.

A cap is the way to go. And I think it should be directly proportional to what assets you control. Back when we were doing the last set of stuff including the downsizing there was talk of a asset chart for lack of a better term. Now that never materialized, and I don't blame anyone for that, it's a extremely daunting task that I wouldn't want to undertake either. Personally I think that all planets or signifacant asteroid fields should have a fixed amount of length attached to it. One length EVERY planet, it would make things a lot easier than bickering over which planets deserve what length etc.


As for what forces are brought into battle. I agree that they are way overboard.

[Darth Viscera]

I wrote up a good post, but it's too long and my ISP is fouling up again :(

[Adm Garm Bel Iblis]

So post it in smaller chunks. :)

The danger of linking a group's assets to resources they control is that it turns planets into credits towards one's fleet. Some nutball might go planet gobbling in an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the fleet guidelines.

A downsize will definitely be met with lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Some people view it as a threat. So I wouldn't try to push that either.

Perhaps an aribtrary cap on the complete asset list would be best, as was done with shipyards. Also, I'd really rather not calculate how many meters of ship we've got. Who would? Keeping track of that would be insane.

There's two ways we could do that part. First is the class suggestion I made way back when. There are 5 classes of ship (starfighters don't count for these purposes):

A - Assault Shuttles, Gunboats, Transports, Freighters
B - Med Cruisers/Frigates (Carrack, Lancer, Nebulon)
C - Heavy Cruisers (Dreadnaught, IC, VSD, MC40)
D - Battleships between 1 KM and 6 KM (ISD, MC80+)
E - Command Ships (SSD, MC100+)

Each group gets X in each class per shipyard they maintain.

Or consider the breakdown I gave from the Imp Sourcebook as a guideline. Each group gets X Sector Forces per shipyard they maintain. The resulting fleets in either case will be widely varied, but still follow a loose guideline. That's all we need. Once the cap is reached, then use the building time rules for repairing or replacing lost ships.

Right now TGE has like 2,500 ships with a pretty good distribution between sizes. That's neatly divisible by 5. Just a thought.

[Sanis Prent]

I disagree with that idea, because of I think how the ship sizes are distributed should be within a user's preference. Thats what I was illustrating with the SSD vs neb b scenario.

And as far as thinking that keeping up with meter alottment, it wouldn't be any different than people counting up build time like we have it now.

Think about it. You tally existing length. Post a number. If you build something, that number is added to. If you have a battle and something is destroyed, that number is subtracted. Not really that much more math involved.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I've always said common sense and fair play is often lacking with fleets - at least that has gotten better.

The biggest problem is that fleets are now with many people about as welcome as a burning piece of cat poop on your front door step.

Personally, I always thought the biggest problem is the speed that fleets are built. What happened to the newer ruleset that addressed that?

250 meters a day is far too fast. slow it down.

[Sanis Prent]

Still waiting on the former TSE, now conclave to authenticate the new fleet rulings, I think.

[Adm Garm Bel Iblis]

If we put a cap on how big a single fleet is, and how many ships a group can have in total ... how fast they are built won't even be an issue. Just make the number easily divisible. How about 150 meters a day? *shrug*

I don't think of this as some strategy board game like Axis and Allies or something. This kind of stuff gets in the way for me. I just want to write a ship commander. To keep track of how many meters of ship are in the NR fleet, I have to cross reference the list of what we have with the database and probably put it on a spreadsheet.

Breaking it down by squadron makeup and building up from there makes more sense in my mind.

Doing that level of work for a social writing/RP group just boggles my mind. Math must be second-nature to you, because I'm reeling at the suggestion. Frankly, it wouldn't make playing the character worth it to keep track of all that. If the rest of you are willing to do that ... well okay.

[Frank Harrigan]

*raises hands*

I vote we ban fleets

[Sanis Prent]

Garm, you're talking to the group of people who RP fleets with build rules, R&D times, and such. What did you expect :p

And Harrigan, noted and ignored :lol

[Frank Harrigan]

Awwww...

*goes back to sleep*

:zzz

[Sumor Rayial]

Personally, I always thought the biggest problem is the speed that fleets are built. What happened to the newer ruleset that addressed that?


Still waiting on the former TSE, now conclave to authenticate the new fleet rulings, I think.

I miss something? Which is quite possible. Not really a 100% on what rules are being talked about or that we didn't agree on. Someone want to link me to it please.

As for math, yes it is somewhat second nature, and after you do it with fleets for long enough you know where the shortcuts in the proccess are.

Not sure about length, 250 too fast? Yeah I would tend to agree with that in some cases, but in others I don't think so. I mentioned in a post a while back that once a design of ship has been in production for a while the time to build it would naturally decrease because the people doing the building would be familiar with the design.


There are a lot of gripes in this thread already so I'll throw another into the pot. Ship losses. Noone seems to want to take them. I'm just as guilty, not cause I don't think it's realistic, but because it's not economical. If I start RPing that I'm losing a ship here and a ship there, suddenly I'm at a massive disadvantage if TGE came knocking.

Say I lost 25 ships. Now hypothetically it would take me 60 days to build those ships back, at the same time TGE would be building to add to their fleet not replace lost ships. So the gap could be double if not more than that.

I don't think that many would be griping about the speed at which ships are built if they were being built to replace ships lost, because it would be keeping the number of ships relatively level, but noones losing ships and so the number climbs proportionately higher than it would if you were trying to reclaim losses as well as build up your numbers.

Mind you I don't have a solution to this, The Conclave doesn't even have a planet under our possession so I'm not going to suddenly call for an all out war or anything, but it is an issue.

[Frank Harrigan]

On a side note... where are the rules?

[Charley]

On Tondry's computer, last I checked. I dunno, they're around in the older format...somewhere.

[Frank Harrigan]

Hmmmm...

[Khan Surak]

I suppose fleet rps just developed into a 'the more, the better' kind of thing. Soon, it just became who had more forces and the most hard-hitting vessels.


Ship losses. Noone seems to want to take them. I'm just as guilty, not cause I don't think it's realistic, but because it's not economical. If I start RPing that I'm losing a ship here and a ship there, suddenly I'm at a massive disadvantage if TGE came knocking.

I agree. I haven't seen a major conflict in which large amounts of ships were lost since Longknives. I'm probably wrong, however.

I always thought 250 was a little fast. I think it was in the NJO Jedi Eclipse book that Fondor's yards were crippled, and I remember a certain passage where it referred to an ImpStar that had been under construction for a year, or half a year. Whichever, it definitely took a lot longer than 6 or 7 days.

[Frank Harrigan]

an ImpStar that had been under construction for a year, or half a year

Make build times that realistic and I'll cry

What are the R&D rules? N/M, I'll ask Siek.

[Arya Ravenwing]

on Tondry's computer

The one that broke? O_o

[Frank Harrigan]

Nice glasses babe

[Arya Ravenwing]

*slaps him* No one calls me a babe except for...hmm... No, no one does. >D

[Frank Harrigan]

Sorry bout that um lady

[Nicoli Zand]

<< wishes his General would stop causeing trouble...LOL

[Khan Surak]

It appears your general is going for 100 posts on his first day.

[Frank Harrigan]

I'm just dicussin

[Alec Lafeyette]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but, I actually like the idea of a cap on total fleet length. I'm in 8th grade and doing the math doesn't seem all too hard. Then again I don't have over 2000 ship lengths to add up. >_<

And with the cap, you won't see fleet sizes that big. It will, like already mentioned, make things more strategic and cause people to actually think rather than race to see who can build the most ships in the shortest amount of time. Other than that, I agree with mostly everything else said, and think you should really look into these ideas because they sound pretty good.

[Frank Harrigan]

I HATE that avater. Jerks.

Siek, my man, what are the R&D rules?

[Khendon Sevon]

I wish we all had small fleets :)

sooo much more strategy involved. That's why I only am having 3 ships for UIT, just 3.

[Nicoli Zand]

you only have a small flett because if you got to be under attack you know full well the TGE would back your butts up..lol

[Frank Harrigan]

Well, I think the whole commercial shipyard is a dumb idea myself

[Khendon Sevon]

UIT's small fleet is enough to defend its one planet, it wouldn't need TGE aid.

[Varlon Konrad]

Just for the record, when Tondry approached me about the rules. They were still in the Beta form and no-where near being finalized. So there's no way that the Conclave would be near accepting that which I haven't seen since my conversation with Tondry many months ago.

As for the total kilometres cap, I'm all for, considering how big some fleets get (TGE's ~2.5 thousand), or how big some ships get (TSO's Titan class SSD), but also merge the cap with building rules (perhaps up the # of shipyards or increase production rate) so that a new group (unlike the Conclave, which is a special case) doesn't suddenly pull a thousand ships out of their ****.

[Morgan Evanar]

I recall something of a statement of regret from gav in regards to building that monstrosity, but I'll let him speak for himself.

Fleets in their current state are pretty retarded, IMO. But I have no solutions except kicking them the hell out of here, so I'll kindly shut up.

Aside from me and my evil ideas, nothing stirs up more trouble.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I seem to work like this....

1) Build something

2) Take over a planet

3) Immediatly assign said planet and fleet to be a roleplaying prop and get on with what I see as the real point of Roleplay - character development

Which to me is what I see planets and fleets as - props and plot devices only, not the foremost thing of what I do. i personally think it's unfortunantle they became more than props and story devices, but that the way things went :/

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Still waiting on the former TSE, now conclave to authenticate the new fleet rulings, I think.

Well, you're waiting on TGE to authenticate them as well, seeing as how this is the first I'm hearing of new fleet rulings, and nobody's bothered to send me a copy. >_<

[Darth Viscera]

My old post:

I agree with Summs and Charley, that another cap should be made in proportion to what assets you control. So long as it isn't something ludicrous like 20 meters/day, write it up, agree on it, and I'll sign it to appease RPers. That's really all I can say about that.

As for lines, the Empire already has a more efficient system in place r1

[Darth Viscera]

based on the carrier group of the U.S. Navy. A Star Destroyer Group is a group of 4-12 vessels built around a major class of starship (ISD 3, for example) with a Commodore in command of the group. The ISD3 acts as the flagship and engages in all offensive/defensive actions, and the remainder of the craft are there to support it, or use their r2

[Darth Viscera]

faster sublight drives to some other advantage. A typical SD Group could look like this:

ISD3-Flagship

2 BattleCruisers-Provide long range fire support for the Group, utilizing Heavy Turbolaser batteries. Stays close to the ISD3 for protection.

1 Escort Carrier (pick a type)-Provide added starfighter support for the group, while staying close r3

[Darth Viscera]

to the ISD3 for protection.

2 Fire-class Frigates (Flame-class if you're Conclave or TSO)-Provide anti-starfighter support for the capital ships, and engage in light capital ship combat, while staying close to the ISD3 for protection, and protecting the group's flanks from starfighters.

2 Interdiction Pickets-Provide limited constraint capabilities r4

[Darth Viscera]

to the SD Group. Also to be deployed on the flanks to guard against starfighter approaches.

Since it's modular, you can mix and match, taking odd ship #1 (say a troopship) from the Division's reserve deployment group if you need to conquer a planet. SD Groups can be used for planetary defense, planetary assault, patrol, you name it. r5c

[Khan Surak]

Death Fleet has something similar, Vis, except that because we're smaller our SD groups would be larger. It's a very logical and effective system.

[Adm Garm Bel Iblis]

It seems we're in agreement on the two major points then ... We should set a cap on the total fleet assets of a group ... and we should make the number of ships we bring into an engagement more reasonable.

So what should that cap be? Since I still have no idea how many meters the NR or TGE have, I have no idea where to set this. But since downsizing will be universally frowned on, how about we set the cap at whatever TGE has right now (or will have after ongoing construction threads).

I still don't agree with using planets as the benchmark for how big one's fleet should be. I think this will cause people to think of planets as credits for a fleet, and go planet-grabbing to beef themselves up. Invading a planet should be for more plot and/or character driven reasons than simply adding points towards your ship quota.

I suggest basing it on the number of military (NOT customer) shipyards in a group. So it could be whatever TGE has in meters, divided by 5.

I think the build times are fine. As long as people adhere to the caps, it doesn't matter how fast ships are built, IMO.

I can understand why no one wants to lose a ship entirely. Due to these rules, losing a ship is too costly, even if it would make the story more exciting.

But could we use the build times to simulate the repair of a ship as a compromise? If a ship is damaged in battle, it should be out of commission for the time it takes to repair it.

Light damage = 1/4 the build time,
Severe damage = 1/2 build time,
Crippled to the point it has to limp back home = full build time.

Trust me ... well over 50% of the ships in your complete fleet assets won't be used if we stick to a more reasonable size for individual battle groups anyway (even for the little guys with one yard considering the large caps per yard we'll have). These repair times or even building replacement ships won't matter in the big picture when you can reallocate from your reservoir of unused ships.

[Khan Surak]

Sounds very reasonable, Garm.

I see a slight loophole in the plan, however. I think the number of shipyards is 3 per planet. If a group like TGE built 3 shipyards on each planet, it'd have the same affect. Groups would go planet grabbing anyway to raise their number of ships.

[Adm Garm Bel Iblis]

Shipyards per planet refer to the old rules. The rules we use now allotted 5 shipyards total to the NR and TGE respectively.

For those who asked earlier as well ... the fleet rules NR has been going by are right here (http://www.thegjo.com/NR/shiprules3.htm).

The page has not been updated since the draft was first accepted some 9 months ago, but the basics are the same. SIN has since gone defunct and the Imp Intel yard was added to TGE for a total of 5.

[Alec Lafeyette]

A cap equal to TGE's fleet? That won't help, it's still huge(though reasonable for the Empire). I think the cap should depend on the group, just like the shipyards do. Other than that I agree with setting times for repairs.

About this thing with everyone complaining over a downsize or cap, I got an idea. How about a huge battle, with a good story that has every fleet owning group involved one way or another. Mods or judges set an estimated cap for each group, and when that group loses the needed amount of ships, they leave the battle. It would basically make something fun out of bringing down fleet sizes, instead of simply losing them.

[Jyanis Scorpion]

I kind of like that idea actually. A big rules-out-the-window firefest, since there would be no need for rules if we were intent on destroying ships. For all the people who hate fleet battles, what a way to get out your frustrations! LOL

[Khan Surak]

Meh. I'm not so sure on that. It's a good idea, instead of just making it an ooc thing into something that fleet rpers can enjoy. But I'm not sure about the 'rules-out-the-window' thing. It would have to depend on the cap rules we make, but I'd be concerned about losing ships that are vital to Flotillas, Armadas, Task Forces, etc. If it were planned out which ships were to be destroyed, not when or how mind you, then it's okay with me.(Not that my opinion matters):|

[Sumor Rayial]

Can't say I'm so sure on some of the rules that would be going out the window, but I would be okay with it.

Have a couple suggestions for it:

1) It take place in neutral space, that way no planetary defenses are involved or anything of that type.

2) Each group is informed of what they're cap will be and then they get to submit a list of the ships they are willing to let be destroyed. That way a group gets to decide how much below their cap limit they want to go before they start rebuilding, and each group listing off the ships that are "up for grabs" will keep things organized. It could be an OOC thread that gets edited throughout the corse of the thread removing the ships as they are fragged.

3) It be agreed that the mods and admins rulings are final. I mean no point bickering about losing a ship when you plan to have it be blown up 5 posts later is there?

4) No capturing of ships.

Probably a few other things but they can be decided if this goes ahead.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I'll need to speak to Scorp first, but the NRSF is likely to get out of fleets. It's the view of some of the members that fleets just plain suck and is not the point of why we are here.

The way I see forward is a fixed set of craft, which are our transport and become literally roleplay props and not used against any group SWForums group. We would become a Sneaky Bastage group, with research and training facilities in ithe Outer Rim, one on Arcan IV and the other on the unnamed planet that was once long ago surrendered to DT. Details on what exactly the NRSF will do are up in the air beings discussed and how we work this, but when you have two main members looking at fleets and questioning why, then the NRSF has to look at it.

Personally, all I want is a few craft as transport and living props, and also to have Arcan IV and the unnamed planet just simply left alone so I can do me onw RP storylines in peace, wihch, considering neither is tactically important or even listed in Star Wars, that would be resonable I would think.

Now the troops, ccovert ops training and ground forces, plus research.... ah now that could be used against valid targets. And I think are a good deal more entertaining. But, that is my personal view only.

Who knows, maybe the best way forward is to simply say Okay, these are the ships you have,, you get no more. And you have to use them the best way you see fit... and you also make em scarce. You delcare a handful of persnal and home planets off limits to fleets and the rest open targets, like Coruscant. Remove the emphasis on who has the biggest fleet, to whom those can work out the best plan and strategy. That's what I would like to do or see. cause really, the numbers of ships is a chest beating exerice and a form of one up man ship. And I know that well, cause fo a time I participated in it. Now I see that as an error and not in the spirit of Roleplaying.

Personally, the best roleplays are not the one where you bring the bigggest pie to throw, but the way to sucker someone into tripping up into their own pie.

Okay, that's me rant. YOu can go back to ignoring me now :p

[Adm Garm Bel Iblis]

I wouldn't want to take part in a thread where the sole purpose was to blow each other up. Fleet movements should be something major and plot driven. I'm not interested in the character just to play a sim of Starfleet Battles strategy game.

But if someone else in NR was interested in it, hey go for it.

I am hearing more and more people say they want to back out of fleets, and that's unfortunate. The military of the respective groups can and should have SOME place in the Star Wars universe. It's just that the concept has become too dominant a force, and it has lost its purpose do to overuse and misuse.

In my ideal "rules", I would throw out ship counts and building times entirely and just focus on how and why the military fits into a larger story or RP. It doesn't matter to me at all.

But that won't happen, so I'm hoping this will work for a compromise.

I say take what TGE has now, divide by 5. That number is how ships (or symbolic meters, whatever) a group can have per shipyard that they maintain. The resulting fleets will still be huge, but if we start to use smaller fleet sizes more along the lines of the Squadron breakdown I gave in the first post, build times and caps will be minor concerns anyway.

PS: Any NR members reading this who haven't checked the High Command forum in a while, please do so if you get a chance.

[Frank Harrigan]

Thanks Garm for the link to the current rules

[Marcus Telcontar]

In my ideal "rules", I would throw out ship counts and building times entirely and just focus on how and why the military fits into a larger story or RP. It doesn't matter to me at all.


Well said.

[Alec Lafeyette]

Yeah but then you have the people who don't abuse fleets and have fun the same way you guys do on the ground. To shut them down completely and make them only details in a story would give an excuse for people who want incredibly huge and unfair fleets, it would also be stereotypical. What happened when we used to have fun with fleets without all this worry for losing and unfairness?

As for the idea of a major battle, I'm not suggesting that it's how we should always carry out fighting with fleets, just a one time thing to compromise with people who have a tough time on losing their ships for a downsize. And the rules that Sumor stated were what I had in mind.