Archive through July 13, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(J) Shuttles and Fighters:
Casual fighters in freighter skids:
Archive through July 13, 2005
Craig, regarding Drogues.
They cost 7-9 Commanders Option points usually.
A typical freighter won't cost more than 75 (Large Armed Freighter).
A standard 20% of your BPV to CO = 15.
So you could do it. BUT you replace your shuttle with your drogue.
Outside of combat what is your freighter going to do with it's full shuttle bay carrying a drogue?
Besides the fact that it just might not be that common to have military equipment like a drogue on a civilian freighter.
Might be possible for a military mission or extrodinary circumstances... but most freighters in civilian service are not going to have Drogue's.
Besides, there are reasons to have shuttles available for "administrative tasks"... giving up the shuttle may not be a real good idea...
I was thinking of the situation described here. Rather than inserting x fighters, why not add a drogue(s) to the ducktail or skids? Especially, since the drogue requires less 'prep' time than a fighter.
Drogues have two problems that adversely impact their usage on freighters.
1) Can't be used by poor crews and half of all freighters have poor crews.
2) Seeking weapon drogues can only be used on ships that mount seeking weapons which the freighter would not.
So you could, in theory, carry the phaser drogues but a plethora of short ranged phasers on a slow moving ship may not prove effective. (Didn't when I tried it out despite the combination of 7 phaser-2s and 5 phaser-3s.) One loses a lot of flexibility with the drogue compared to the fighter for the same expense.
But in this case, we're assuming a freighter that has a priority mission and gets a special allotment of fighter skid & crew. Presumably, such an important mission (and such an expensive component!) won't be given to a freighter with a poor crew.
Observation:
Michael John Campbell Said:
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 09:19 pm: Edit
Seriously, one freighter with such fighters is not enough to run off an Orion LR.
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:30 am: Edit
I am not convinced one large freighter with skids and four fighters could keep an Orion LR at bay as the fighters would be F-16s or F-18s or nearly retired F-4s.
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 04:09 am: Edit
I do not think even four fighters can deal with an Orion LR.
If the Orion has two G-racks and a photon as her arms, she will have three 360° phaser-1s and using the last reloads as ADDs she can mount a number of defenses depending on what the freighter has.
If Michael John Campbell is dropping out of the discussion, I think it pretty much states that he has found that he overestimated the abilities of a Light Raider versus the Freighter with fighter skids. To be fair, Michael C. Grafton did, as I have noted, stack the deck by picking Z-1s to try to make his point.
SPP:
Well, if he is dropping out, I'm willing to "pick up the gauntlet." With one modification.
I make the following assertion...
I believe that "I" can defeat a standard large freighter, equipped with the necessary proposed "fighter skid" carrying 4 fighters (and I don't care whether they are Z-1s, F-4s, or other similar fighters), with a LR equipped as MJC has previously defined (1 PHOT and 2 G-racks).
Please note that these are not the weapons I would prefer, but I believe I could still win with this package. I also assume I have medium speed drones with usual percentages, and the standard allotment of COI. Would I have the + refit?
What systems to this particular type of proposed skid(s) have on it? (I couldn't find it above)
My main assertion will, of course, change if I become aware that the freighter has reinforcements.
Drogues are also Y180 IIRC.
If the truth be told I made those statements before reviewing the Z-1 data in Module J and the Skid data in CL23 and found that the extra power the LASH skid APRs provide would seriously mess around with me trying to win an EW battle in an LR.
Indeed an LR will have real problems, especially playing under the clock, to defeat a large freighter with two LASH skids and a ducktail, particularly if one is trying not to double the warp engines...even more so if the HTS were replaced with Admins...and it gets worse with fighters.
Also chasing from the rear with no increase to the "rescue threshold" seriously messes around with the ability of the LR to win.
Other aspects of the way the battle was played out, like the fact that if I had gone to holding a proxie, which I might well have if I'd ended turn #1 at R17 instead of 13, would result in the freighter slowing down for my one and only chance to get inside overload range. That sort of thing with a "no moderator PBeM" will tend to make it just naturally harder for the LR and the Frighter Player will have to try very hard not to let his desire to win get inthe way of playing fair with the Pirate.
I'm not saying M.C.G. did anything along those lines but I did smell something pungent several times, even if there was actually nothing.
Richard Sherman:
If you had two large freighters, one equipped with a phaser-1 instead of its phaser-2, the one with the phaser-1 would win in the long run.
There is no question that an LR could eventually wear down the freighter with fighter skids if it had an infinite amount of time. Never has been any question that it could do so.
The statement, and even the test, was predicated on the freighter being able to stand off the attack until help in some form or other arrived.
So if you want to take up the Gauntlet, define your terms.
You are the Orion.
How many turns is it going to take you to force the Freighter to capitulate, board it, transfer 75 points of cargo to your Light Raider's Cargo boxes, and disengage.
The Freighter is a Large Freighter. The two skids add to its firepower to the extent that it has three phaser-2s with 360 fring arcs and a rear arc phaser-3 (total), plus the four fighters which are defined at Z-1s, each mounting a phaser-2-FA and a phaser-3-RA in addition to having up to two type-IM drones. The freighter as defined does not have a ducktail, so it has one Admin shuttle and no other shuttles (other than the fighters).
The Skids are defined as "purpose built", which means that they have "ready racks" for the fighters, meaning the deck crews are not using the "Kzinti Weightlifting Team Rule" to load the fighters. The ship with the skids does not, however, qualify as a "True Carrier", so it has at most 24 spaces of drones (plus any purchased with Commander's Options), i.e., enough to load each fighter three times. There are no "pods" for the fighters (only true carriers can carry those), none of the fighters is an EWF (fewer than eight fighters so an EWF is not authorized), the shuttle is not an MRS (ship is not a carrier and thus not authorized one), and the freighter is not a carrier, so there is no means of lending electronic warfare to the fighters. A further complication is that the Skids give the freighter four boarding parties, and it can obviously use its Commander's Options to purchase more (if it does not use the to purchase extra drones, as it cannot use them to buy fighter pods, extra deck crews, or any other sort of carrier supplies other than drones). The problem is that even without purchasing any extra troops, the four deck crews are two extra crew units, allowing the Large freighter to, in addition to the four boarding parties, form two militia squads (one of two of the deck crews, the other half the freighter's normal crew). This means that even if no extra boarding parties were purchased, the freighter has six defending combat units to repel boarders (and I would have purchased several more were I the freighter). You can have up to 22 attacking boarding parties (eight normally, ten extras purchased as Commander's Options, plus two heavy weapons squads and two commando squads), but you only have two transporters, which means you can only beam over two boarding parties at a time initially (until enough survive to form a bridgehead).
So to board the freighter you first need to disable its engines (which also means downing a shield) and enough of its phaser firepower that you can risk crashlanding your shuttles aboard.
So take that into account when you are planning the time you will need.
We have, obviously, already defined that the cargo of this freighter is deemed so valuable that doubling the Light Raider's Engines is acceptable. But there is "acceptable" and "unacceptable". Doubling the engines eight times without repairing them means you cannot disengage by acceleration.
So, how many turns are you declaring you will need to beat down and loot the freighter?
Michael John Campbell:
It is incumbent on a someone involved in a debate on tactics to be knowledgeable about what is being discussed. I mean no insult, but I cannot take your last missive as anything more, or less, than an admission that you entered the debate with no clear understanding of what was being discussed. That you based your claims of what a Light Raider could or could not do completely in the dark about what skids were, and what this skid was. As such, everything you contributed to the discussion was wasted effort on the part of every one to read.
You might have started your insertion into the discussion by asking about skids and ducktails. You might have taken the time to research the situation and actually weigh the matter before you decided to add your two bits. As it is, you have done everyone who was participating in this topic a mis-service by claiming an understanding of the capabilities of the involved units that you, by your own admission, did not possess.
Richard Sherman:
Michael C. Grafton's Proposed Fighter Skid, which you will note has been effectively rejected by SVC, but is being looked at as a sort of "one off" for a fiction story if Michael C. Grafton can get a good one, consisted of the following:
Two Shuttle Boxes with Ready Racks for fighters.
One APR.
One Battery.
One Phaser-2-360.
One Cargo Box.
Personnel have been defined as two crew units, the crew units being composed of two Deck Crews and two boarding parties.
The Freighter is a standard Large Freighter hauling two standard cargo pods and equipped with two of these skids. It thus has:
Cargo: 52 boxes.
Hull: 6 boxes.
Shuttle: 5 (including the four fighters in the skids).
Fighters: 4xZ-1 (the four fighters in the skids).
Labs: 0.
Tractors: 1.
Transporters: 1.
Warp: 4 left, 4 right, total 8.
Impulse: 2.
APR: 3 (includes the two in the Skids).
Batteries: 3 (includes the two in the Skids).
Weapons: 4 phasers (Three Phaser-2-360 including the two in the skids, plus one phaser-3-RA).
Control: 3 (1xBridge, 1xEmer, 1xAux).
Crew: 6 (including the freighter's normal two crew units, plus two crew units of deck crews provided by the skids and two crew units of boarding parties provided by the skids).
Boarding Parties: 4 (all provided by the Skids).
Shileds: The freighter has nine-box shields in all directions.
Movement Cost: 0.50.
Breakdown rating: 1-6 (No HET Bonus).
The above is entirely from memory, so there is a chance of a mistake. And I will admit here that I do NOT remember the Large Freighter's Sensor, Scanner, Damage Control, or Excess Damage Tracks, but they are probably something like: Sensor: 6, 0. Scanner: 9, 0. Damage Control: 2, 0. Excess Damage (probably one box).
SPP:
Question 1:
For purposes of this exercise, does the LR have the ability to gain cargo by HR raids?
The answer will affect the number of turns I believe I need to accomplish the objective.
Additionally, if the answer is yes, it would likely affect the freighter's guard deployments.
Question 2:
Are the hypothetical reinforcements close enough and powerful enough that, after the freighter and her fighters are rendered combat ineffective, that additional time could NOT be gained by tractoring and moving the freighter at slow speeds during any capture attempt?
The answer to the above could dramatically alter my approach and affect my tactics.
Assuming the answer to both questions above is NO, my estimate to take down the freighter is as follows:
4 turns to eliminate fighter and associated defenses (like dealing with extra drones). [liberal estimate, it might take longer]
5 turns to render the freighter combat ineffective and/or "dead in space". [conservative estimate, it might take less time than this]
6 turns to effect a total defeat of freighter marines, and effect a total capture [it could take longer or shorter depending on # of enemy marines] [moving freighter by tractor, if need here, to buy extra time] [this figure changes if using advanced boarding party combat, as total capture unnecessary to capture 75 spaces of cargo].
Rough estimate: 15 turns
This time estimate might decrease significantly with different weaponry, but I'll take the "problem" as it lays. 
The above estimate presumes that I have the luxury of a "head-on" approach to the freighter. Things get much longer for a tail pursuit. It also assumes a freighter captain of outstanding caliber, who will make no errors, and use every asset at his disposal to impede or delay my attack.
My LR+ is equipped as follows:
1 PHOT - FA - Option Mount "A" (+0)
2 G-racks - Option Mounts "B and C" (+4)
+4 BPV for drone speeds [see below]
Base adjusted BPV = 81
COI = 16 points available
----------
Drones:
1 IMXH-ECM, 1 IM-STAR, 6 IM (+3 for warheads)
10 extra BP (+5)
upgrade 2 BP to CDO (+1)
2 extra ENG (+2) [needed for advanced BP combat]
1 TB (+4)
4 extra ADD rounds (+1)
BTW, I assume for purposes of this exercise, that there is NO chance for me to just "cart off" the whole •••• freighter...
Richard Sherman:
To be fair, you should not have any weapons specifically for the purpose of dealing with fighters, as the fighters are a "surprise", i.e., not something that you normally encounter. Unless you can prove that if you were an Orion Light Raider Captain who, during your normal operations, drags around 12.5% of your drone spaces as things that are completely incapable of damaging a freighter or police ship (i.e., Starfish drones). I have no argument with your decision, nominally, to have EW drones taking up 12.5% of your drone spaces, but question whether this is really a good choice for normal piracy (not saying it is not, just asking if you have really thought about it or have simply tailored the ship for this one particular job).
Further note that under (S3.211) mandatory drone speed upgrades (i.e., it is a period of medium speed drones) are not included in the calculations for Commander's Option Points, so your Light Raider computes its BPV as 68 (base hull) + 5 (plus refit) + 4 (Option Mounts) = 77 x .2 = 15.4 BPV available for Commander's Options, not 16.2 (although you dropped the .2). So your purchases as they stand are .6 BPV over budget in any case.
Michael John Campbell chose a Stern Chase approach, I do not remember if he offered a good explanation of why he chose such an approach. (I really do not, I seem to recall that he feared the possibility of the forward firing weapons of a Q-Ship. This is a matter of personal choices in tactics however. I generally always approached freighters from the front, using my warship's, or Orion Pirate ship's, superior sensor suite to first pick up the freighter and then maneuver my ship into position for "the pounce". I am in no way trying to impugn Michael John Campbell's tactical choice of a stern chase, it is simply not the choice I would make. I generally like the idea that the freighter will lose time and distance in trying to turn away from my approach, and generally believe that if it turns out to be one that I do not want to tangle with, the odds of my shield being penetrated by his first strike are not that high if I avoid the centerline . . . which strangely enough I do.)
Gaining cargo by hit-and-run raids is a "Special Scenario Rule", not part of the standard rules for cargo transfers, so no.
As to the time before help arrives, that is always the variable. You have to ask yourself how much time you would take to rob a standard freighter, then scale things up, and basically assume that the chance of intervention goes up the longer you take. I mean, nominally a standard small freighter is (from the point where you can shoot at it):
Turn #1 disable the freighter (Three phaser-1s at close range will down the shield and score significant enough internals to basically put the freighter out of action). Your only problem from that point is beating any defending boarding parties. You do not really need the photon to do this, and his phaser-3 cannot hurt you (but watch out for the Small Freighter with a high weapon status and a suicide shuttle).
Now, obviously a small freighter faced with such a situation will only resist if help is near (resist includes have any boarding parties try to oppose an outright seizure of the ship).
Small Freighters with skids or ducktails (or both) become another matter. (Beware the small freighter with a LASH skid or a Ducktail that traded in the HTS for two Admin shuttles . . . if he is at a high enough weapon status to start with two suicide shuttles, one in the regular bay and one in the ducktail, you could find yourself in a heap of hurt.) It will take a little more time, but again such a freighter should only resist if help is very near.
Large Freighters might be more inclined to resist generally. They have somewhat tougher shields (80% stronger than the small freighter) and are generally more durable (more internals) and faster (max speed of 17 versus the small freighter's max speed of 13, and the small freighter can only do that by burning its battery which generally means it will not move much faster than speed 12). They also have more commander's option points for defending boarding parties. A ducktail gives them the two suicide shuttle capability if their weapon status is high enough, and a ducktail with two LASH skids can be a formidable opponent in terms of the time needed to take it.
Still, if help will not arrive in a reasonable period it would be best to give the Orion what he wants rather than fight.
Armed freighters, Free Traders, and Armed Priority Transports probably carry more interesting cargoes, but have the ability to disengage by acceleration, making them much more difficult targets to start with. With the exception of the APT, they also have greater access to militia, and boarding parties already aboard to which to add any purchased boarding parties. Generally a Light Raider might think about jumping a small armed freighter or a Free Trader (or even an APT), but leave the large Armed Freighters alone, especially if they have skids, and even more so if they have skids and a ducktail. Those things are the targets of Raider Cruisers.
SPP:
If I'm a point over on COI, then just drop some/all of the extra ADD's I bought.
As the purchase of my drone load out, I don't know if my opinion will convince you or not...
Basically, I would consider it lunacy for any vessel intended to go in harm's way (and yes, I do include a LR in that category, as the very nature of piracy is to seek out/create trouble by stealing [but hopefully, from the pirate's perspective, it is a minimum of trouble]) to NOT have a means of maximizing combat effectiveness against the copious numbers of attrition units (ATUs) available during the General War. Even for a pirate located in a backwater area, the likelihood of encountering trouble in the form of ATUs is not insignificant. Planetary squadrons, auxiliary carriers, local escorts, patrols, and - heaven forbid - the navy, all this and more can and likely will include ATUs. To dedicate 12%, or even 25% or 30%, to a dedicated anti-fighter capability during the GW is, in my mind, the norm, not the exception.
Not that anecdotal evidence amounts to much, but my local group here will tell you that, anytime the opponent in our pick-up games is unknown, some capability will be dedicated for ATUs (unless it's Dan Grossman or Jim Curtis, whose hatred of fighters is well known). For drone-using races, MW and Starfish drones are popular for this (if they can be paid for; they are expensive).
Is it really any thing unusual at all that, in the SFU that has become ATU-heavy, that things that go in harm's way that are NOT ATUs would not have a dedicated counter-ATU capability?
And BTW, is not the presence of ATUs the reason I have G-racks on the LR? What other reason would a non-escort, non-drone mission pirate have for the expensive G-racks? If what you assert is true, would it not make more sense for the LR to have B- or C-racks? When would an LR go in harm's way where the exposure to copious numbers of drones justifying the need for ADD capability was completely unrelated to fighters? Is the LR standing in a battle line against Klingon cruisers? Is there a squadron of G2's hunting it? I think not.
My only real question in taking special drones (and I did think of it at the time I chose it) was not any kind of scenario- or combat-based justification, like the kind you are asking for; it was more a simple question of economics. Despite the fact that I am allowed 15 BPV of COI by "rule," is it "realistic" to expect that an LR (even an LR+) would have that much available? Is it realistic that a logistics officer would allow me a Starfish or ECM drone? Or what amounts to literally an extra company of troops, with special capabilities (CDO, ENG)?
Utimately, and although I have often wondered about these questions in many SFB situations and scenarios, unless I am the drafter of that scenario, they are questions I cannot answer. So, I just simply go with what I do know. What I know is that the rules allow me to make certain purchase choices (except for my option mounts, which were already defined); I exercised my prerogative under those rules to make what I believe to be the best choices I could.
If, after reading the above, you say "nope, can't have a..." Starfish, or ECM, or both, or something else, that's ok with me. I will simply adjust my recommendations for the amount of time I need to defeat the force accordingly.
Speaking of that time, I should add that the estimates I gave before presume that:
1. reinforcements are a long way off, or
2. I don't know that reinforcements are coming
I therefore have the luxury of more cautious play. If I become aware that a rescuing F5 or some such is going to come rushing in, it will radically change an otherwise prudent approach to taking this freighter.
Solo pirates won't need anti-fighter weapons because they won't attack things that are guarded by fighters. Pirate fleets might attack such targets, but they would also have spare capital to spend some on weapons that can't knock down a freighter's shields. As SPP has been pointing out, it's not as though pirates operate at a much higher profit margin than freighter captains.
The whole premise of this scenario is that the pirate doesn't expect the fighters to be there. If the pirate sees a freighter with a bunch of fighters buzzing around, he's just going to leave.
Richard Sherman:
In all honesty, it would be fairly rare (possible, but fairly rare) for an Orion to know for a fact that reinforcements will arrive in a set period of time.
There are going to be cases where the Cartel has penetrated the local police and has an idea where the patrols are supposed to be, but even that would not always be reliable since various things could move a patrolling ship various places in its patrol area.
The upshot is that you never really know if help is going to arrive in ten turns, or three turns, or never.
Fall into the habit of taking "the luxury of more cautious play" and you likely will be caught at just the wrong moment by something.
So, basically your estimates are falacious (through no fault of yours as I have clearly failed to make the situation as plain as it should be, i.e., I should have stressed what the MINIMUM amount of time you would need to do the job would be, simply the amount of time) and go back to what has already been said, i.e., the more time you take "doing the job" the more likely it becomes that "something" will come to save the day. And, basically, if you double your engines to rob one freighter, you have basically already lost.
As to what is on a given Orion raider (or any given ship) in terms of Commander's Options, there is the eternal problem that outside of a campaign that moves a ship from scenario to linked scenario there is no real way to determine (for example) if an Orion ship that began its marauding with an extra company of marines with Engineers had lost some portion of them by the time it encountered this freighter, or had expended some of its drones, used its only T-bomb (or maybe just the dummy T-bomb), and so on.
In any case, you are only .6 of a point over budget, so dropping three of your spare ADDs will correct that, leaving you 0.15 BPV unspent for Commander's Options (and there just is not anything you can do with such a small fraction).
Quote:Michael John Campbell chose a Stern Chase approach, I do not remember if he offered a good explanation of why he chose such an approach.
That's not entirely fair. M.C.G. made it clear that it was just not possible for his captain to not veer to put any "blip" to stern as soon as soon as that vessel was detected under strategic detection.
I did also admit that I might have been put off by the possibility of forward firing weapons ( if by chance the vessel was a Disruptor armed freighter or the like ). Although detection of the Engine output should have given me a clue at some range.
I would gladly have attacked from the front as per SG4.0 although since you're not actually impunning my "choice" this is all pretty mute.
Michael John Campbell:
Sorry, but that is not the case. Michael C. Grafton said:
==============================================
By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 08:51 am: Edit
I will give you a hint, ANY ship on a "collision course" will be challenged by subspace radio and a course change made to confirm if you are coming FOR me, or just happen to coming in my general direction. As soon as a ship seems to be approaching, the SKID people are going to go to alert status (well, we get bored easily in this can) while the SHIP will wait until more is known . . .
Remember, look at the tactical intel levels and game out what YOU WOULD do in my position. And a further hint, you STILL do not know what kind of ship I ACTUALLY have, just what your spies sold you was true. The Weary Donkey MIGHT be a Large ARMED Freighter. With a couple of skids and four fighters, about the same BPV too . . .
==============================================
To which you responded:
==============================================
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 09:46 am: Edit
Well, I come up behind you.
Most any freighter will turn and run when it detects a vessel during wartime, just to be on the safe side.
I will probably go for a high battle speed and oblique you from the rear at range four with phasers and photons, planning on changing my fire (and attack run) if you launch something unexpected (be it a drone or fighters).
==============================================
You simply opted to start with a Stern Chase. You made no apparent effort to determine how close you could have gotten before he could make his turn to start running.
SPP:
I think the point is likely just an academic one at this point, as the practicalities of an Orion playing an SFB scenario, as opposed to what "real life" might entail, are irreconciliable, but I disagree that, because an Orion doubles his engines one time when engaging a single freighter, he has - in effect - already lost.
There is simply no way to "prove" this outside the context of the game, and the game allows for no special penalty (other than the damage itself inflicted, some/all of which can be ameliorated - from the Orion's perspective - with CDR) for doing so.
So, if I were to play this out, I would absolutely not hesitate to double my engines if so doing would enable me to accomplish my mission. If you want to assert that, as a result, I have now lost, despite accomplishing the mission (err...theft), that's fine with me. I respectfully dissent.
As to the reinforcements issue, I understand perfectly that "in real life," I would not know when or what kind of reinforcements arrive. For game purposes, again this isn't constructive. So let me try to estimate it in game terms:
If reinforcements arrive in anything less than five turns, the freighter survives, and the LR disengages to steal another day.
If reinforcements arrive in more than five turns, but less than 10, it could go either way, depending on the usual SFB variables (luck, mistakes, etc.).
If reinforcement arrive later than turn 10, the freighter is sacked, the crew are prisoners, and - if the LR Captain is so inclined - the ship is dead, dead, dead.
Based on my own evaluation of my skills with an Orion LR+ (which may or may not be valid), a head-on approach, the range of options available to the F-L, and the assumption the F-L captain will not make a game-breaking error, that's my best estimate.
Any internals cost you 10% of the entire value of your LR. (And a presumed 1 fatality in your crew since 10 internals kills 1 crew unit.) It is very unlikely that the 75 spaces of cargo you can steal is worth enough to pay for repairs.
Your mission is to make a profit. You are making a serious mistake about Orion objectives when you state that your mission is theft, it is not, your mission is a profit. A LR+ has EPV comparable to a freighter with a cargo pod, you are getting 3% of his cargo for 10% of your ship's value, congradulations, you have lost money.
Douglas:
Not true. This is SFB, not reality. Nowhere in the game does it quantify what "3% of cargo" is generally worth. Nowhere does it define what the economic cost of repairs to a hyped warp engine are. And nowhere in the game does it say that I have to kill 1/10 of a crew unit.
You are merely extrapolating what might happen were the situation real.
That is not the question I faced. The question I faced is simply:
How long will it take me to get that freighter (steal 3% of cargo, or take the whole by force and disengage) before reinforcements "might" show up.
To that end, I will use every available asset the game gives me to accomplish that goal, including doubling my engines when I need to.
If you, or SPP, or someone else, wants to assert something to the effect of, "well, you doubled your engines, so therefore you lost." My response is hogwash, I accomplished my goal (with minimal game-quantifiable cost).
Now if you wanted to "change" the situation, and define this situation in terms of the standard victory conditions, then it would be a very different situation. In that case, given the likely BPV of the freighter compared to the LR, I will likely lose even if I don't double my engines, unless I take no combat damage AND kill or capture the ENTIRE freighter and her fighters.
Let's look at a guesstimate:
LR
-------------
base BPV w/refit = 73
option mounts = 4
drone speed upgrades = 4
sub-total available for enemy VP = 81
COI (adjusted by SPP) = 15.25
F-L
-------------
base BPV = 18
2 "special" skids = 12? (just using old BPV values here)
4 fighters (assume Z-1s)= 28
drone speed upgrades = 4
sub-total available for enemy VP = 62
COI = ??? (max. available is 6 for the ship, plus another 5.5 or so solely for additional fighter supplies [if the freighter is even eligible for that])
Under the standard VC then, the F-L scores 34.25 VP (difference between sub-total, plus COI award), just by showing up. If he takes his max COI, the LR can effectively lower the difference by auto-scoring 11.5 for himself. That's still a difference of 22.75 VP to overcome.
I'm going to have to do a little more than just swipe the equivalent of 1.5 cargo boxes to win under that scenario, aren't I? Giving another 8 or so points to the F-L for doubling engines won't make it any easier either...
Fortunately, that's not the scenario I'm faced with, so as I said, I'll be doubling when I need to, and will not regard that as a loss, irrespective of any "real world" rationale applied to the game.
You are of course entitled to your view, and therefore free to call me a "loser."
We don't (yet) know what the economics of running a pirate operation all encompass.
Douglas E Lampert is (IMO) accurately reflecting the presumed relationship between the (if you will allow the term) "Cash Value" of both the cargo and the repair cost, and the crew unit replacement cost in terms of BPV basic Point Value.
If any of those contraints change, the analysis is rendered moot.
for example, if the LR captain has a "secret repair base" somewhere fairly close by, and he uses stolen parts from his victims and his labor force is composed of "orion slave laborers" captured during prior pirate raids... the actual cost of repairs to the LR would be somewhat less than "BPV List Price".
Or it could be something entirely different.
At this point, the information is not available... atleast to the extent that Richard Sherman could attempt to argue that 10% figure might not be truely representative of "his actual cost of operation".
Now, the test will be to see if he could convince SPP and SVC!
Douglas:
As to my definition of the mission; I would argue the goal is profit. The means to that end is theft.
In this case, the goal is accomplished by stealing a (from?) freighter. Therefore, the mission (how to get to the goal) is an act of theft.
Jeff:
I don't need to convince anyone of anything. I am simply accomplishing the mission put before me, in game terms, with the assets I have at my disposal.
Everything else is "rubbish."
I mean, it's not like we're writing a fiction piece here is it?