Loren,

Thanks for your comment.

The APR was deleted for several reasons:

The other single disruptor PFs only have one APR.
There wasn't a place for it that balanced the SSD. Would have had to have it replace the Battery and move the Battery to the centeral section which really didn't have a place for it.
Finally and most important is that it really doesn't need it. The ship can overload it's disrupter and rearm all it's phasers while at speed 30.
But like most proposals it will most likely will never see the underside of a tender anyhow.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, October 15, 2002 - 12:00 pm: Edit

I didn't add up it's capabilitys. So what you are saying that with one less APR you get a slightly less expencive to build unit that is an improved design.

Sounds worthy of consideration to me.

The new arrangement of disr and Ph-1 is in better keeping with SPPs comments so maybe he will give it another glance.

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 11:40 am: Edit

Maybe, of course we are all assuming that the powers that be feel that the Bobcat needs to be upgraded/replace. Because a ship can't overload all it's weapons while moving max speed doesn't mean it's broken.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 12:46 pm: Edit

Big question:

How many PFs can? (obviously void where plasma is present)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

I am sorry, but in so far as this discussion goes, I have no choice but to massively discount anything you have to say about PFs. I mean no disrespect, but the following indicated you have no understanding of the electronic warfare operations of a PF flotilla:

You Said on Sunday, October 06, 2002 - 07:06 pm: "I am assuming in my hypothetical no EW shift. If you want to play games with EW to achieve a shift, you might decrease the damage further if you guess the right Bobcat to loan to, but you won't if we are playing averages. So, no shift in either direction (if you got lucky by loaning EW to the right Bobcat, you might take less damage, but let's leave that out).

Fundamentally, this statement meant that you are unaware of (K1.751), which says that PF scouts lend EW to the PFs of their flotilla in the same was a PFT, as defined in (K2.52), and (K2.522) [a sub rule of (K2.52)] says that the PF scout simultaneously lends the EW points it generates to EVERY PF IN ITS FLOTILLA. There is no "guessing the right Bobcat to loan to".

Loren Knight asked on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 04:29 pm: Just curious. Was there a side consideration of having HPFs but under the same type of restrictions as Heavy Bombers?

Answer: No.

Stephen Brackett asked on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 08:55 pm: Actually the PF I was thinking of wouldn't be a heavy PF just an alternate design. Chop a Lynx in half and insert a center piece with 2 more hull, a center warp engine, disrupter, bridge and Ph-1. Change the Lynx?s original bridge to an APR.

Response: Even assuming you cut the engines to two boxes each rather than adding a third three box warp engine which the above text implies, you are still talking about adding five boxes to a PF (2 hull, a disruptor, a phaser, and in effect an APR), increasing its mass by 20%. I cannot help but call that a heavy PF. It is not going to happen.

NOTE: I have previously commented on the posted SSD which was somewhat different than the above, but was posted after the above statement by Stephen Brackett.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

Good point. I completely spaced out on the PFS loaning as a PFT.

However, my point that the analysis should be done with no shift stands, does it not? In many situations there may be a shift, but we are working with averages.

If I missed something else, please let me know.

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 02:17 pm: Edit

John,

The Bobcat can overload both disruptors and move at 30 but can't do much else. Excluding the plasma races the Needle and G1 can overload their one disruptor and have plenty of spare power(four pts.) for other purposes. Not having any materials here I can't recall the Harrier and Hellions power curves.

SPP,
The PF I had decribed as chopping the Intercepter in half and adding bah bah was the same as the SSD I post. Words had failed me in my excitement.

By Javier D Benvenuti (Javierb) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Stephen

Perhaps just making a more power/combat effcient Trimaran P/F (Keeping in Mind that it would have to have Exactly the same amount of boxes as the Bobcat) with one DISR and only P-2 and P-3 would make your proposal more palatable.

By Javier D Benvenuti (Javierb) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 03:29 pm: Edit

The key objection to a Lyran Trimaran P/F is the assumption that it would be more larger and more powerful. Hence the no heavy P/F's prohibition kicks in. Making a more combat/power effcient P/F (within the limitations of the existing P/F's) may overcome that objection.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Were there more internals on that trimaran? I didn't count. I suppose there would be.

I suggest counting the leader's number and stay below that. Better to stay the same as the Bobcat, maybe adding one if absolutly needed.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

Where does your analysis fail? Actually, it does not. It simply runs into a problem that it is an analysis, while the person you are having your discussion with is citing a campaign actually played.

It may well be that his opponent totally failed to capitalize on tactics you would have employed. There might be some other factor that he is failing to mention that was integral to his victory in that campaign, I do not know.

But practical battlefield experience (i.e., a played out PF campaign) tends to trump raw analysis.

And, as noted, significant rules errors in presenting the analysis tend to cause the entire analysis to be overlooked.

I do not know how the battle went, I am imagine a few counter tactics that might have been employed by the Lyran PFs while fleeing the Klingon drone swarm. Perhaps the PFs "faded together", drawing the initial swarm into a relatively small area, and cleaned up most of them with the single T-bomb carried by the PFL? Sure, the G1s still had their own T-Bomb, but 25% to 50% (depending on type-I versus IV drones) of their drone firepower just vanished. Perhaps the second channel of the PFS countered some of the drones by breaking their lock-ons? Perhaps the Lyran PFS went "wild" at a critical point in the fight, sacrificing itself (slowed to speed 12) but creating a environment where the Lyran PFs could go head to head with the Klingon PFs with an overwhelming firepower edge (an extra overloaded disruptor and two phaser-3s not tied up in drone defense).

The fact is that head to head each Klingon PF (not counting the scout, and talking the standard G1) has only 8 spaces of drones, and can run out of them in two turns if it tries (assuming the launching of two type-IVs a turn). You can confuse the issue somewhat by carrying type-VIs in the ADD racks (may as well, there are no Lyran seeking weapons in this fight), and the Lyrans can count every space you use.

This is a fight I would not award to either player just on words. There are simply too many counters to drones.

But Frankly, assuming BASE values (i.e., G1 with 8 type-IF and 6 type-VIF and shield refit, G1S with 4 type-IF and 6 type-VIF and shield refit, and G1L with 8 type-IF and 6 type-VIF) I would EXPECT the 398 BPV Klingon G1 Flotilla to defeat the 323 BPV Lyran PF flotilla. Especially as the Klingon PF flotilla's BPV can be increased by the purchase of Special Drones or loading the PFL's shuttle as a scatterpack.

By Stephen Brackett (Brak) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Javier,

The proposed ship actually has one less box than the Bobcat.
I don't see the point of your suggested change just take a Bobcat and ignore one of the disruptors. Or are you suggesting three Ph-2s? I don't think that would buy you much. Problem with the Lyran is they only have phaser and disruptors to work with. Poor little kitties.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 05:48 pm: Edit

I rather liked trading the one Disr. for a P-1.

Of course, wouldn't it be cool if the LDR built these with a P-G in the nose!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Stephen Brackett:

and as noted (although not expressed in this way), the advantage is that they do not run out of expendables. Klingon and Kzinti PFs run out of drones. Lyran PFs can take a longer view of a battle. Drone dependent PFs lose a lot of firepower when they launch their last drones, and drones can be countered in so many ways, and as drone PFs expend their drones they become weaker. So they have to expend the drones carefully for maximum return, because once launched, they are gone. Direct-Fire PFs can take a longer view of a battle.

The key point is that both types of PFs have their own unique tactics, and neither is very good using the tactics of the other.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

I think you misunderstood who was making which assertion.

The assertion I was responding to was John Murphy's, and here it is:

"I'll take a flotilla of Lyran PFs against hydran, klingon or kzinti fleets. It's more flexible than 1 disr based ships. The idea is you don't even have to get inside range 8. Hit em at 10, turn around and open room. You'll kill any PF or capitol ship doing that, at the loss of fewer PFs. Did the PF campaign with them against G1's. After 2 rounds I had killed every G1."

I disagree with John's assessment. That may, in fact, be what happened, but it is not instructive (in my opinion) on what, if anything, could be done to modify Lyran PFs.

I agree with you, Steve, that the G1s should win, so I'm confused by your post.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

I was responding to your missive:
=================================
By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

Good point. I completely spaced out on the PFS loaning as a PFT.

However, my point that the analysis should be done with no shift stands, does it not? In many situations there may be a shift, but we are working with averages.

If I missed something else, please let me know.
=================================

As it was directed to me, I fail to see how I could have misunderstood, as John Murphy is not mentioned anywhere in that missive.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Steve:

My last post was referring to the following point of yours:

"I would EXPECT the 398 BPV Klingon G1 Flotilla to defeat the 323 BPV Lyran PF flotilla. Especially as the Klingon PF flotilla's BPV can be increased by the purchase of Special Drones or loading the PFL's shuttle as a scatterpack."

This appeared to place me on the oopposite side of the argument from the side I was arguing.

This discussion arose after I proposed a 2 APR powerpack as a "refit," if you will. John Murphy argued that a flotilla of Bobcats could already defeat a flotilla of G1s, and therefore no power pack (or any refit, presumably) was needed. I disagreed.

As noted, your post seemed to place me on the opposite side of the argument from the side I had been arguing.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

Print Medium.

I have noted in my posts that analysis is trumped by actual combat.

I noted in that post that strict analysis would seem to indicate that the Klingon PFs would win, i.e.,

"I would EXPECT the 398 BPV Klingon G1 Flotilla to defeat the 323 BPV Lyran PF flotilla. Especially as the Klingon PF flotilla's BPV can be increased by the purchase of Special Drones or loading the PFL's shuttle as a scatterpack."

But what I would expect does not trump John Murphy's having actually played a campaign in which he beat the G1 Flotilla with his Bobcat Flotilla.

That was why I said:

'Where does your analysis fail? Actually, it does not. It simply runs into a problem that it is an analysis, while the person you are having your discussion with is citing a campaign actually played."

So when you read the words:

"I would EXPECT the 398 BPV Klingon G1"

I think you misunderstood in that I was not placing you anywhere. I was making a comment on my own expectations. I was not saying "I think Marc Baluda would expect", I said "I" me, SPP would expect based on the raw BPV that the G1s would win.

It did not place you anywhere in the context of that paragraph, it was solely my own observation. It did not say that "Marc Baluda contends", it said "SPP would expect".

So I was not moving your stance anywhere.

NONE OF THE ABOVE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN ATTEMPT TO REPLY AND CLARIFY. NO INSULTS, OR ANYTHING ELSE ARE INTENDED TOWARDS ANYONE, AND IF ANY ARE PERCEIVED, THEY ARE ONLY A RESULT OF POOR WORD CHOICE ON MY PART.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Steve:

I misunderstood you - thanks for the explanation, and for bearing with the discussion.

So, do you think a 2 APR powerpack for the Bobcat, at 4 BPV (2 EPV), is a reasonable proposal that warrants further discussion and playtesting?

By Dave Cross (Davecross) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 10:21 am: Edit

Marc,

I have been reading this topic with interest. Not long ago, just before you proposed the power pack, I had a discussion with BG Baltimore about such a thing.

I was going to use it to address the discussions about unique Lyran fighters that generated a whole slew of arguments (and I don't think it is really necessary), and this would be the counter to issues raised in J2 with Megafighters and such.

This would be my Lyran response to the Hydrans and Kzintis since the new J2 rules really make their fighters powerful, especially in the EW realm, and the PF powerpack would be a suitable response. Unfortunately, my J2 won't arrive until next week so I haven't been able to put together my thoughts relative to a timeline and actual numerical comparisons.

However, I think this thread would be a better basis for a Lyran power pack than PF flotilla comparisons.

Dave Cross
BG Baltimore

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 10:58 am: Edit

Marc Baluda:

The guy you have to convince is SVC.

I am personally not interested.

Partly because the data is conflicting.

Is it really a problem with the Lyran PFs, or is it a problem with local tactics?

As I noted, a Klingon G1 flotilla out BPVs a Lyran PF flotilla. It would normally be expected that the Klingon G1 flotilla would win.

But THE ONLY player who has posted as having played out a campaign notes that his Bobcat Flotilla handilly defeated a Klingon G1 Flotilla.

Real data trumps empircal data.

Did the Lyran PFs win because of vastly superior tactical play, forcing the Klingon G1s to play the Lyran PF's game? Did the Lyran PFs win because of vastly inferior Klingon play, blundering into impossible situations and allowing the Lyrans to just gun them down?

I do not know.

I do know that if you were to try to play Lyran PFs as if they were Klingon PFs, you would be making a mistake. The two, while both PFs, are very different in their tactics. Drone-armed PFs suffer from relying on expendable stores (drones). Those stores also give them a brief period of greater survival (the drones that are in flight have to be dealt with), but this is at the expense of using up the drones.

The status of the map (open or closed) also affects the balance. Mission requirements can make a difference.

As things stand, there is insufficient data to even make me begin thinking that a change is needed or that there is a significant problem with the Lyran PFs.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 11:12 am: Edit

Steve Petrick:

Can you set out what basic playtest rules should be used for the comparison? For instance, should we use an open or closed map (playing both would be preferable I assume, however if you pick one set of rules multiple playtests can be done to see if results replicate themselves over several sessions among diferent players)?

With some guidelines, I can try to convince my group to playtest the G1-Lyran matchup, or whatever matchup would be appropriate in your view. If you can provide a suggested mathup that would help as well.

To clarify one point, I am not saying the Bobcat is broken, or that it costs too much for what you get. What I am saying is that it is a weak PF, which does not seem consistent with the emphasis Lyran's place on PFs. The solution to this perceived "inconsistency" might be a powerpack, which is in-line with Lyran technology.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 11:17 am: Edit

"As things stand, there is insufficient data to even make me begin thinking that a change is needed or that there is a significant problem with the Lyran PFs."

Perhaps I haven't paid the appropriate level of attention to this thread but are people saying the Lyran PF is broken and needs to be fixed or are they saying the Lyran PF is poor compared to its competitors and would benefit, without disrupting balance, from a small upgrade?

As we are in the K2 topic we are going to need to change/enhance/add something or there won't be any point in printing a module.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 11:19 am: Edit

dis-engage cloak

Lyran PFs gain superiority in numbers.

Maybe Lyrans PFs are weaker because they could be built cheaper... and thus could be carrier more often.

While I can see the point of "Lyrans are the PF race so should have the best...", I don't think it needs to be done.

Just my 0.02.

engage cloak