What is it with the Lyrans and their attrition units? First the fighters need something, now the PFs.

mumble If they would just fly Kzinti like any sane being, they wouldn't have this problem.

quickly dives from room

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 11:39 am: Edit

The "Lyrans can carry more" argument doesn't work. Only the Hydrans can go beyond the 3-attrition squadron limit. So no matter how many casual PFs the Lyran player wants to bring, he is still limited to 18 PFs total in any given battle force. Unless I'm missing some rule about Lyran casual PFs.

Oops, forgot about the Feds and their "Third Way" option, but they only get that because they can't have any PFs.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 11:53 am: Edit

Tos:

My concern is that the Bobcat is weak, not that it is broken. While weakness doesn't normally matter so long as the BPV is correct, I think in the Lyran's case weakness does matter.

The Lyrans are a PF race. While they may be able to overwhelm with numbers, that's somewhat unsatisfying. By way of example, what if Kzins had poor drones but could overwhelm with numbers, or the Stinger was weak but could overwhelm in numbers? Both of those hypotheticals is not true, and in fact the Kzins have the best drones (or I should say the best drone percentages) and the Hydrans have some of the best fighters, if not the best (Feds being the only competitors), and both Kzins and Hydrans have numerical superiority. That's why they heavily rely on these assets - numbers and quality.

I'm arguing for at least quality parity on the part of the Lyran PF because the Lyran PF plays a special role in their fleet, and I think making the Lyrans pay a BPV price is in order. While the Lyrans get the first PF, creating an advantage over fighters, they then do nothing to improve on it despite the fact that as other PFs emerge, the Bobcat is inferior (and this is the subject of the previous discussion - some argue it is not even though it is cheaper, so in effect they should be arguing that it needs an increase in price or the Klingon G1 needs a decrease). I proposed a powerpack refit for two reasons: 1) to improve the quality of Lyran PFs (albeit at a price); and 2) a powerpack is consistent with Lyran technology and seems a reasonable method to accomplish #1.

So in sum, the Bobcat isn't broken in and of itself because its BPV seems right, but I'm arguing it is inadequate to accomplish the role it plays in the Lyran fleet - it's a weak centerpiece for Lyran attrition warfare.

With that said, we also want to have new dohickeys in K2, so this might be a fun one!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

Hunh?

What playtest? SVC has not instructed me to instigate any playtest based on anything in this topic, and my main focus on playtesting is on something else just now, i.e., the next product heading to publication.

This is a discussion. When SVC decides that perhaps something will be considered for publication playtesting will be instigated. All data here is anecdotal, with proviso that obviously someone who has played a PF campaign has data which trumps someone who is just citing raw analysis figures.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

My apologies. I did not realize that "playtest" was a term of art referring to playing out a sanctioned set of test rules.

What I meant was, what rules would you recommend someone play by to get the kind of data that you would find most useful in furthering the analysis? The goal here is to get the kind of data that addresses the following issue you raised:

"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 Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 12:48 pm: Edit

I reading this topic I can not help but to think of a WWII paralell between this and the situation of US fighters vs. Japanese at the beginning of the war. Though we didn't invent the fighter at the beginning our fighters were inferior. We solved that problem in two ways. First with tactics (lessons learned in China by the Flying Tigers) and then we impoved our fighter design. Tactics were not enough. THat dosen't mean we forgot the superior tactics once we got better fighters. On the contrary, we also improved on them.

When a system is developed, it is usually improved upon. I'm sure a lot of those improvements can't be reflected in game terms but some can. The vurtual inventors of the PF, I think, would have come up with an improved design. First they created Interceptors. THe PF is the improvement on those. Then the other races, after some study of the Lyran design, built theirs. Yes, they are more BPV, but that only means that unit for unit there is a better design. The Lyran design descisions would not be based on BPV or victory points, but that the compeating races fly a slightly more powerful design. I would think this would prompt the Lyrans to act.

Frankly, I would think that they would first implement a power pack. It was a massive trand to solve problems with their ships. Even one APR might work. Actually, one Battery from a practical sense of actual construction is better and cheaper. But it has been noted that one extra battery add a LOT of maneuver options that no one else has. In game terms, one battery may be too much. After the power pack, I could see the Lyrans at least designing an all new PF, perhaps not starting production given the surcomstances of the Late War period. It was said that all races considered the Heavy PF design but didn't produce any. This could be that PF.

I am one vote FOR consideration of a PF power pack, be it one or two APR. If you put a battery one it I would be all over it as a player, but would then wonder why the Lyrans didn't win the War on both fronts.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 01:28 pm: Edit

"The Lyran design descisions would not be based on BPV or victory points, but that the compeating races fly a slightly more powerful design. I would think this would prompt the Lyrans to act."

When put in an historical context , and I'm a bit rusty on my Y180s, I'm not sure the Lyrans faced a whole heck of a lot of enemy PFs to fully realize the limitations of their design. The obvious upward pressure we can see is from a galactic viewpoint that the Lyrans may not have had.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 01:33 pm: Edit

If we do a power pack I would propose that it be a removable pack simliar to a warp booster pack, i.e. it takes one turn to install a new one. Being a pack there isn't necessarily a reason why it could not have a few different configurations. 2 APR; 1 APR + 1 Bat; 1 APR + P3 360; heck, I'd even consider an ADD-6 or Drone-E pack since they are too small to mount ESGs. Playtest and price accordingly.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Tos:

The problem with allowing it to contain something other than power is you break away from Lyran technology, and start making a modular PF.

Also, I would propose to have the powerpack work just like a power pack on Lyran ships - it's a hard-welded refit.

The only reason to have it drop off or be removable would be if it had a damage problem, such as WBPs, and that is not consistent with Lyran powerpack technology either.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 01:46 pm: Edit

It's an interesting option which gives the Lyran a powerful advanyage. Take a near-destroyed PF onto the tender, slap on new warp packs, a new power pack or weapons module and maybe give it a round of repair to an offensive weapon and you have something combat-capable pretty darn fast.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Marc: I fully agree. It should be a refit not a pod or whatever. And no weird damage thing. The cost should only be BPV.

Here is the thing. An APR is a device that at least needs some level of tuning and maintainence. Batterys too unless your talking about something disposable and of limited use, like 10 turns or so. Anyway, if an Auxillary Power Reactor is to supply power to a ship in combat I think it would have to be a perminant addition to the ship.

In other words, Tos, a power producing pod would be a new technology that everyone would want and not just for PFs. If you could pop on two APR onto a PF why not a ship. I mean, how many ships could use a couple of these!

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 01:53 pm: Edit

John, Tos:

I definitely see that as an advantage, and perhaps it makes sense. However, it's an entirely distinct proposal from a Lyran powerpack.

What you are talking about is a modular PF that can be repaired in component modules, if you will, thereby speeding repair time. An interesting concept, but it probably wouldn't be Lyran-only.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 02:17 pm: Edit

It isn't Lyran only. The Kzinti and Romulans already have modular PFs just off the top of my head.

The APR would function exactly like the warp engines on a PF in that they lack the automatic maintenance and safety protocols that would be necessary for use on a ship. They would be designed to burn out and be replaced once the fissile material is expended.

As for non-proliferation, we need something to fill K2. Why not give everyone a modular PF, even if some are kept conjectural.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

Please understand that what you are asking me to do is drop current projects and develop a PF test plan.

I cannot drop current projects.

If I do, no one else is here to do them.

As it is, what I am doing is watching this topic.

The topic so far indicates a division in opinion. Your side insists the Lyran PF is broken and must be fixed. Another side says that there is nothing wrong with the Lyran PF. Yet another side sees the Lyran PF as somewhat weak, but sees no need to push for a change but would go along with a change if one was made that was not too de-stabilizing. And still another just sees no reason to mess with the status quo at all and considers those calling for change to be a bunch of whiners.

There is no consensus, and a tendency on my part to give greater weight to the words of a player who actually played a PF campaign. (Even at that, you will note that I am cautious because I am not sure what happened in that campaign.) So at this point all I am going to do is continue to monitor the topic and see if anything shows up.

You have to remember that there is a lot involved in messing with anything. PFs operate in independent scenarios (a strike by PFs alone against something which could be a squadron of enemy ships), in squadron and fleet battles (either from a formal tender or from casual tenders as part of a duel between larger ships), or in simple PF scrimmages (PF patrols encounteriing one another), and endless variations on that theme [my PFs were trying to breach a minefield in a given area for future raids, yours were going to through a known (by your side) gap in that minefield to raid a planet, so I am hampered by having to protect that mine-warfare PF and perhaps use its mines to plug the gap you came through, while you are hampered by those Ground Assault PFs and maybe a cargo PF carrying some extra Ground Combat Vehicles to support your raid, and on and on).

Right now Lyran PFs seem to work well enough for their primary function as attrition units in squadron and fleet battles. And this is because they are comparatively CHEAP. In the "real world" battles are often one-sided, i.e., one side simply had no real chance to beat the other. Players tend not to play such actions unless special scenario victory conditions give them a chance to win (e.g., historically Custer and his troops were wiped out by 3PM, the player wins the scenario if his last Custer trooper is killed after 3PM, and his victory level is raised by one for every 10 minutes past 3PM he is able to hold out . . . he is still going to get wiped out but there is a challenge to it . . . last longer than Custer).

The upshot is that for about 670 BPV (actually, Kzinti BPV would be 672, Lyran BPV would be 671) you could have a battle involving:

Kzintis 3xCM with Y175 and Mechlink refits carrying 5xNeedle+

Versus

Lyran 2xCW and 1xCWL all fully refitted and carrying 6xBobcat+

The difference in BPV gains the Lyrans an extra PF and a War Cruiser Leader.

Changing one of the Kzinti CMs to a War Cruiser Leader and adding the sixth Needle+ would add 61 BPV to the Kzinti force.

Note that the above assumes all drones are type-IF with no special drones, and that none of the Kzinti ADDs have been replaced with type-VIF (which, if all were converted, would just about force the deletion of another Kzinti PF).

The point here is that there are circumstances and circumstances.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Modular PFs:

Let me see, the Romulans and the Kzintis got Modular PFs. They are the only two races that do (discounting the Orions whose PFs carry different weapons, but are not modular).

So primary proponents who have previously vociferously argued AGAINST "Cookie Cutter" are now arguing in FAVOR since it is something they want?

Do we really need to spread "modular PFs" to other races? Is it not enough that only two races developed that technology as their "thing"?

I mean heck, if we are changing the uniqueness of Modular PFs from being a Romulan and Kzinti thing to a Romulan, Kzinti, and Lyran thing, why not make it a Romulan, Kzinti, Lyran, and Gorn thing? How about a Romulan, Kzinti, Lyran, Gorn, and Klingon thing? Hey, why not only exclude the Tholians from having it and giving it to every one else? Oh heck, since everyone else got, why not give it to the Tholians and then everyone will have Modular PFs.

Arguing Power Packs as Lyran technology is basically the same thing as arguing for Lyran PF trimarans. The Lyrans do not apply power packs to NON-TRIMARANS. There is no Lyran Catamaran with a power pack. The Pol, FF, DD, CL, and CA and their variants all lack powerpacks. So if I go along with this argument, how about I add power packs to the standard Lyran Pol, FF, DD, CL, and CA (and their variants)?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 03:06 pm: Edit

SPP: Where do you stand on the concept of developing material for K2? There once was a day that I saw no need for J2 and yet an entire module was filled with interesting material. Do you see such an opportunity for K2?

The proposal for modular PFs presumes a desire to publish K2 and is provided as possible filler for that purpose. If there is no intention of creating a K2 then you are correct in asserting that modular PFs be restricted to those that already have them. If you think there should be a K2 perhaps you could share some of your ideas and we can help refine them.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Tos Crawford:

Excuse me, but when did you get the right to question me on company policy?

Frankly, I do not stand anywhere except on the side of trying to keep the game enjoyable and interesting.

I think, however, that I am permitted to be stunned when someone well noted for complaining vociferously about cookie cutterism suddenly supports it when apparently he wants something.

This topic is for the purposes of people discussing ideas. It was not started by SVC or myself:
===============================================
By Charles E. Gray (Cgray45) on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 09:18 pm: Edit

now that J2 (fighters) is on its way, what about Module K2, the second for fast patrol ships? What should it include-- what could it include.
Does anyone think there is enough for a full module, or should it be an E mail order module?
===============================================
SVC has only posted in this topic one time, and that to answer a question about Area Control Ships as published in Module J2.

I have watched the topic, and been drawn to comment a few times, but pretty much just want to follow the discussion because something might come out of it. Maybe not something that would create or fill a Module K2, perhaps just something that might be part of Module R8, perhaps something that will just become part of some new race added in some future product.

Does that mean there will never be a Module K2?

No.

But by the same token it does not mean that there will be a Module K2.

And neither does it mean that nothing will ever come of these discussions, or that anything will come of these discussions.

It does mean that the discussion is not being ignored by ADB.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 03:50 pm: Edit

And if a Trimaran PF is designed then it would incorporate any short commings the previous design had.

Arrrg.

Is there a phaser variant of the Bobcat? I seem to remember one.

I don't really want to see all the races get modular PFs. The races that have them have special needs and reasons. I don't see why the Hydrans would bother. PFs are cheap to build. Why not just design a variant from whole cloth. It is much more stable. Besides, most every one has many variants that fulfil most rolls.

What could be in K2? Well, more than modular PFs. So there is something else unthought of yet. Actually I did think of something but I submited it already and I don't want to discuss it pending review.

K2 could also include new ships.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

"Arguing Power Packs as Lyran technology is basically the same thing as arguing for Lyran PF trimarans. The Lyrans do not apply power packs to NON-TRIMARANS. There is no Lyran Catamaran with a power pack. The Pol, FF, DD, CL, and CA and their variants all lack powerpacks. So if I go along with this argument, how about I add power packs to the standard Lyran Pol, FF, DD, CL, and CA (and their variants)?"

I mean no offense, but you are presenting a false analogy, and a slippery slope. I am not arguing that powerpacks should be placed on catamaran hulls. I am arguing that a PF powerpack for the PF is consistent with Lyran powerpack technology which adds power to underpowered ships (deployment of technology differs from development of technology, especially considering the trimaran hulls and the powerpack came out well before the PF, but the powerpack did not come out before the cat hulls).

You have stated an objection to trimaran hulls, but that does not mean that the power pack sets a bad precedent for ship powerpack deployment arguing in favor of adding powerpacks to cat hulls (any more than trimaran hulls for ships set a bad precendent for PFs arguing for trimaran PFs).

I understand if you don't like the idea of a powerpack for the Bobcat, but I don't understand the relevance of your last argument. Again, I mean no offense.

[I should clarify, once again, that I do not think the Bobcat is broken. I think a refit to improve it, with an associated cost, is appropriate given Lyran emphasis on PFs and the Bobcat's relative weakness (which is a subject of enduring debate).]

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

Apples and oranges. I do not consider the analogy to be false, you do.

Power is ALWAYS an improvement. As SVC has noted, there is no a ship in the game that would not be made much superior by adding a point or two of power. Very few ship captains are not crying out for more power and having their engineers exclaim "you canna' break the laws of Physics".

The Lyrans were building huge numbers of power packs and slinging them on the bottoms of every trimaran they could. If four points of power is a big improvement for a DW, do you not think it would be a big improvement for a DD? Lets put one on. We get a ship with 24 points of power. Takes 18.5 to move speed 31 and pay housekeeping, leaving 5.5 points of power to load the two disruptors, a phaser-2 and a phaser-3. Before that it was not arming the disruptors while moving at speed 31. Go for overloads? and you slow to speed 27. standard loads and recharge all the phasers? Speed 21 (assumes the P refit). Go for overloads and recharge all the phasers? Speed 13.

And how much more devastating would it be if we threw out that silly racial thing about Lyrans and phaser-1s and changed all the phaser-2s on this boat to phaser-1s?

There had to be some reason they did not add power packs to Catamaran hulls. Whatever that reason was, I suspect it would have applied to the PFs (which are Catamaran hulls).

Does not mean that SVC might not decide when the day is done to add power packs to PFs, but there is an indicated argument as to why it would not be done.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Cloaking device Off

Marc most first units that came out were surpassed by other races version of them. DN's BC's etc. In almost every case the originators came out on the short end of the stick.

I generally don't like using PF's or Fighters much. So I tend to stay out of these topic's. But I just had to comment this time.

Cloaking device On

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

"There had to be some reason they did not add power packs to Catamaran hulls. Whatever that reason was, I suspect it would have applied to the PFs (which are Catamaran hulls)."

That is a strong argument. I attempted to address it by looking at YIS dates. The cat hulls came first. The tri hulls, and powerpacks, came second (I've lumped the two together in time because the pp refit rules specifically state that the history is unclear about whether the tri hull design originally incorporated a pp or was intended to have a pp added shortly after YIS). Pfs came third.

I would argue that cat ship hulls don't use a pp because they weren't designed to have one (and modifications are not possible, otherwise as you point out they all would have one). Tri hulls can have a pp, and as noted in the pp refit description it may have been designed with a pp in mind. PFs were built after tri hulls (by several years) and they could have incorporated the ability to have similar technology (which is the subject of an expansion to the game). So, the limitation is not whether it is a cat hull or tri hull, but whether the design is compatible with a pp, either from scratch or as a modification. The tri hull ships and PFs could fit this description.

At least that's one rationale.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Kenneth Jones:

Yes, this point was raised by Jessica Orsini. She noted the Fed DN as an example.

However, you will also note that those originals were later upgraded. For instance, the Fed DN became the DNG, one of the best dreadnoughts in the game (especially for the price).

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 05:15 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

There had to be some reason they did not add power packs to Catamaran hulls. Whatever that reason was, I suspect it would have applied to the PFs (which are Catamaran hulls).

---

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda:

Power packs exist. My shipyard to produce CAs exists. If it is possible to put a power pack on a Catamaran hull, why did not I not take one of my trust ship designers and tell him to redesign the lower section of the of the CA to mount the power pack, then instigate this new design into the existing assembly line? Why did I not do this when the power pack showedup and apply it to the FF and DD?

It was not done, although clearly adding four more points of power to the 37 points the CA normally generates, not to mention that 5th battery for the ability to HET entirely on reserve power, is such an obvious improvement that surely if it were doable it would have been done.

My theory is that there is something about the Tri-Engine design versus the Bi-Engine design that allows the pack. The warp fields generated by two warp engines creates an unstable balance which cannot tolerate the power pack. A three warp engine arrangement creates a stable energy field around the pack. This is why the power pack was designed when the idea of cutting FFs and DDs in half to make DWs and CWs (and later BCs and DNs) worked.

The bobcats were dual engine designs and had the same problem.