Peter,

I had not fully thought through the drone targetted on TM issue, because as you say in an Omega-only world that doesn't come up all that often. The lower firing rate SIGNIFICANTLY makes that problematic.

Gary,

I like the enhancement idea. I could see it being a module after contact is made with Alpha. Possibly as a FRA invention, given their knowledge of drones.

If we're going to compare ships capable of double-seeking weapon control, which are reasonably few, we should compare up against the Maesron CBA ... it still loses, but it's a fairer comparison.

All,

As I think about it, the comparison (TM vs. 2xType-I) is not the most accurate comparison possible. TMs are pretty much the equivalent of a ship-mounted Type-H drone. Consider dragging a bunch of Type-H drogues around and you're getting fairly similar performance, fire rate, they're killed as easily as any other drone but do a lot more damage if they hit and are sturdier against most direct weapon fire. There's a reason why Type-H drone bases are not particularly expensive ... they're not that good. It's a lotta pop, and you'll get massed over by smaller, more rapidly firing ships.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, April 07, 2011 - 01:25 am: Edit

One thing to note on the drone-TM interaction. Drones do not automatically destroy TMs, they just do their damage (OFD1.33). So a TM with armor-14 would survive an impact from a type-I drone.

Another thing to note: If you are in tight with the Maesron and you try to shoot down his TM with a drone, the Maesron would do well to shoot down your drone with phasers before it impacts.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 07, 2011 - 11:50 am: Edit

Mike wrote:
>>I had not fully thought through the drone targetted on TM issue, because as you say in an Omega-only world that doesn't come up all that often. The lower firing rate SIGNIFICANTLY makes that problematic.>>

Yeah, in the Omega universe, even, like, 1 TM on the map is going to do something reasonably significant--it is going to suck up 2 or 3 phasers or a few points of tractor power (and a tractor) or a torp of some type. You generally can't just shrug one off. So even the small number on the map (a couple over a turn break from a cruiser; 3 or 4 from a squadron) are going to have a not insignificant effect. Which was, according to Graw's notes, what they wanted to happen (a small number of missiles that have an impact).

Port the TMs into the Alpha universe however, and the proliferation of drones make TMs into something that you can generally just shrug off. I mean, yeah, a single type I isn't *always* going to kill a single TM. But a lot of time, it is, and when it doesn't instantly kill a TM, it is generally going to leave it an auto kill with a single P3. So against a Kzinti, Klingon, Fed, WYN, or Orion ship/force, TMs become almost a non issue--as noted, a Maesron CA can launch 2xTM over 2 turns where even a D7B can launch twice as many drones in the same time, and one drone will generally take out one TM. Yeah, the Maesron can escort the TMs and sweep down drones or whatever, but still, the trade off of drones vs TMs is a bad one for the TMs.

If we're going to compare ships capable of double-seeking weapon control, which are reasonably few, we should compare up against the Maesron CBA ... it still loses, but it's a fairer comparison.

>>As I think about it, the comparison (TM vs. 2xType-I) is not the most accurate comparison possible. TMs are pretty much the equivalent of a ship-mounted Type-H drone.>>

Which isn't at all a bad comparison, until you factor in that type H drones come with a lot of other drones at the same time--if I'm a Kzinti BC with a type H drogue, I can launch, what, 3x type H drones out of that drogue (IIRC) *and* the 4-6 drones from my racks and maybe even a SP. And that is just one ship. So the type H drone is a big, heavy hitter that is very similar to a single TM, but where a TM is generally by itself or in small groups, the type H is in a significant pile of drones. You shoot down the type H or tractor it or whatever, there are still 10 more drones coming at you. The TM? If there are 6 on the map, something crazy is going on, and again, if I don't have drones to deal with the 6 TMs on the map, they are going to pose a problem. But if I *do* have drones, and I have a force equivalent in size to a force that can put 6 TMs on the map, I'll be able to generally shrug them off with minimal drone effort, and still have a huge pile of drones on the map.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 08:19 am: Edit

Right. So the Hivers. Do they work?

I'm yet to actually play them or against them (i.e. I have only read their rules and looked at their SSDs). And the Barb is certainly a cool little fighter. But still, as it is generally an absolute truth in SFB that X BPV of one big ship is going to be much more effective than the same X BPV in a bunch of small units, it seems like the Hivers are going to be fighting an uphill battle, like, all the time.

Given a historical fight between an Alunda HS (128? with WTs) and 128 points of Hivers (what is that, like, a CA with 2x Barbs and some other smaller ship?), it seems like the Alunda is just going to savage the opposition, 'cause even if the Hivers are all in one place at one time and shooting at 1 shield for an alpha vs the HS, the HS is going to completely demolish the biggest Hiver ship (and probably some Barbs as well) while taking, like, some internals.

Anyone have any experience with the Hivers in general?

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 08:31 am: Edit

Think somewhat weaker Hydrans, they swarm well.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 09:44 am: Edit

Well, except that with the Hydrans, you have comparable ship sizes, generally speaking--a RN with 9xST2 is gonna cost as much as, like, a BCH and the difference in fortitude isn't going to be *that* significant. For 500 BPV of Hydrans vs 500 BPV of Klingons, the Hydrans will have slightly smaller ships on average or one fewer tiny ship, but in general, there will be about the same ship sizes in play.

With the Hivers, their CA is like a DD. And there are strict limits on SC3 ships showing up. So an Alunda (or whatever--who else fights the Hivers? The Vari sometimes? The Maesron?) will have a big solid crusier and the Hivers will be fighting back with a couple little DDs (that have half as many shields and internals and totally lose the EW was if that is going on too) and a few fighters that are good, but easily killed at long, non committal range. Scale this up to fleet sizes, and you end up with the situation of, like, 5 cruisers vs 8 destroyers, where the Cruisers cripple a DD every turn, while the DDs just knock down a shield every turn.

And the Barbs are certainly very cool units, but they are in no way as scary as a Stinger--at R1, a Stinger 2 is doing, what, 30+ damage, where a Barb 1 is hitting for, what, 11-12 (2xPW3 and a ST?).

Hmm. I'll have to go home and look at actual BPV numbers and see what shows up where.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 10:10 am: Edit

Peter,

I've got to object when you say

---

Quote:

But still, as it is generally an absolute truth in SFB that X BPV of one big ship is going to be much more effective than the same X BPV in a bunch of small units,,,

---

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 11:47 am: Edit

We found the Hivers to be unworkable in our campaign setting due to the lack of control spaces. I don't have any experience with them in large engagements, but in smaller battles, it seems like their larger (relatively speaking) ships do OK, while their smaller ships are worthless. The smaller ships are pricier than PFs but much less effective.

The Barbs are OK, especially the Barb-II, but for the BPV I'd rather have a Stinger-II.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 11:51 am: Edit

Alan wrote:
>>I agree that a big ship beating several smaller ships of equal total BPV is a good rule of thumb. It usually works that way. But calling it an "absolute truth" seems to imply that it always works that way. And I disagree with that. >>

A) I wrote "generally".

B) You couldn't simply look at that sentence and say "Huh. That's kind of an overstatement." and move on?

I mean, like, I'm not offended by your response or anything, and everything you wrote seems completely reasonable, but it seems like an awful lot of effort to question a statement that is both generally true and slightly hyperbolic.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 12:02 pm: Edit

Andy wrote:
>>We found the Hivers to be unworkable in our campaign setting due to the lack of control spaces.>>

Hmm. Is that due to a campaign specific rule, or something I'm not remembering?

>> I don't have any experience with them in large engagements, but in smaller battles, it seems like their larger (relatively speaking) ships do OK, while their smaller ships are worthless.>>

Yeah, the heavy ships look totally reasonable (i.e. the DN, DNH, and BC), but as those are SC3, they fall under the "we can only have one of these in a fight" rule that the Hivers are stuck with.

I think the CA (1/2 move cost) seems like a totally reasonable and solid destroyer, especially with some Barbs on board. But teaming up a couple of them to fight an opposing empire CA (if you even get that much ship for the BPV) seems like a losing fight.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 12:12 pm: Edit

One thing to bear in mind about TMs is that the full range of launchers that exist in the rules haven't been peroperly shown in the game yet. At the moment, the Type-C rack (which can fire every turn) isn't in print at all, while only one historical ship (the Mæsron SCS) is shown to have the Type-D (with a set of reloads) in print.

But then, that's part of the wider issue of there not being a wider range of "late-war" Omega ships in print overall; with a few exceptions (such as the Vari Command Cruiser and Wing Cruiser previewed in Captain's Log #22) we have still to see the kind of ships that would be a better fit against Alpha Octant war cruisers et al.

Hopefully, one day...


Regarding the Hivers, the biggest RPW ship they have is the (light cruiser-sized) BC, which might be a better choice for duels than the CA.

It is kind of a shame that Omega 5 didn't give the Hivers some newer Barbs (or better DDs, for that matter); but in their case, given that they treat them as ships, not fighters (or PFs), they would presumably have to wait for a future "warships" module to get caught up with the others.

Speaking of historical opponents, a big problem for them would be the Worb; especially once the Technocracy fields their massive (MC 1.75!) DN, which even in the R-section for that ship is noted as a unit the Hivers had no counter for.

I wonder how useful the mental node (OD2) rules are for them, though.

EDIT: The Hivers can still take three SC3 units; two normally, and a third in place of a SC2 unit (which they have none of at present anyway). And three mental nodes per fleet, too.


Oh, while I'm here, I wanted to mention to anyone with an interest in FC that version 2 of the Omega Playtest Rulebook is up on e23. Five empires (Mæsron, Trobrin, Probr, Iridani, FRA) are in playtest for now; hopefully they can settle in well enough.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 12:15 pm: Edit

Barb fighters shouldn't be used as close range fighters. They do ok at longer ranges though.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 12:20 pm: Edit

To clarify about that Hiver deployment issue, it's not like with the LMC empires, where (after the flagship) you have to take three SC4 units per SC3 ship; in a smaller engagement, nothing is stopping you from taking, say, three SC3 ships and two SC4s.

Plus, even if you don't use mental nodes, (OR10.031) means that ships within 35 hexes of each other can rely on each other's control spaces (to avoid being considered uncontrolled, that is), thanks to the Queen's ever-present mental network.

That doesn't apply if you're flying rogue ships that survived a Queen's death under (OR10.032), but that's another matter...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 12:31 pm: Edit

Peter,

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but unfortunately it seems to be against my nature.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Alan,

Fair enough :-)

(and yeah, factoring in webs makes all the wheels fall off...)

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 05:44 pm: Edit

So I can't find the deployment rules for the Hivers (I know it is somewhere weird, and can't locate it currently)--someone wanna post them (or paraphrase?).

Looking at the SSDs I have sitting around, for example, a Hiver CA is 75 BPV. Add in 4xB1s for 48, and you got a 123 point ship. An Alunda HS without the WT refit is conveniently a 124 point ship. The Hiver CA isn't at all a bad ship for 75 points. The Barb 1s aren't at all bad fighters for 12 points. But I can't imagine for a second that the Hiver CA+4xB1 have a remote chance vs the Alunda HS.

The Hiver BC (which is a SC4 unit, apparently, so they can show up regularly) is 90 points, and a very solid ship for 90--good power curve, good firepower. Add in 3xB1 (36), and again, 126 points vs a 124 point Alunda HS (heck--give it 4xB1 for a total of 138 BPV to match the WT refit Alunda HS at 132 BPV), and still, my money is on the Alunda HS.

Hmm. Clearly, someone needs to play this game with me on SFBOL :-)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 06:08 pm: Edit

From the Omega errata file, page 18:

---

Quote:

(OR10.034) CLARIFICATION: Deployment patterns: In patrol scenarios (S8.0), Hiver fleets may contain no more than one Size class 2 unit and no more than two size class 3 units; a third size class 3 unit may be substituted for the one permitted size class 2. This modifies (S8.33) for the Hivers. A maximum of three mental nodes (OD2.0) may be present in any fleet. Note, as of the Master Rulebook’s being published, there is no Hiver Size Class 2 unit, but one may be published in a future product.

---

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Gary wrote:
>>It's incorporated into the rules seen in the Omega Master Rulebook, too. >>

Ah, thanks. I knew I read it somewhere.

>>Bear in mind there are two other Hiver fighter types, too; the Barb-A (a phaser variant of the Barb-1; YIS 122) and the Barb-H (a heavy fighter, or "heavy frigate" to the Hivers; YIS 182). >>

Oh, sure, but they are more expensive and not generally that much more effective. Barbs are very good at medium ranges, but compared to, say, Hydran Stingers, really lack the terror factor.

>>My mistake on the SC for the BC, sorry. Only the DN and DNH are SC3 at present.>>

Oh, heh--I thought it was SC3 also (I remembered the 2/3 move and assumed SC3 as a result). That it is SC4 means it is just the super optimal cruiser for the Hivers.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Well, to be fair, if you want to compare the Barbs (of any type) to other fighters out there, it should be in the context of what their rivals have to offer (such as Alunda Remoras, Worb High and Broad fighters, Souldra Shards etc).

Bear in mind that it's only by the time you get to the General War that Hydran Stingers even get that gatling; the earlier Stinger-1s aren't all that outstanding compared to your average early Omega fighter.

And Barb-1s were in service much earlier.


People tend to rush to the late-war Alphas when making their cross-octant comparisons, but it is worth remembering that when the modern Omega empires reached TL12, only the Alpha-Jindarians were already there; the early ISC were still using W-era engines, while most of the rest of Alpha was stuck at non-tactical warp. Omega technology levels hit a plateau for longer than in Alpha at that point, and took longer to make the next leap forward into late warp engines and X-ships; but they were still ahead in several ways.

But then, the LMC empires were ahead on the tech curve... until a certain green menace skewed things, ahem.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Gary wrote:
>>Well, to be fair, if you want to compare the Barbs (of any type) to other fighters out there, it should be in the context of what their rivals have to offer (such as Alunda Remoras, Worb High and Broad fighters, Souldra Shards etc). >>

Well, sure, but what I'm responding to is David's initial (not unreasonable) comparison of:

>>Think somewhat weaker Hydrans, they swarm well.>>

The Hydrans are, in many ways, similar--they have strong, ever present fighters and ships that are (if talking about the fusion/fighter ships) less optimal than their opponents. And what the Hydrans have going for them more than anything else is that Stingers are terrifying. And their ships tend to be cheap but generally just as good at taking a beating as their opponents.

The Hivers have ships that are half as big and their fighters are certainly cool and strong for what they are, but aren't ever going to cause the damage or the panic that Stingers are. At middle ranges, a Hiver ship and fighters are going to be doing the same damage as a comparable CA at middle ranges (i.e. some, but nothing devastating) while suffering much more attrition (i.e. their opponent will lose a shield at worst; the Hivers will lose some fighters or the actual ship will be taking internals). At close ranges, the Hivers will be doing internals, but getting devastated in return.

Again, looking at a Hiver CA+4xB1 vs an Alunda HS (which are virtually the same cost), the Alunda can either kill the Barbs at range while mostly ignoring the CA, or if the fighters aren't on the map (or far away), just mangle the CA while not worrying so much about the return fire.

By Aaron M. Staley (Awwwdrat) on Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - 06:34 am: Edit

SPP: A perfect example of the problem I'm having with PFRs. See the Probr PFR. Note that you can tell exactly what systems were replaced (and thus we know exactly what they're hit on).

By Aaron M. Staley (Awwwdrat) on Thursday, May 05, 2011 - 11:27 am: Edit

New bit of errata; Trobrin PFM, mineracks are not numbered. (I know, wooptidoo).

By Aaron M. Staley (Awwwdrat) on Thursday, May 05, 2011 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Another thing not in the errata; Trobrin PT has a move cost of 0.25 on the SSD, MSC says 0.33.

By Aaron M. Staley (Awwwdrat) on Thursday, May 05, 2011 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Probr Logistics Base (LB) may be broken; there are no control stations and nothing about this base in the errata.

By Aaron M. Staley (Awwwdrat) on Friday, May 06, 2011 - 05:26 am: Edit

Another possible errata issue: Trobrin Small Station (SS). Usually the repair systems have a note for what they're hit on; no such note is present.