Archive through August 30, 2012

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development: August 2012: Pick the next SFB module: Archive through August 30, 2012
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Well, for me its very existence is a reason for me to get a new SFB module.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Dale: Well, let me know when they get busy changing over the SFBOL SSDs. Until then, not anything I can do. The delay is not my doing.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 08:01 pm: Edit

I think Paul Franz's last estimate was since his old volunteer help quit and it will take time for his new volunteer help to get trained and up to speed and the sheer number of SSDs his guesstimate sadly was approximately two years.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 08:13 pm: Edit

SVC, I realize that and wasn't blaming you.

Sadly, I can't play with new products until they're at least available to be uploaded, if not already uploaded, on SFBOL.

Two years is entirely too long to wait to add new product to SFBOL. I understand piracy is a concern, but if the reaction to pirates is to deny legitimate buyers the ability to use their purchased products... well, you won't have many legitimate buyers.

Please don't get me wrong - I WANT to buy new products. I'm just not swimming in cash that I can/should shell out for a new product that will, at best, be bathroom reading until it is finally allowed on SFBOL.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Dale, SFBOL is a small part of the community, not the entire community.

Let me take a moment to note that the discussion you raised never ever needed to be in this topic in the first place. There are to be no further posts on this SFBOL issue in this topic.

I also note that if the products are built into SFBOL there's no reason for any SFBOL player to buy them. If they're there in the old format, there's no reason for ANYONE to buy the new products and we seriously need to never do any new SFB ships.

If Paul can find good help, and prioritize the new products so that they never ever go on SFBOL in old format SSDs, and every ship from a new product is matched by converting several existing (should have never been there in that format and were never authorized in the first place) SSDs to new format, I think the problem can be solved. But it is a complex problem and the solution won't be THAT simple, but that would be part of the solution.

But just giving up trying to move to the new format because the job is too hard is not a solution to anything.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 11:22 pm: Edit

I would prefer X2, though it might be a while from now, assuming that it results in units that can at least be reasonably opposed by non X units (ie sort of like refitted Y ships vs. the later pre GW designs.

C6 seems interesting, it would at least provide new opponents to fight. It would be best IMO if it provided 'real' opponents for the alpha races when possible (ie post GW carnivons actually encountered off map between the Kzinti and Lyrans during and after the Andro war. For the fear factor posted earlier, perhaps they provide some sort of warning about the incoming Xorkaelian invasion?)

If this was done, perhaps give them an offmap opponent (Borak survivor empire that split off from the Hydran offmap area?).

Omega lacks units to fight alpha empires at a more equal standing. This would be imo best addressed by the speed 31 units that have been spoken of in the past. MORE empires for Omega is not imo what we need at this time - it would be better to flesh out existing empires (and there are already so many of them). If more Omega modules are done, this is what I would want to see and in my opinion would sell best.

I don't want to see the Yorl Septs or Chomak anytime soon, the game needs something you can fight with existing stuff instead of fringe races, imo.

It would be nice to see another X1 module, but I don't think there are enough interesting ships out there right now to warrant it.

I feel the same about Y4 and R13.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 11:30 pm: Edit

The problems with "maybe they showed up for real after the andro war" are many.

First, they'd be X2 ships or they'd be dead meat.

Second, oh, why bother with second.

Now, it would also note that the entire lyran empire is between the Carnivons and the Borak so that's not a practical opponency for either of them.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 11:34 pm: Edit


Quote:

I feel the same about Y4




Hmph - Tellarite hater!

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 12:50 am: Edit

Yeah well, real is better than simulator, but what can ya do?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 11:22 am: Edit

Even aside from the Tellarites, it won't be much of a problem filling up the module. And that is both "expansion" stuff (e.g. Klingon E2) and new stuff (e.g. Tellarites). There are plenty of new things to choose from, too. It is just a matter of the Steves figuring out what works and what doesn't.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 11:27 am: Edit

And, since people are mentioning things not on the list, there is always J3. Instead of adding whole new classes of carriers, how about providing several different "unique" carriers? Whether initial experiments (e.g. that D6 thing with 5 fighters) or later specializations (e.g. the Fed DNV), there should be plenty of room to create some one-off carriers that filled a need at one time without becoming a full blown class of ships. Add in the evolutionary fighters, and you get a whole module.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 11:30 am: Edit

If Y4 were a viable option this time around, I'd be more interested to see if any Martian National Guard ships could be done (or would be worth doing); plus, I still want to see what kind of purpose-built hulls the pre-Orion pirates in ISC space were using prior to Y160.

(Y2 stated that they mostly used re-purposed civilian designs, but also had a handful of dedicated pirate ships on hand; perhaps those hulls could give the two-prong Navy and Police ships a little more trouble than they would otherwise be left to deal with.)


But then, when it comes to the Early Years, I would be more keen to see its Omega equivalent covered at some later point; with the various Mæsron planetary fleets of particular interest for me.

(And technically, most of the Triangulum empires' first-generation ships start off as "Early Years" hulls; in that, with the exception of the Helgardians, they only had TL11 warp engines until they were refitted with modern warp drives starting in Y120.)

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Mike West - We don't need J3!

We need K2. :)

Strike Tenders, X-Tenders, prototype Tenders, fast Tenders.

Maybe even some new PF roles.

Fighters have been heavily expanded on, but the lowly Fast Patrol Ship is left behind. :(

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 05:55 pm: Edit

A third-generation of PFs with some partial X-tech in them (not the engines, obviously, but maybe X-drones or X-plasma with Sabot built in...or X-batteries) would sure be nice...

I'd take a K2! (After Y4, of course)

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 06:59 pm: Edit

Can't see X-PFs being built. Looking at the "economy in gunboats" article, it's pretty clear that they were looking for ways to make gunboats cheaper, not more expensive.

PF roles: I think they have that pretty well covered, don't they? There's a bunch of different variants and even those silly fi-con PFs.

X-PFTs may already exist, but if they don't, I can see them making sense. Strategically, it could be used like an X-Scout with extra attrition units. Fast PFT I can't see much use for. The Feds had a fast carrier which got destroyed during a raid while waiting to pick up its fighters, and a fast PFT has the same issues. It's better not to send attrition unit carriers on deep raids.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Well, the difference is that carriers were well-known to be vulnerable when their fighters were away - that's why carriers have required escorts.

PFTs, owing to the nature of their carried craft, never had escorts. Their PFs had much longer legs than fighters, allowing the ship to hang back further from the front lines. Not to mention the special sensors used for hunting prey at long ranges are also useful for detecting potential attackers, and hiding better.

So the idea of a 'fast PFT' makes a bit more sense than a 'fast carrier', anyway. A carrier racing ahead of its fleet is...a dead carrier. A PFT racing ahead of its fleet is doing what it would have been doing anyway...just faster.


Quote:

it's pretty clear that they were looking for ways to make gunboats cheaper, not more expensive




While certainly true for the General War period, in the immediate post-war (specifically, ISC Pacification), the economies were devastated and so it would be easier to understand upgrades showing up (not full "X-PFs"...but PFs with some 'partial X-refits' as upgrades) to provide more value without having to build entirely new ships. And by the time of the Andro War, especially when the navies were actively hunting down the RTN, the whole reason ships toting PFs became so INCREDIBLY important was the need to send as few ships as possible down the node so as not to disrupt it and lose tracking. Again, a place where a small number of higher value/capability units were important. Raw attrition wasn't so much the problem at that point as much as 'how much firepower can we possibly stuff into and carry along with a single RTN-tracking scout ship?'

PFs with partial-X refits make a lot of sense in that context.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 07:54 pm: Edit


Quote:

... the economies were devastated ...




Precisely. Any unit that gets destroyed as easily as a PF is a bad investment for rare and expensive X-tech. It's that simple.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 08:11 pm: Edit


Quote:

Any unit that gets destroyed as easily as a PF is a bad investment for rare and expensive X-tech




And, again, for the General War I totally agree with that. 100% onboard,there.

However, "Operation Unity" didn't happen until nearly twenty years after the first X-ships and PFs appeared.

Would you really be insisting that, in all that time, the technology got no cheaper to implement? Heck, a modern fighter is obsolete after a decade without a major block update or system additions and upgrades. Given the last change of any kind to the PFs is the "+" refit in Y182 (IIRC), and established SFU history already goes decades past that - with further SFU history shortly to arrive...I dunno...

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 09:11 pm: Edit

I say we go with no X-PFs, except as conjectural units (and we all know how popular those are).

My general class ideas for K2 would be:

Strike PFT - A Heavy Cruiser (or NCA) hull with 6 mech-links, repair bays, and a normal weapon suite. No special sensors. In all honesty, I had sensor channel rules in SFB, but love PFs. This gives me a ship to use one without the other :).

X-PFT - Basically when that D5XS came back damaged, they added PFs to it, making it a full fledged PFT-X.

Proto-Tenders - Ships with only 3 mech links. Or 4. Or something other than the normal 6. I think these MAY have been done before, but can't swear by it.

PF Control Ships - SCS with 2 PF flotillas instead of fighters + PFs. I don't want SSCS for everyone, but yeah.


PF Roles - I agree, they seem pretty well covered, but there might be something that makes sense.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Robert,

X-PFTs already exist, in Module X1R. Two empires (Gorns and Lyrans) already have what you are calling "PF Control Ships", an SCS but with 2 PF flotillas and no fighters. They are in Module R12 and are called "Space Patrol Ships".

As far as I can recall, there are no ships that carry both a PF flotilla and a heavy fighter squadron. At least so far, the Steves have been highly resistant to that idea. But I don't recall it ever being stated why no such ships existed. So even though it will probably be shot down again, I'm going to suggest a "Heavy Space Control Ship", which would be an SCS but with the fighter squadron replaced by a heavy fighter squadron. Some empires might not want such ships because the heavy fighter squadron might not in fact be an upgrade. But for the Tholians, and probably the plasma empires, I think it would be an upgrade. And what about the Federation? If I were a Fed admiral and I had the opportunity to replace the F-14 squadron on my SCS with an F-111 squadron, would I do it? Heck no! But if I could instead replace the F-18 squadron with F-111s, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I note finally that "Heavy Space Control Ships" could fit easily into a Module K2, or J3 or R13.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 10:06 pm: Edit


Quote:

I say we go with no X-PFs, except as conjectural units (and we all know how popular those are).




Yeah, but as Alan notes about X1R...

...if you have a module with nothing but *ships* and no *PF flotillas*...

...well, that's not really 'K2', is it? But 'R13' or 'X1B' or something like that.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Xander; Uh PFTs do not require Escorts, but may take them.

Quote;
(S8.34) PF TENDERS do not require escorts as carriers do, but carrier escorts may be assigned treating the PFT as the equivalent carrier type...

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Frankly I would think that at a certain point after X-Tech is implemented, say 5-10 years, X-Batteries would become standard on everything, perhaps X-Capacitors as well. Historically batteries are one of the advanced tech items that is generally retrofitted into anything worth building/keeping. The other tech may be too expensive, but batteries are fairly cheap, for the gain you get.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 10:44 pm: Edit

That's my thinking - as noted, I'm fully willing to accept that an "X-PF" is not possible for any myriad of reasons. "Hot warp" cannot be upgraded or something. "Plasma-L" are not enough like "-F" to put on a PF, after all. etc.

However, X-batteries? Ph-2 to Ph-1? These things seem kinda likely...

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Robert,


Quote:

Strike PFT - A Heavy Cruiser (or NCA) hull with 6 mech-links, repair bays, and a normal weapon suite. No special sensors. In all honesty, I had sensor channel rules in SFB, but love PFs.




It already exists, it's called the Federation CVH.

Also, Proto-Tenders already exist. They are in R12(?) that have 3 PFs and an internal bay to repair PFs. They are the test-bed tenders for PF development.

I do believe that by "Heavy SCS", would be the DNH version being the base hull, verses the DN hull of a SCS (like the C10V is based on the C10, not C8).

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation