Alan wrote:
>>If the purpose of this discussion is to determine whether a Kzinti CS should have the same factors as a Klingon D6 in a Four-Powers-War F&E scenario, then I think your analysis is off base.>>

The purpose of this discussion was, as I initially posted, to indicate that on a closed map, or where there is a fixed point around which one side needs to attack and the other side needs to defend, the CS is just about as good as the D6.

Fighting on a closed map, or around a fixed point, represents a fight that both sides are invested in decisively winning. A fixed map is an abstraction that makes a fight where there is no fixed (i.e. non moving or slowly moving) objective a viable game.

One can certainly introduce any number of factors into the discussion that were not part of my initial premise. At which point, we are not discussing my initial premise.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 09:06 pm: Edit

Dave wrote:
>>One of my points was that unless you are playing a tournament game, you can always choose to lose by disengaging. Furthermore, even in a floating map battle, provisions exist to force an opponent not interested in engaging to have been deemed to disengaged.>>

The only rule I can find that that allows Force A to declare that Force B has disengaged is the stalemate rule, that states that if one side is consistently moving towards their opponent and the other side is consistently moving away from their opponent, and no internal damage is scored over 10 turns, the pursuing force can force the fleeing force to have had disengaged. This is an extremely convoluted situation that is unlikely to ever actually happen. The rule of "no one has taken any internal damage in 10 turns forces a draw" is less convoluted, but still unlikely, even on an open map.

What is perfectly likely to happen is one force, that gains advantage by staying at long range, dipping into firing range, running for a few turns, and then coming back around to dip into firing range. If the dipping back into range can result in a small number of internals every 10 turns, this can continue indefinitely.

>>Now it seems to me that Peter's argument for defaulting to a fixed map seems to tacitly assume that players, the people sitting across the table from one another, may get bored after 10 turns of saber dance and be more prone to just give in and disengage and choose to loose and end the battle.>>

No, my argument for defaulting to a fixed map is that it is an abstraction that stands in for "this is a fight that both sides are invested in decisively winning". And is also something that makes the game actually work as a game, as opposed to a theoretical exercise.

If you want to look at this game as a "simulation" (of, well, something that doesn't exist, but whatever), there needs to be a *reason* for ships to engage in combat in empty, open space. A fixed map is a abstract stand in for that reason. As you can't have a planet to attack or a convoy to raid or a base to destroy in every game.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Peter,

Fair enough, but I would note that the very first paragraph in your 18 May post reads:

---

Quote:

So over in the F+E discussion forum, folks are hashing out the F+E stats for the Kzinti CS during the Four Powers War/Middle Years era (say, y159). A question of whether or not the CS should have the same stats as the D6 (which I totally maintain is a sound decision) came up, and in the name of defending that, I figured I'd post here.

---

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Alan wrote:
>>Fair enough, but I would note that the very first paragraph in your 18 May post reads:>>

And later on in that exact same post, I wrote:

"if they are on an open map and the D6 can just stay at long range and snipe with 4 disruptors indefinitely (although the Kzinti can fire from longer range with its 2 Range 30's...), the D6 has an advantage. But on a closed map, or in a fight where there is an actual fixed objective (convoy/base/planet/whatever), the CS is eventually going to catch up to the D6 and savage it."

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Stewart wrote:

>>>Hmmmm, OK the CS is under the D6, but is it better than other ships with a AF of 6?? (Lyran CL/DW, Fed CL, Klingon F5L)

>>>If it has the edge over these ships, then the 7 rating works...

In my opinion, the Fed CL, Lyran CL and Klingon F5L are all superior offensively to the Kzinti CS outside range 3, although inside range 3 the CS is going to give the F5L and Fed CL a particularly nasty time. If the CS starts getting internals on these ships they are going to fall apart a lot faster.

Part of the problem is if the D7 is an 8 and the D6 is a 7-8, this is on the basis of 2 more P2 and R30 (vs. R22) Disr. The BC is an 8 and gets (effectively because of arcs) 3 more Disr. 1 P1 not to mention 3 more warp (so it can actually move 31, the CS being a real oddball). Furthermore, due to the era change, the move from speed 8 to speed 20 drones really matters more to the BC than the CS.

I would rank the BC being a firm 8 on par with the Fed CA being a firm 8. The D7 is a low 8 (offensively and defensively w/out refits and being a slightly be low average hull). The D6 is respectively a high 7/8 since it just isn't getting all that much to go from a 7 to an 8. So if the Fed and Lyran CLs are solid 6s then the question is whether the CS is a high 6-8 or a low 7-8.

The decision of which really is an F&E decision on whether you want the Kzinti to be more competitive with the Klingons and the Feds; where IIRC the Kzinti basically weren't because the CS was a bad design. The Kzinti just didn't recognize that because they were fighting each other mostly. In other words, if in F&E you make the CS a 6-8 you are calling out the bad design, whereas if you make it 7-8 then not so much. To me, the D6 does not seem like a bad design, just more like the Klingons were being cheap compared to the D7. They kept on being cheap because it was a decent ship for conversions. No matter how you slice it, you have a lot more fixing to do on the CS even if you keep it around for conversion. No shipyard would ever continue to make a 27 warp cruiser into the general war (and I'm sure someone will point out an exception). The CS isn't cheap, its flawed.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, May 24, 2013 - 07:43 am: Edit

Dave wrote:
>> The CS isn't cheap, its flawed.>>

No one is claiming the CS isn't flawed. The CS is flawed. The CS is a pretty bad ship.

But in fights where both sides are compelled, for whatever reason, to engage decisively (i.e. around a fixed point, or on a fixed map which is a convenient abstraction that stands in for a fixed point), the CS isn't going to be significantly less effective than the D6.

Fights need to happen for a reason. That reason is usually something that is being attacked or defended, as opposed to simply "here are two forces in open, infinite space, fighting till someone dies" (even in F+E). In fights where there is a reason for both sides to be invested in a decisive outcome, the CS is reasonably effective. And not much less so than the D6. Such that giving them the same combat factors in F+E is a reasonable plan.

Is the D6, in general, a more capable ship? Yes. Yes it is. But in fights where both sides are compelled/invested in a decisive outcome, the CS isn't going to be significantly less combat effective than a D6.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, May 24, 2013 - 10:47 am: Edit

It just occurred to me this morning that we are talking about the wrong cruiser, at least as far as the Four Powers War is concerned. There is an intermediate step between the Kzinti CS and BC, the CA. It still has the CS engines so it is still a bit underpowered and slow compared to the D6. But it has 4 disruptors (though still with the CS arcs rather than the wider BC arcs) and the 360° phasers are upgraded to phaser-1s. Whether or not the CS should be treated the same as the D6 in F&E terms (a matter concerning which Peter and I disagree) is irrelevant for the Four Powers War scenario. Those CSs will have been upgraded to CAs, which are clearly capable of standing up to a D6.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, May 24, 2013 - 11:01 am: Edit

Alan wrote:
>>Whether or not the CS should be treated the same as the D6 in F&E terms (a matter concerning which Peter and I disagree) is irrelevant for the Four Powers War scenario.>>

Well, sort of? The CA is something that there were historically not that many of, and the discussion of the 4PW scenario (that this is all revolving around) addressed the existence of the CA already (going with the "there is no significant difference between the BC and CA in that time frame that is worth worrying about"--I think there will be a function for converting a CS to a CA, which will just be a conversion to change the CS counter into a BC counter, as that is gonna be close enough).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, May 24, 2013 - 11:25 am: Edit

Hmm. I wasn't aware that there were only a few CAs, historically. It's YIS is, if I recall correctly, about 2 decades before the Four Powers War and I guess I just assumed that all, or at least almost all, CSs would have been converted by then.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, May 24, 2013 - 12:56 pm: Edit

According to the background, they mostly showed up around the Marquis Fleet (i.e. Fed border). And I don't think many existed (due to the internal Kzinti politics, much like the CC).

In any case, still, yes, the CS isn't particularly good (although it is, relative to most contemporary ships, fantastic for, like, attacking planets and convoys and whatever). But in situations where it can reasonably expect to get close to an opponent, it has comparable, if not more significant, firepower. And, as noted, there are plenty of situations where one can reasonably expect to get close to an opponent. And most of them are the fights where both sides are invested in/compelled to fight to a decisive end. And those tend to not happen in open space.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, May 24, 2013 - 01:38 pm: Edit

As I recall, the CA was a half-step used when you couldn't get a CS fully upgraded to a BC, for whatever logistical reason. I'd always presumed that it was "filling in the hole" maneuver to add it to the game in the first place.

Frankly, if you're going to compare the CS, I'd put in similar vane to the Tholian C. Two wall-eyed heavy weapons, nasty upclose, but not pretty from mid-range out. The C has better shielding than the CS and the increase in P1s are probably reasonable to drone waves of slow drones ... What's the AF/DF of that?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, May 24, 2013 - 01:53 pm: Edit

I don't think the Tholian C exists in F+E. They have a CA, which is an 8 (just like all the other various basic heavy cruisers). I'd imagine that if there was ever a need for the Tholian C, it'd be a 7-8 as well.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, May 24, 2013 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Mike Kenyon,

I don't think that notion of the CA being a "a half-step used when you couldn't get a CS fully upgraded to a BC, for whatever logistical reason" is correct. I believe the BC has a YIS of about the same general time frame as the Four Powers War itself. The CA has a YIS sometime in the mid or late Y130s. So it shows up about 20 years or so before the BC does. So you have a significant stretch of time when the CA was the "final step" for CS development unless you were going to bring it all the way up to CC level.

As far as the Tholian C is concerned, I regard it as a better ship than the CS. I think it is actually advantaged over a non-refitted D6, based on having fought this duel several times (usually as the Tholian). It has better shields, a better high-speed power curve, and a better phaser suite. The ph-1s you mentioned are the key. You fly the C as a phaserboat. Disruptors? Those are what you arm up if you still have power left over after spending what you think appropriate on movement, phasers, and EW. Tholian CA is an "8" in F&E. Tholian C should be a "7/8".

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Saturday, May 25, 2013 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Alan,

I submitted that off cuff. I based my statement off of my memory of the R-description of the CA which indicates that you add the C-refit to a CS to get the BC and you add half the refit to get the CA. If my memory or the YIS disagree, I'd go with them.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 10:23 am: Edit

What product is the Kzinti SSCS in? Thank you.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 11:25 am: Edit

David Schultz:

Module K.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 11:46 am: Edit

Thank you sir.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 12:30 pm: Edit

As per Jean Sexton, this is where discussion on Kzinti tactics belongs.

The controversy seems to be centered on vanilla type I drone waves (specifically from a DDV, AFF, SF, 2xFF+. The force having 16 drone racks of A, B and C types.). 24 total maximum launch capacity of which 8 of the drone racks are type C.

The force has 42 seeking weapons control channels, 12 on the DDV, 6 each on the FFs, AFF and the SF. The SF also has three special sensors and can use one of the SS to add six more swcc.,

Some players are making the point that (they claim) a larger variety of special drone types would allow greater "flexibilty".

This flies in the face of extensive empirical analysis that shows the opposite is true, but several people maintain that annecdotally, they think having a "few" type IV and type VI drones is a better choice.

The point is, this battle force can launch a maximum of 120 drones (108 total drone spaces of which 24 are type vi and 96 are type I.) By using the 42 swcc each swcc could guide up to three drones in a single turn thus swamping the enemies drone defenses. (And no, I don't mean three drones at the same time. I mean seqentially as drones are destroyed or go innert, new drones are luanched from racks, scatter packs or LKS fighters launched as sp.)


This is a mass drone attack tactic, and is intended to slow down an enemy force as it defends itself in the face of more drones than is common.

Oddly enough, the race best suited to dealing with this tactic may be the carnivons... and then only if a carrier is present.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 04:50 pm: Edit

The critical error is not in the Kzinti drone launch capability, it is that you are posting a battle force. This means if the battle force in question is one in which you are matched against an opponent, then you have simplified your opponent's drone defense situation tremendously.

In the case of your battle group, if you were matched against Stewart Frazier's Lyrans, he will KNOW that any drone launched from one of your drone racks will take four damage points to destroy, and if it hits one of his units, it will do 12 points of damage.

He knows that any drones released by a scatter-pack from any ship other than your carrier will also all be four damage points to kill and will do only 12 damage points if they hit.

He does not have to agonize over allocating scarce lab identification efforts on those drones.

The only drones he has to worry about using his identification efforts on are those from a scatter-pack launched by your carrier (the six drones might all be type-VI, if there are more than six, he knows some are type-VI, and from that number can make a reasonable guess as to how many are type-I). And of course any drones launched by your fighters are obvious targets for lab identification since they might be type-I or type-VI.

So you have greatly simplified how he will allocate his ADDs (assuming a non-Lyran force, in Stewart's case he will know precisely how many drones his ESGs will stop) and his phaser fire since you have insured that he does not have to worry that one of the drones in a given launch might be a type-IV, or a type-IV with a half space of armor or what have you.

You ought to take a couple of large drones simply to give your opponent something to think about when you launch drones at close range and his drone identification and defense systems will be overwhelmed.

You are ceding the mind game part of drone strategy, and that is your choice, but be clear that it is what you are doing, and any one else taking your battle group when it is published will be in the same position if it is a force-on-force scenario.

Without a few oddball drones in the mix, you do face an uphill battle against the defenses because you have, again, simplified an opponent's drone defense priority situation.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 05:44 pm: Edit

I have always when playing klingon add a few Type IV drones in my mix. To use on a close approach are over run. Knowing the drones will be destroyed but using up a few ,ore of the other players phasers. Never did think about the mix as SSP says above. Other then when defending against a Kzinti drone wave. Nothing worse then firing a phaser three at a type IV drone thinking it is a type I sigh.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

So! You come at me with the "soft sciences"? Psychology, no less!

Seriously, though. My approach centered on what method would put the most drones into flight in the least time. A second consideration was which mix of drone types would require the greatest number of separate attack rolls. (Each add the enemy used, if they had adds, that is, could result in a clean miss requiring an additional attack, that again could result in a complete miss.). Third consideration was the number of damage points needed to destroy all of the drones in the force pool.

In addition, by using massed drones, it was to be hoped that the enemy might elect to assume a defensive position. The end result being the hope that the enemy uses up all of his consumable resources ( ie admin shuttles, t-bombs, RALADs, ADDs, drones etc.)

In response, I only hope Stewart Frazier kills my type one drones. I hope he kills a lot of them.

The gamble is can Stewart (or who ever has to face the Kzinti battle group in battle) kill ALL the drones before the receive enough damage to destroy all of their ships.

It is 120 drones in the first turn. 24 more drones launched by the kzinti battle group during turn 2. (At which point the C racks are empty and need to be reloaded.) If the scatter packs were deployed during the first part of turn one, they could have been recovered and started reloading. That means 2 drones each shuttle available turn 2 after impulse 16... and if not needed they could have 4 drones loaded by impulse 16 of turn 3. If the LKSs were used as scatter packs, they could be reloaded and availble as early as turn 3.

If the LKSs were not used as SPs, they could each launch 2 drones a turn, reducing the max number of drones launch downfrom 120, to 72. That means the LKSs will be able to launch drones up to three turns before they have to returnto the carrier.

Can Stewart and his Lyrans survive that weight of drones?

More over, can they survive three separate waves of near triple digit drone waves?

I have tested the CArnivon carrier groups, and it is a qualified 'yes', depending on the balance of which fighters make up the doggies ftr grp.

I haven't looked at the Ssds of stewarts group yet, but I know he will need some serious drone defenses.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 10:23 pm: Edit

It's easier to kill the drones when you know all of them are type IM with no mods, then if you don't know that. I'm in agreement with SPP here.

One fun combo I like to use in a scatter pack, at least occasionally, is 4 dogfight drones and two type IV drones, possibly with a bit of armor. Fun times. :-)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 10:49 pm: Edit

Good point, but the problem with type vi dogfight drones is limited endurance. Speed 20 and one turn leaves the SP drone wall at just 2 drones and tells your opponent just what was in the Sp.

If you wait too long to launch your scatter packs, they might be too close to the enemy and thus Vulerable.

For my money, I prefer to have 6 type ones in the SP, each targeted on a different ship. Then launch another SP 4impulses later. It spreads out the drones so all of them can't be killed with a single t-bomb. Unless the enemy keeps all of his ships in the same hex... in which case different tactics will be needed.

Advantages and disadvantages... simplifies his drone defense, but makes it more difficult to tell what ships are targeted by each drone.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 14, 2014 - 01:59 am: Edit

If all the drones are type IS, not armored then I probably won't need to identify them and can just auto kill them with phaser ones or paired phaser threes.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 14, 2014 - 08:45 am: Edit

Six type IS drones take some amount of force to kill. 6x4 equals 24 damage points, if the opposing ship is a vanilla Fed CA, without refits it would take all six type 1 offensive phasers. Even a refitted CA with a drone G rack could only kill some/mosttype IS drones, depending on range and what was loaded in the rack at the time.

Let's assume each of the two phaser 3's kill one drone each, and that the G rack had ADD's loaded instead of oh let's say 1*type IV, 1*type I, 2*type vi. If each ADD killed one IS drone, that still leaves one IS that will take a phaser 1 shot (or a tractor beam,I sppose).

In a duel, the inability to use the phaser 1s to attack the enemy could be decisive. If each side had two or more ships, then the drones (if targeted on more than one ship) would likely be in different hexes and different ranges. Also, if multiple ships then there could well be several scatter packs.

The tactical situation might be affectated depending on if the ships are in the same or adjacent hexes or if they were separated. Lots of variables.