So as there is currently an Andro digression over in the current RAT thread, I figured I'd move it over here.

The current "official" Andro is apparently the one with 3xTRL/6xP2/4x Battery/28 power (it is the one currently listed on the Tournament Download page as "Playtest--Not Sanctioned"). And on SFBOL is "Andromedan Krait, 2010 playtest".

On SFBOL, the Andro listed as "Andromedan Krait" (without "Playtest" notation) is the one that has 2xTRL/8xP2/4x Battery (although the SSD comes with TRHs and no obvious note that they are TRLs against anyone other than other Andros).

The version that was most recently playtested a lot was the 2xTRH/6xP2/3x Battery version (with is also light on internal fluff-like 6xC Hull and 2 Cargo total). I think the general consensus was that this version was *almost* viable (I played it a lot a few years back, and it was not horrible, but needed a bit more power), but needed, like, 2 more APR/AWR to be a good ship (the current version is 24x Warp, 2x Imp, 2x AWR--if it had 30 power instead of 28, it would probably be sound). On SFBOL it is listed as "Andromedan TKC--2011 Playtest Version"

For the sake of clarity of discussion, the big problem with the Andro has always been its ability to clear the panels--it could go in for a close range exchange of fire, do very significant damage to the opponent, take few, if any, internals, and then run off, dump the panels into the batteries, and come back in a turn or two, essentially as good as new while its opponent still had, like, 25-30 internals. So all the tweaks to the Andro that focus on the firepower of the ship kind of miss the point. I mean, like, you can certainly remove guns (or change them to TRLs), and it makes the ship less good, but I think doing so generally makes the ship *too* weak--the 2xTRL/8xP2 and/or 3xTRL/6xP2 versions seem to generally be under the power curve enough that they don't, like, ruin tournaments, but they also have a tough time being particularly competitive.

The 2xTRH/6xP2/3xBattery version still does enough damage to be able to hurt the opponent, but can't just, like, magically clear the panels. Which means it needs to clear the panels the slow way *or* be willing to keep fighting with mostly full panels after a close range exchange of fire. Which seems reasonable to me.

After playing that version a lot, it *does* run out of power fairly quickly, and not being able to full recharge the batteries with a full panel dump means that the ship tends to start sucking wind late in the game. Which is why I suspect that adding the two AWR (APR?) would push the ship into mostly viable territory without it being too scary.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 06:29 pm: Edit

The current Andromedan listed in the Tournament download page also has more fluff (9 hull, 6 cargo).

The average damage at range three is about 48 points, ten less than the 2xTRH/6xP2/3x battery version.
Having the four batteries with the latest version allows the Andro to do the dump.

I think having less damage and more ability to do the dump (also more survivable internally), gives the Andromedan that "time clock" feeling more.

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Wayne, reducing or eliminating the panel dump is what is most needed to make the Andro playable without being overpowering. The problem with the ship was never it's offensive power, but rather its ability to overrun an opponent, absorb all the damage they could dish out, and in the course of a turn or two almost fully regenerate its defensive capabilities (minus degredation of course). 4 batteries would bring the Andro back to the point it was at before, when it was nearly unbeatable. 3 batteries, with perhaps a few points of static power added to it (AWR most likely) would as Peter sais, brign it to a mostly viable ship without being overpowered..

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 06:53 pm: Edit

The Andromedan must have the panel dump, it is a defining characteristic of the ship. Removing it would be in the vein of removing drones from the Kzinti. One might as well remove the Andro completely at that point, as it is no longer really an Andro ship.

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Then remove the Andro, as an Andro that is able to do a complete panel dump is unplayable in the tournament setting.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 08:11 pm: Edit

With 3x batteries you can take in 15points, 4x batteries 20points.
The current Andro does 10 less damage on average.
I do not, at present(more playtesting) see the Andromedan as unplayable.

The amount of power in the battery is not noted in the Tournament ship down loads ( i do not have the 2012 Tournament book), is it up to 20 points at the start.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 08:44 pm: Edit

I think the Andromedan needs 4 batteries so it has the possibility to dump. Currently, the Andromedan has to work to get the dump. That is it currently needs to work to get even a partial dump. That is you can only put 20 points of power into the batteries at once and that assumes that you can drain them. It is a constant struggle for the Andromedan to use as much as batteries as possible but still have the reserve power that you need. Because at anytime you get too much energy you will not be able to do any kind of panel dump.

Energy goes from panel to panel to batteries to internals. The Andromedan can not do a dump unless it has enough room in the panels and room in the batteries. The energy in the batteries can not be used for movement unless it was there at the start of the turn. In which case, it needs to be drained first. After that the only thing that you can use to drain batteries are: Transporters, Changing Panel to Reinforced Level and Phasers. Also, TRs if it is on a non-firing turn and they have not been starting charging at the beginning of the turn.

Given those restrictions, 1) It is hard to drain the battery to do a full 20 point dump. 2) It is hard to do anything (until the end of the turn) to drain anything from a 20 point dump.

If I am mis-stating anything, please correct me. If you think the Andromedan needs less batteries, the only question I have is: have you played the Andromedan?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 08:58 pm: Edit

I dunno--I played the 3 battery version (2xTRH/6xP2) a lot for playtesting; with 3 batteries, it could absorb panel energy, and with shenangins, could do mini dumps into the batteries (i.e. absorb some power at the end of the turn, spend it in EA, drop to standard putting some power in the rears, drop the fronts so that the rears fill up and the remaining power sloshes into the batteries, etc.) It was certainly doable, and when you could pull it off, it helped a lot, but it was a lot harder than with the 6 or 4 battery version. With the 2xTRH armament, you were a lot more likely to do reasonably significant internals on the first shot, so you could survive the reduced ability to dump panels. The ship did run out of power more than it needed to, however, which is why I suspect putting 2 more power into the ship (so it had 30 instead of 28) would probably make it pretty solid.

Like, the issue with the dump in general can be seen in great detail in Paul Scott's original "Victory At" article in the Andro (Captain's Log very late teens/early 20's?). Where pretty much every single game went like this:

"We closed. One way or the other, we exchanged initial strikes. The opponent took 20+ internals. The Andro took zero internals other than maybe a leak point. The Andro flew off and did a panel dump. We closed again and exchanged secondary strikes. The opponent was essentially killed and resigned. The Andro took zero internals again."

Which is why the Andro was a problem. And still will be without reduced panel dump ability.

Like, I could see the Andro with 4 batteries, but in that instance, it'd probably need to still have 3xTRL/6xP2 as guns. And I don't think that version is particularly good. With 3 batteries, I think it can get away with 2xTRH/6xP2 as guns, and probably be a viable, reasonably interesting ship.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Indeed, i agree with you Paul Franz.

Peter, the problem was the 20+ or so damage done, after 40+
internals(two passes) the enemy ship could not effectively pursue.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Also on the first pass if you closed to range zero you would do about 70+ damage with the 2xTRH version.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Playing the 2xTRH/6xP2/3xBTTY version, which had the same guns as the pretty much unbeatable version of the Andro, the ship wasn't real devastating. Even after doing 40+ internals. As without the ability to:

A) Always have infinite power.

and

B) Easily be able to empty the panels at a moments notice.

The ship wasn't particularly dominating. Yeah, you could do 40 internals on 2 passes, but if you ended up stuck at speed 12 with mostly full panels (which is often what happened with 3 batteries), the opponent can still put up a fight. Even with 40 internals.

Indications are that the current version of this variation on the ship (2xTRH/6xP2/3xBTTY), the ship is a little under the power curve. Even with the ability to do 20 internals per firing pass. Give it 2 more APR, and it is probably totally reasonable. Even with 2xTRH and 6xP2.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 09:39 pm: Edit

The none Andromedan could fire its weapons into the rear panels, hold back a weapon or two, make it hard to do the dump, pursue.

Possibly fire no weapons(depending on what ship you have), run the Andromedan out of power.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Peter,
It is true that 2 TRHs could do significant damage if you can get to range 3 or less, range 5 is you are lucky. (Note: This means no plasma) Running away from plasma just drains your battery and 3 batteries will not last long if your opponent does not need to fire.

Also, if your front panels are full, there is no way to do even a minor panel dump. You can move energy from the front to the rear to give it a full rear panel (i.e. change from reinforced to standard) and at the end of the turn absorb 10% and dissipate 6 from the front and 4 from the rear.

Note on Paul Scott's Andro writeup: This Andromedan had 6 batteries and that can easily do a dump in 2 turns and drain the panels completely because a full panel has 24 points of energy over the standard level and with a down rear panel 24 points can easily fit in a 30 point battery

With 4 batteries, it still takes a turn of running away to bring down the amount of energy in the panels to the point where you can dump some of the energy to the batteries. And even with that the Andromedan is taking a chance on taking internals with long range shots with the limit weaponry this is a valid tactic.

As it is, if I have choose between a 2xTRH w/ 3 batteries and 3xTRLs w/4 batteries. I will take the 3xTRLs, it gives better chance to win. Because with the 2xTRH version if one of the TRH is knocked out there goes half your fire power and it will require 4 turns to be available again. (8 points to repair and 2 turns to arm). (Note: TRLs take 5 points to repair so it would still be 4 turns to available again but it is only 1/3 the fire power of the ship)

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - 01:42 am: Edit

Carried over from another thread:
From me:
>>I always wondered why 1TRH (FH), 1TRL (LS), 1TRL (RS) was never considered. It keeps the flavor of the TRH against all opponents, it allows a single torp hit on the DAC without reducing the heavy weapons by 50%. . . . The arcs may be too much, so FA, LF+L, RF+R, respectively >>

Response:
The really short version--the problem with the Andro isn't really the guns (and certainly isn't the loss of a TRH to a stray internal). It is the ability to empty the panels too quickly and reliably. We spent a long time playtesting a version that was 2TRH/6xP2/3 batteries, and it was *almost* a good ship. General consensus was that if it added 2 more APR or something, it'd be pretty solid.

My reply after carefully reading the posts here:
I disagree that this isn't about the guns, but I agree that the battery number is an issue as stated by the posts on this thread. Obviously, its a balance of both guns and batteries that will lead to a more acceptable tournament ship. I'm still not convince (especially since it hasn't been given any real consideration) that the TRH/TRL/TRL option is not a viable one. Franz's last post, last paragraph indicates similar thinking (regarding the possibility of losing 50% of the heavies on a single torp hit). But in correcting for this, you'll be robbing the flavor of playing with the TRH. My proposal allows a max damage of 40pts (already shown to be an acceptable number) and still retain 2/3 of his heavies on a single torp hit which is still not as good as most other races but at least AS good as all the races (unless I'm forgetting one of the tourney ships). As far as adding more APR or something for additional balancing, I really don't know. I just don't seem to remember any other gun options having been tried other than the 2xTRH or 3xTRL and maybe trying something different (even if to just eliminate the idea once and for all) might be worth the time.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - 08:16 am: Edit

Paul F wrote:
>>It is true that 2 TRHs could do significant damage if you can get to range 3 or less, range 5 is you are lucky. (Note: This means no plasma) Running away from plasma just drains your battery and 3 batteries will not last long if your opponent does not need to fire.>>

This is true. Which is why the +2APR is what is likely needed to make the ship work.

Like, having played the 3xBTTY version an awful lot (I played, like, 15+ playtest games with that ship), it was *almost* a viable contender. It did reasonable damage on each volley. It could still move fast when it needed to move fast. It could still pull power out of the panels, albeit a lot slower than it used to. What got it killed most of the time was running out of power and ending up moving speed 12 for the whole turn 'cause it needed to keep the panels up to avoid exploding. I suspect a couple more points of static power would slow down the ability to starve the ship of power and it running out at an inconvenient time.

I mean, like, the ship we have now (3xTRL/6xP2/4xBTTY) seems to be generally not that good. And I don't know what you could do to make it better without making it a *lot* better. The TRH/2TRL (with 4 BTTY) idea isn't horrible *except* that giving it 2xLS/RS TRLs makes the ship incredibly dangerous to pursue (which is likely a significant improvement overall). If it has weird arcs (FH/FAL/FAR), it still can shoot backwards *and* it is a lot easier to get all the guns in arc at once, and then the ship ends up back to where it started.

With 4 batteries, it is a lot easier to dump power than with 3 batteries, which is likely fine, assuming you are ok with the ship having weaker firepower. If you want more firepower (i.e. 2xTRH), you probably have to have 3 batteries. Otherwise, the ship is too strong (i.e. 2xTRH/6xP2 with 4xBTTY has already been shown to be too good). So while I fully understand the want to have 4 batteries on the ship (as those 3 batteries are, in fact, rough with only 28 power :-), but then you are likely stuck with 3xTRL/6xP2, and I don't think that ship is particularly competitive. I mean, like, if you think there is a way to make 3xTRH/6xP2/4xBTTY version viable, I'd be perfectly hapy to see that happen. I just don't know what it is.

As it stands, I think the 2xTRH/6xP2/3xBTTY ship is almost a viable ship. Up it to 30 power, and I think it would be totally reasonable. Which is the main reason I'm advocating for it.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Peter,
I assume you mean 3xTRLs/6xP2/3xBTTYs not 3xTRHs/6xP2/3xBTTYs. But yes, I think it is viable. More (at least for me) than 2xTRH/6xP2/3xBTTY.

And I agree the crazy arcs are not a good thing.

I had crazy idea for the Andromedan, awhile ago and that is 2xBTTY, 24 Warp, 4 AWR, 2 IMP with a 10 point Energy Module. Possibly 15 Energy Module. This would allow limited dumps (i,e, have the Andromedan on a clock). Plus give the Andromedan a "seeking weapon" that gave the enemy ship something else to shoot at.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Just give it a hanger bay and an Andromedan Heavy Bomber. That'll fix things right up.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 21, 2016 - 07:40 am: Edit

Paul F wrote:
>>I assume you mean 3xTRLs/6xP2/3xBTTYs not 3xTRHs/6xP2/3xBTTYs.>>

Oh, heh, sorry abut that. I meant "2xTRH/6xP2/3xBTTY" in that instance (i.e. the playtest ship I'm generally talking about). I don't think the 3xTRL/6xP2 ship needs only 3 batteries. It currently has 4 batteries, and isn't all that good.

>> But yes, I think it is viable. More (at least for me) than 2xTRH/6xP2/3xBTTY.>>

So if you are pro the 3xTRL/6xP2/4xBTTY version, what is a way to make it a little better without making it a lot better, that isn't completely out of the realm of a standard Andro. Like, the Energy Module idea is certainly an interesting one, but probably won't pass muster. If there is a way to make the 3xTRL/6xP2/4xBTTY version viable with a minor tweak of some type, we might as well try and make that happen. I just don't know what the minor tweak is.

-An extra T-Bomb?
-A random 7th P2 (i.e. 3xFH, 2xLS. 2xRS)?
-A couple more power?
-A free "auto" success Dis Dev roll?

I dunno. But if you think the 3xTRL version is one that could work and not end up too strong, we might as well try and make that work.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Thursday, April 21, 2016 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Peter B. wrote
>>The TRH/2TRL (with 4 BTTY) idea isn't horrible *except* that giving it 2xLS/RS TRLs makes the ship incredibly dangerous to pursue (which is likely a significant improvement overall). If it has weird arcs (FH/FAL/FAR), it still can shoot backwards *and* it is a lot easier to get all the guns in arc at once, and then the ship ends up back to where it started. <<

Just for clarification, I amended in the same original post that (paraphrasing) since the FH/LS/RS was probably too much, the arcs of FH/LF+L/RF+R would be better. Since it still makes it possible for all weapons to be fired at the same time at the same target, but only on a center-line.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 22, 2016 - 07:43 am: Edit

>>Just for clarification, I amended in the same original post that (paraphrasing) since the FH/LS/RS was probably too much, the arcs of FH/LF+L/RF+R would be better. Since it still makes it possible for all weapons to be fired at the same time at the same target, but only on a center-line.>>

Ah, ok. That's a possibility, I suppose, but the designers tend to shy away from "tournament only" special rules and the like--TRs pretty much always have 180 degree arcs. Giving them the weird 120 degree arcs is something that could happen, but probably wouldn't get sanctioned.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 22, 2016 - 10:29 am: Edit

I don't generally comment on this topic since I don't play SFB tournament. (I'm one of those people who strongly prefer playing on a floating map (or at least a large fixed map.)) But if I recall correctly there are at least a few "tournament only" special rules. For example, am I correct in my recollection that in tournament SFB web casters and snares are both hit on "Drone" hits while in standard SFB snares are hit on "Flag Bridge"? I apologize if I am mis-remembering. But if I am remembering correctly, this is a "tournament only" special rule that seems like it was probably instigated as a balancing factor, eliminating the susceptibility of certain "standard SFB" Tholians to lose their most important capability to a single hit.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, April 22, 2016 - 11:03 am: Edit

Yes, the fewer deviations of that type the better.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 22, 2016 - 04:08 pm: Edit

There are certainly a few "tournament only" kludgy rules:

-Tholian Snare hit on "drone".

-ISC rear firing F torps hit on "drone" or "torp".

-Klingons drones not being able to be tracked to an individual launcher.

These were specifically stuck in for the purposes of game balance. This is completely true. But the Powers That Be really seem to want to avoid that as much as possible, and as such, if there is a way to fix a ship *without* something like this, it is best to go down that path, rather than inventing special "torunament only" weird rules and exceptions.

Like, in the instances mentioned above, there wasn't really a good way to fix the problem at hand without these rules (for example, with only one Web Caster or PPD and nothing else to protect the weapon, it dies way too quickly and makes the ship with that weapon not good; the only way to fix that is either add a second Web Caster or PPD, which is a bad idea, or use a kludgey damage rule). The Andro *might* have a reasonable fix that doesn't require weird special rules.

Now that I'm thinking about it, how would the current Andro (3xTRL/6xP2/4xBattery) be if it got a 3rd FH P2?

It would be:

-3xTRL FH
-3xP2 FH
-2xP2 LS
-2xP2 RS
-4 Battery
-28 total power

Like, I have no real need to start the whole process over again (as for my money, the 2xTRH/6xP2/3xBTTY version would probably be solid if it had 2 more APR added in), but I can certainly see why someone would want to go with 3xTRL and 4 battery instead of 2xTRH and 3 battery. Maybe a 7th (FH) P2 would tip the balance in favor of a viable ship?

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Friday, April 22, 2016 - 04:44 pm: Edit

I don't understand the idea of three TRL's as opposed to two TRH's. The andro needs the firepower of the 2 TRH's. 2 TRH's, 6 p-2s, 3 batteries, 2 extra static power and a few extra hull or cargo boxes would make it a viable ship.

By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Friday, April 22, 2016 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Peter, I don't remember anyone ever playtesting a 2xTRH/6xP2/4xBTTY version. My recollection, is it went from 2xTRH/6xP2/6xBTTY straight to 2xTRL/6xP2/3xBTTY. Been slowly upgraded from there. It's certainly possible I missed a testing phase. At any rate, I really think it needs the TRH's.

IMO, a small energy module would be cool, add Andro flavor, and provide the ability to do a single small dump. This also keeps the Andro on a clock, as opposed to 2 static power.