Maesron: Agree on expanding the TG arcs. Don't agree on weird TM modules. With the expanded TG arcs, 40 power, and 12 phasers, I think it's viable. Drone defense might be a small issue, but overall PWs are OK. A PW-1 can auto-kill a type-I drone out to range-2. Two PW-3s auto-kills any tournament drone at range 1, same as the P-3. PW-3s have longer range than P-3s. PW-1s have an advantage at range 6-7; at 5 or less you are in good TG range.

As for anti-TM drones, consider following your TMs in and shooting them down.

Probr: I think going to 5 HEATs just exacerbates its power issues. I'd rather see one with 4 HEATs, 4xPQ-1, 4xPQ-2, 6xPQ3 and 40 power.

Trobrin: I think your version is too light on the torps. Think of the IT-L as a plasma-D and the IT-M as a plasma-F, and you won't be far off. The damage looks better, until you account for range, and there are no pseudos, no bolts (well, the IB is a separate weapon), and no envelopers. The IB, OTOH, is insane. Like a bigger photon that doesn't miss. With 180 degree arcs. I agree on using a CA hull, but maybe it would be better to cut back to 1 IB. I think it will need 4 PR-3s to have a chance against droners, though.

Drex: I'm not convinced it's overly powerful, but I think it will be very hard to balance and have severe RPS.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, October 04, 2016 - 08:01 am: Edit

Yeah, I don't think there is a good solution to the broad TM issue that is "they get killed by drones". TMs were designed for an environment that had no drones, and that to deal with the TM, you were going to have to shoot it down with phasers (or possibly one of few plasma like weapons) or use (expensive) tractors on it. In that environment, TMs can be effective. Against, like, a Kzinti, a single type I drone is likely to kill a given TM, which is problematic against Alpha ships, as an awful lot of alpha TCs can just throw a type I drone at an incoming TM without much negative impact. And I don't know that there is a good, neat solution to that.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, October 04, 2016 - 08:06 am: Edit

>>Drex: I'm not convinced it's overly powerful, but I think it will be very hard to balance and have severe RPS.>>

The -1 to hit is a significant issue. The ship can get to, like, R10, and remove 24 shields from an opposing ship on a 1-5, and then turn and do it again. The movement precedence it gets makes it a lot easier to pull this off, even with the weird arcs. Granted, only 2 shots to do this with, but still, the ship can essentially hit the enemy with a full enveloped S torp with virtually no risk of missing, outside of OL range as an opening move. Which is kinda nuts. And then the phaser sniping on top of that is very effective.

To be fair, this version is undergunned and under powered relative to a standard Drex ship. But still, it is fairly scary. Without the -1 to hit, I think it would be a lot easier to balance out.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Friday, October 07, 2016 - 06:32 pm: Edit

The Maesron do have opponents who are armed with drones.

The FRA. Everyone seems to forget about them.

Also, the Qixa have Ultra Warp Missiles.

So, it would make sense that for the ultimate modular missile system, they would have an anti-missile defense system.

Also, since the module I was suggesting had phasers, it would have some use against plasma.

The Maesron have the following plasma armed traditional enemies.

1. Trobrin
2. Probr
3. Alunda
4. The Vampire guys that I can't remember their names.
5. Possibly the FRA

Also, the phaser defense module I've suggested would be useful against fighters, and that would provide protection versus the Hivers.

So, the Maesron have a very strong reason to develop a defense system for their missiles, since otherwise their missiles are highly vulnerable.

I've shown that in the traditional Omega only setting, the Maesron would have a legitimate reason for developing just such a module.

Yet, I'm only asking for it for the Tournament cruiser.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Friday, October 07, 2016 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Putting 4 HEAT on a Probr and giving it two additional PQ-3 would make it weaker than it already is. It's already way anemic.

The analysis I've seen is that for Heavy weapons, such as disruptors and photons, the damage out to power in ratio is between 2.5 to 2.0.

The PPD is a god weapon hence available only in limited quantities. It's damage to power ratio is 3.0 out to range 10.

The Hellbore at point blank damage to power ratio is 3.3

Phasers of course do much better than that.

Plasma systems do much better.

Ratios for plasma are as follows.

Plasma R is 5.50 and 7.14 for EPT and Shotgun
Plasma S is 3.75 and 5.00 for EPT and Shotgun
Plasma F is 4.00

So, plasma weapons have far better damage to power ratios than DF weapons, but they take longer to charge and they aren't DF, you can run them out, phaser them, or weasel them.

The ratio for the Probr HEAT is 16/6 or 2.66

That horrible ratio for the HEAT puts it into the high end for DF weapons and far lower than any other plasma weapon. The only enhancement option reduces the damage to power ratio severely to 1.7... Lower even than the worst DF weapon and that doesn't even count the cost of the Target Accentuator.

Trobrin Implosion Torps damage to power ratio

Light ratio is 1/1/2 with 16 damage is 4
Medium ratio is 1/2/3 with 24 damage is 4
Heavy ratio is 2/2/4 with 32 damage is 4

Which is right where it needs to be.

So, the problem with the Probr is that the HEAT is a weak weapon, and the quantum phasers are feeble too.

Adding more HEATs to the ship gives it power problems as Andy pointed out, which is why I put the maximum possible of 40 on the tournament cruiser, but it still has the twin problems of under powered and under gunned.

I would be happy to reduce it from five HEAT to four, but the following changes need to be made.

1. The HEAT weapons need to do more damage.
2. The PQ weapons need to do more damage.

I would like to see the HEAT brought up to a minimum damage ratio of 3.5 and the accentuated version should have a ratio of 3.0.

So, I'm thinking of HEATs should start out with damage of 20 instead of 16.

Accentuated versions should also have a starting damage of 18.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Friday, October 07, 2016 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Those changes would put the HEAT into the lower most range for plasma style weapons.

Again, with 20 point HEAT, the Probr would have plasma output of 80 which is still less than the 90 points of plasma that the Romulan KE puts out.

Keeping in mind that the KE is considered one of the weaker ships in the tournament.

And if the KE envelopes the Plasma R that is 140 points of plasma on call. An option that the Probr does not have access to.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Friday, October 07, 2016 - 09:29 pm: Edit

Peter,

Would you be happier if I reduced the enveloping hyper cannon ammo from four rounds to three rounds?

That would give it one shot of heavy and one shot of light, or three shots of light enveloping.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Friday, October 07, 2016 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Andy,

The question about the Trobrin of one IB or two IBs is a good one.

The one IB version I've been play testing was a bit feeble. Granted it was based on a light cruiser hull.

That one had

1) One Implosion Bolt FH
2) One Heavy Implosion Torp FH
3) One Medium Implosion Torp LS
4) One Medium Implosion Torp RS
5) Six PR-1
6) Four PR-3

Think of it like a ISC, but the Implosion Bolt is less powerful than a PPD.

I think the Heavy Torp is somewhere between a Plasma G and a Plasma S.

I think the Medium Torp is somewhere between a Plasma F and a Plasma G.

The problem I found was people were bricking a single Implosion Bolt and the remaining Implosion Torps were not enough.

After the bolt and torps were gone, the Trobrin was unable to run and recharge it's weapons and got run down and mugged.

Maybe the above weapons mix on a cruiser hull might work better.

If not, I'm thinking a two IB version might be interesting to play.

Use the plasma to turn the front shields away from the ship and hit him on the butt with twin IB.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 07, 2016 - 10:06 pm: Edit

>>The Maesron do have opponents who are armed with drones.

The FRA. Everyone seems to forget about them.

Also, the Qixa have Ultra Warp Missiles. >>

I thought the FRA replaced all their drone racks with TM racks? And the Qixa are corner case, at best :-)

>>Would you be happier if I reduced the enveloping hyper cannon ammo from four rounds to three rounds?

That would give it one shot of heavy and one shot of light, or three shots of light enveloping.>>

That would certainly help out the situation, but I think in general, the -1 to hit makes the Drex ship brutal--it is hitting for a lot of damage at R12 on a 1-5, even with just the regular Hyper Cannons--they are doing 10 damage on a 1-5 at R12. The PW1s are doing 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0 at R12; even the PP1 is reasonable at R12, doing 3, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0. I mean, yeah, it is hard to get a lot of HCH on one target at one time, but with the move precedence, cheap HETs, double (?) HETs, that ship is gonna do internals through a full forward shield at R12. Even without the enveloping shots.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Friday, October 07, 2016 - 10:32 pm: Edit

The Jindarian Railgun both the MRG and WRG hit on a 1-5 at range 10. The lousy Jindarian tournament ship can hit you out side range 8 take down a shield. Then run away. Mind you they Mug it on the next turn as reloading the railguns take warp power and slow you way down.

So the above is ok by me...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, October 07, 2016 - 11:55 pm: Edit

One of the reasons why I suggested narrowing the focus in terms of which empires' TCs to work on - at least in terms of potentially assembling some sort of playtest product which could stand on its own merits - was to try and both minimize the potential RPS issues which more "exotic" Omega factions might present, as well as to collect a more thematically linked set of "starter" factions (which, in turn, could be expanded upon with similarly themed batches of add-ons).

-----

In the case of the Federal Republic of Aurora (one of the proposed "starter" factions from my last post), they would presumably have phaser-1s and phaser-3s, standard and light photon torpedoes, and perhaps a choice of either short-range cannon or tachyon missiles as tertiary weapons systems.

Historically, the FRA have a limited TM refit available to some (not all) of their ships; these appeared from Y181 onwards, with the singular exception of the TM rack installed "early" on the CR Throne of Ozymondas. The FRA never used drones, and nor did hey adopt plasma torpedoes - not even after the arrival of the Klingon and ISC colonies in the Y170s. Plus, for the time being at least, there are no dedicated "bombardment" variants in print; though I suppose that since the Mæsrons themselves started to go down this path with the CBA, it may be that such variants could be liable to appear for the FRA at some point in time.

Personally, my preference would be to start with the FRA battlecruiser, and scale back to whatever point might make for a viable tournament ship. Historically, the BC's TM refit replaced the LS and RS SRCs with type-B (five-space) TM racks; for the purposes of tournament play, one could scale that back to a pair of type-A (three-space) racks instead - or simply oblige the Auroran TC to use SRCs instead.

There may be a side issue of whether or not to allow the use of shuttle bombs. While I'd lean towards not bothering with them - since no in-print FRA (or Bolosco or Zosman) ship comes with them as standard - I'd suggest mandating which shuttle bays had them "pre-swapped" (in place of admin shuttles) if one were to insist on their use.

-----

Actually, there are a few things worth noting, when it comes to Omega seeking weapons.

In the case of TMs, it's worth remembering that there are more advanced missile racks listed in the rules. The main reason why we haven't seen most of them in print so far is because, with a handful of exceptions (such as the Vari command cruiser and wing cruiser in Captain's Log #23), most of the Omega ships in print are the equivalent to "Middle Years" ships in the Alpha Octant or Lesser Magellanic Cloud. If one thinks of the drone limitations of an unrefitted Klingon D6 or Kzinti CS, or what mass driver (or plasma-E) options are available in the Middle Years o the LMC, the type-A racks on a Mæsron CA may not seem quite so bad by comparison.

(For what it's worth, I should note that the four Zosman ships previewed in CL50 include "plus" refits which bring them up to speed 30.)

If there needed to be a change in how TM racks were handled in a tournament setting, perhaps swapping in type-C (rapid-launch) or type-D (reload) racks instead. Type-E racks are only used on large bases, so would not be a factor here.

So far as other drone-like seeking weapons go, both Ryn transporter-emitter missiles and Qixa ultra-warp missiles are heavily dependent on their respective empires' home territories. In the case of the Qixa, the "brick" UWM warheads used in open space only score six points of damage; the other warhead types are essentially useless outside of a Qixavalor Cloud hex.

In the case of plasma-esque weapons, there are the aforementioned implosion torpedoes and HEATs; the Vari particle splitter torpedoes (prominently used on the WC and CC in CL23); Sigvirion kinetic wave torpedoes; Souldra dark matter torpedoes; plus the "biological" seeking weapons (whipcrack torpedoes and Branthodon dragonfire).

Of those, it might help a Vari ship to have PSTs installed (if it doesn't have them already), though the way in which those torps work might make things challenging in a tournament environment. If a TC was based on the Wing Cruiser, it may rely on them as their primary heavy weapons; whereas a TC based on the CC might instead have it as a support weapon system.

-----

In the long run, I might prefer to see some empires kept in "reserve groups", with common themes highlighted between them.

As in, it might be an idea to add the Alunda in a batch which also included the Hivers and Branthodons; the Drex together with the Ymatrians and Worb; the Loriyill with the Singers and Souldra; and so on and so forth.

(Not coincidentally, I would use similar groups to add new empires to the FC Omega project, were things ever to get so far as to warrant such inclusions.)

So if the Drex are liable to cause more serous RPS issues, they could be put on hold until, or unless, one were to do TCs for the Ymatrians and Worb. Better, I think, to make a "starter" batch of 6-8 empires' TCs work with each other to the point that they could be presented to anyone looking to start an Omega tournament, and to worry about adding the "exotic" factions in later.

Actually, I suppose that if one could throw in an Andro for good measure, one could also allow a Jindarian TC as a stand-in, to represent wandering Caravans in Omega at large, or perhaps those based in the Freehold.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, October 08, 2016 - 12:21 am: Edit

To try and look at the "starter" factions I had in mind:

Mæsron: For comparison's sake, the Mæsron CC in CL51 has a two-box C warp pack behind the "floating" aft platform, akin to the C Warp engine on the Vulpa blockade runner. Plus it has a couple of PW-3s upgraded to PW-1s. I don't know off-hand how different it looks to the current proposed Mæsron TC, but a "plus refit" which upgraded the historical CC's L and R warp engines to 15 boxes apiece might make things interesting. (Speaking of the Vulpa, they might make for an interesting variation of the Mæsron technology base in a later add-on, were this "lost futures" splinter faction ever to be explored in greater detail.)

FRA: As noted in my last post, going with the BC and working "down" might be better than going with the CLA and working "up" - not least since its photon complement (three standard and two light warheads) might make for some interesting, albeit challenging, options. Once again, it could be obliged to stick with SRCs only, if allowing a TM refit option was a bridge too far. So far, historical FRA disruptor use tends to be on smaller ships, while the limited number of ESGs available to them are exclusively tied to escorts; so neither weapon would likely be a factor here.

Koligahr: There is no historical Koligahr CC in print as of yet, so there's no clear comparison to make with the current playtest TC. However, I would still prefer to, at the very least, retain the current microphaser ratios against other Omega TCs.

Trobrin: I might agree with the concept of going to the CA and scaling back to an acceptable ship. I might also note that, unlike with the FRA, the Trobrin armour boxes are discrete "belts" (which the silicate Trobrin can eat!) - indeed, there are certain mission variants in print which historically stripped off some of a given base hull's armour decks to make room for other systems. So if a Trobrin TC needed to cut back on its armour, that would be an easy choice to rationalize.

Vari: I'm not sure what base hull the current TC uses, but the historical WC and CC are more viable candidates to work with than the "middle years" hulls shown elsewhere. Once again, would particle splitter torpedoes work well in a tournament environment, or are they better suited to squadron or fleet actions? (Or rather, does it depend on how many PSTs the ship is armed with?)

Probr: The historical Probr CC in CL51 has dreadnought wings on a heavy cruiser "double-hull". I think that trying to re-write how the actual HEAT rules themselves work may be a non-starter (at least in terms of getting a Probr ship anywhere close to being approved). But if it is any sort of consolation, I might argue that the HEAT-TA combination may be better suited to squadron or fleet actions on location or floating maps, historically-speaking - where several ships' worth of accentuated HEATs can be guided by a single accentuation variant's TAs, and where the Probr have more lee-way in terms of trying to maintain a more comfortable distance from their foes.

Iridani: A Galleon with upgraded L and R warp engines, a command module in the front slot, and a weapons module in the back, would in effect produce a "command cruiser" which could perhaps be looked at. Whether or not it should retain the Gig is another story. At the very least, it would be an easy TC to provide rules for, since it has no awkward weapon or support systems to account for (unlike the other "mercenary" Omega factions, such as the one below).

Zosman: While I would suggest offering only one "mercenary" faction in a would-be "starter" set, the Zosmans would provide plus and minus options relative to the Iridani. On the one hand, the presence of Zosman option mounts might make things quite interesting - though as noted in a previous post, I would only allow them to use weapons from other available tournament Omega empires. (As in, if there is no Chlorophon TC, the Zosman TC could not take energy howitzers until or unless a Phon TC is later made available.) On the other hand, the Zosman ships in CL50 are still in playtest; there is no guarantee that a "formally published" Zosman fleet would look anything like the ones currently in print. So going so far as to make a TC based on the playtest Zosman CA might be premature.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, October 08, 2016 - 12:34 am: Edit

Oh, and speaking of "pirate" factions, I still think it might be interesting to see something based on the M81 Pirate Raider in CL40.

Or, if an LMC playtest pack could ever be assembled, to take a look at the Jumokian NCL from Captain's Log #48 - with careful attention paid to the subsequent errata governing the "correct" number of boarding parties on the "standard" configuration presented on the SSD. That ship is a more capable combatant relative to the "old" CL in Module C5, and has more flexible option mounts available.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, October 08, 2016 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Gregory wrote:
>>The Jindarian Railgun both the MRG and WRG hit on a 1-5 at range 10. The lousy Jindarian tournament ship can hit you out side range 8 take down a shield. Then run away. Mind you they Mug it on the next turn as reloading the railguns take warp power and slow you way down.>>

The Jindarian only has 4 MRGs. And doesn't get -1 to hit on it's phasers. And doesn't have constant movement precedence and numerous, cheap HETs. And can't fire MRGs as enveloping weapons. The Jindarian is bad. The Drex is not.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, October 08, 2016 - 02:30 pm: Edit

>>To try and look at the "starter" factions I had in mind: >>

Gary--have you gone and looked at the many Omega SSDs that exist on SFBOL? Start with those, and go from there. As they have all been tested to some extent, some more than others.

>>Mæsron:>>

The current Maesron TC is pretty good. It has problems against Alpha ships, due to drones making defense against TMs completely trivial. But against other Omega ships, it is completely reasonable.

>>FRA:>>

As I've mentioned before, the FRA is probably the easiest to balance. And probably the least interesting ship of the bunch. It has some photons (maybe some regulars, maybe some lights); some phaser 1's and 3's. Maybe some TMs. Maybe an SRC. It'll be mostly just a Fed. Possibly a little better. Possibly a little worse.

>>Koligahr:>>

That's the big problem with the ship. If the MPs do full damage to plasma, the ship is probably way overpowered against Alpha BP (it can evaporate a full enveloped S torp in a single impulse). But, against other Omega, probably not that big of a deal.

>>Trobrin:>>

We've tried the CW/CL version. It isn't horrible. It is probably a little weak, currently.

>>Vari: >>

The current one is a BC style ships that is heavily overgunned. I think it has 6xPB and numerous PPs. IIRC, it isn't horrible.

>>Probr:>>

The problem with them is that HEATs aren't that good, and it is very difficult to use accelerated HEATs on a tournament map.

>>Iridani:>>

The Iridani, much like the FRA, suffer from not being real interesting. Like, from a background perspective, sure, fun. And that the have "modular" ships is interesting. But from the point of view of a ships that needs to fight in a tournament, they have some phasers, some other phasers, exclusive arcs, and no way to avoid being overrun and killed.

>>Zosman:>>

Their rules are sketchy, at best, at press time. And ships with option mounts require a lot more testing than ships without. And IIRC, their "stealth field" doesn't really do anything in a tactical sense (just strategic)?

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Saturday, October 08, 2016 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Why not make the TC,s for each race. Then have a Omega, Magellanic, others Tournament. Use only those ships? Are would there not be enough interested parties?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, October 08, 2016 - 05:46 pm: Edit

When that was suggested, most folks involved were all "Yeah, there isn't much support for that. If we are gonna make Omega ships, they should be balanced against the Alpha ships, as otherwise, not enough folks will be interested".

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Saturday, October 08, 2016 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Barry, the first think I'd like to say, is you should stop looking at all these wholesale changes to Omega system rules in your attempts to balance the TCs. Changing the arcs of the Koligahr ACs to FA is a reasonable tweak. Changing the weapon tables for HEATs or PQs kind of takes your proposals off the deep end. At a certain point, you're just creating a whole new race.

I think there are reasonable changes that can be made to Omegan cruisers to create reasonably balanced TCs. They might have more serious RPS issues than the sanctioned cruisers, but I think we can get the balance good enough for them to be workable in JFF tournament settings.

We should minimize the special tournament rules required. I think it's reasonable to make PMs damage plasmas at 2:1, because there's otherwise no way to balance them. But making special modules for TMs that completely change the way they play.

Yes, drones can easily take out TMs. But guess what? TMs are a very minor factor, anyway. The Maesron is all about the short-range crunch and long-range accuracy of the TGs. So, I don't understand all this focus on the TMs. At any rate, if you want your TMs to be more effective, escort them in, and shoot down those counter-drones!

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Saturday, October 08, 2016 - 06:26 pm: Edit

As for the Probr, I've flown it a bit, and I don't think it's that bad. HEATs might not appear to have a good power/damage ratio, but keep in mind:

1. They have good range, especially with accentuation. Outrunning them is tough to do.
2. They're hard to shoot down. It takes 3 points of phaser damage to take off one point of warhead.
3. They can be armed in two turns. So, if you stop to weasel them, you will have trouble getting back up to speed.

Now, I'll admit PQs kind of suck, especially in the tournament. Their long range and built-in ECCM don't help much, while they do much less damage at close range than other phasers. So, the Probr needs to have a generous phaser suite. It also needs a generous power curve.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Saturday, October 08, 2016 - 06:39 pm: Edit

On the Trobrin, keep in mind how quickly the ITs degrade. You can easily run torps out to range 8 without giving up too much position (or putting too much power into speed). At that range, an IT-L is like a plasma-D, an IT-M is like a plasma-F, an IT-H is more like a plasma-G than a plasma-S -- or much weaker than either if we are talking EPTs.

Now, the range-1 impact is significant - you can't juke an IT. At close range, they are pretty tough. But, forget the ballet.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, October 09, 2016 - 11:19 am: Edit

The whole point of what I was trying to say is that I don't agree with the idea that the current crop of playtest Omega TCs should be the same ones that ought to be on the table for the first round of submissions into any sort of official (playtest) product, simply due to them having been drawn up already - but rather, that perhaps they should be set into groups which may make the broader concept of introducing the Omega setting into SFB tournament play more viable in the longer run.

-----

In historical Omega products, one of the key problems made with Module Omega 1 was that it spread things too far and too thinly. Rather than offering a sampling of 11 fleets and providing a mere handful of ships per empire, it should have focused on a smaller sub-set of factions and provided more campaign compatibility for a reduced "starter" group. This was acknowledged in print as early as the designer's notes from Module Omega 2 - which itself was a useful product, yet not enough to cover all 11 "starter" factions adequately.

Indeed, some of the factions in that module should have been kept in reserve until later, thematically-speaking; the Loriyill really ought to have waited until they could have been published alongside the Souldra and Singers, to give one example.

In contrast, Module C5 provided a much more sharply focused set of ships, variants, bases, and support units needed to bring the Magellanic Powers into a campaign - and, perhaps, allowed for a much more robust means of adapting the five currently-printed LMC fleets into a tournament setting (since we know what their refits and "war" classes look like). Yes, I would welcome a "Module C5R" in the future, not least if it could add he Yrol and Chomak to the mix; but unlike in Omega - where, after more than 15 years, there are still no fully campaign-compatible fleets in the setting at large - one does not need a second LMC book to make the setting work.

Similarly, my hope would be that any future Triangulum module might learn from these two precedents, and provide a more robust first entry into M33.

-----

But to take things back to Omega TCs, there would be too much work involved in trying to do TCs for everyone at once - and, once again, I'd argue that simply picking the current playtest SSDs off the shelf and going with those would risk running into the same long-term issues that have dogged efforts to build up the historical Omega setting in SFB.

And I disagree with the concept that the FRA would be "boring". I might argue that a ship based on the old Terran design heritage would offer a distinct challenge to the current Fed saucer-and-nacelle setup - something which the Romulans, with their three TCs, might recognise. Plus, while one could simply do a TC based on the Federation OCA, the resulting ship would be less distinct than an FRA TBC would be, not least since the OCA would still rely on the "standard" Star Fleet toolkit, without the distinct options on the table for the Auroran Navy.

Plus, while it may be more difficult to run an Omega-only tournament (though I doubt that trying to drip-feed Omega ships into an Alpha-oriented tournament is going to work too well either), it would at least offer a more recognizable starter ship for anyone who may be willing to give the Omega setting a try.

-----

On the matter of the Zosmans, the current Stealth field rules do include a tactical component: when activated, the field blocks active fire control in both directions, obliging the Zosman ship and its opponent to act as if neither has active fire control when targeting the other. To give one example, the current Zosman CA+ has a minimum cost of 10 to run its Stealth field, which it pays if moving at Speed 10 or less; if it were to move at, say, Speed 14, it would have to add an additional four points of power to its Stealth field budget. (These costs are tied to the ships' warp engine outputs and move costs.)

But, again, I'm not sure if this would be a factor worth accounting for in a tournament setting - or if the Zosmans were simply too much trouble to try and do any time soon, in which case the Iridani would at least be an easier option to work up-rules-wise. Although I also disagree with the idea of the latter faction being "boring".

-----

To be clear, I am not trying to dismiss the likes of the Drex and Alunda playtest TC SSDs entirely. And nor do I wish to suggest that any playtest work done so far on Barry's creations ought to be discarded.

But just as certain historical fleets have had to wait in order to get their proper turns (both in Alpha and Omega, and in FC and other game systems as well as in SFB itself), I might argue that their respective times ought to come here after a more focused set of "starter" Omega TCs was established - and when matching "rival" TC SSDs could be given the time to mature alongside them at those later dates.

-----

Oh, and in the case of the Vari, the historical command cruiser in Captain's Log #23 has two FA particle splitter torpedoes, four FA particle beams, a single RX particle beam, and two particle probe mounts. (The wing cruiser also in CL23 has two FA+L and two FA+R PSTs, plus an RX PB and two particle probes.)

If the current Vari TC is based on the CC base hull (and if it would be too awkward to switch to using a WC-esque base hull instead), yet lacks PSTs and is overly heavy on its PB suite, perhaps taking a second look at the historical loadout might be worth considering?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, October 09, 2016 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Gary wrote:
>>The whole point of what I was trying to say is that I don't agree with the idea that the current crop of playtest Omega TCs should be the same ones that ought to be on the table for the first round of submissions into any sort of official (playtest) product, simply due to them having been drawn up already.>>

The ones that already exist are, more or less, what Those ships would look like regardless of when they are introduced. They are all, basically, CA/CC ships, tweaked up to TC status (i.e. 30 warp, standard shields, 5 batteries, 4 shuttles, etc.). Like, a "grouping" idea to streamline the process certainly isn't a bad idea, but the end result is likely to be the ships that are mostly there already.

>>But to take things back to Omega TCs, there would be too much work involved in trying to do TCs for everyone at once - and, once again, I'd argue that simply picking the current playtest SSDs off the shelf and going with those would risk running into the same long-term issues that have dogged efforts to build up the historical Omega setting in SFB.>>

The ones that you are advocating for as a group already exist. They just need tweaking. Although I'd 100% argue for adding the Alunda to the mix, as A) they are interesting and B) the Alunda TC is already almost a totally viable ship (the PCG is useless and ignored, but that is a problem with the basic rules in that it costs too much energy to hold a thing that is incredibly corner case and situational; that being said, it in no way harms the ship that it is there, and can easily be ignored).

>>And I disagree with the concept that the FRA would be "boring". I might argue that a ship based on the old Terran design heritage would offer a distinct challenge to the current Fed saucer-and-nacelle setup - something which the Romulans, with their three TCs, might recognise.>>

I know we've had this discussion before; the three Romulans are a bad idea in the first place (the TKE is both not real good *and* problematic for tournament play due to the excessive reliance on cloaking; the TKR is, generally speaking, just not as good as the TFH) so trying to suggest that this is similar isn't gonna win any points :-)

The issue with the FRA (as I mentioned before) is that it is bound to be very similar to the Fed (being as it has photons and P1s), and then will either be:

A) Just better than the Fed, as it does about the same thing, but has better drone defenses from the SRCs or TMs whatever.

B) Just worse than the Fed, as it needs to get downtweaked to balance out with the SRCs and/or TMs.

Like, it is possible that some version of the ship that was armed with, like, 2xPhoton, 2xL-Photon, maybe a couple TM launchers and SRCs and P1s could be viable and possibly interesting. But then you end up swimming around in the TM rules morass again.

>>To be clear, I am not trying to dismiss the likes of the Drex and Alunda playtest TC SSDs entirely. And nor do I wish to suggest that any playtest work done so far on Barry's creations ought to be discarded.>>

As noted, the Drex is difficult. But the Alunda is one of the better balanced and interesting ships in the mix already.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, October 09, 2016 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Part of the reason why I would not have wished to include the Alunda in a proposed set of "starter" TC SSDs was that I felt it better to wait until they could be added in a later expansion, alongside their Hiver and Branthodon rivals. As with the Lyrans and Hydrans in the Alpha Octant, presenting the Alunda without the Hivers may miss the opportunity to promote both at once; while a similar logic applied (for me, at least) when it came to keeping the two "organic" Omega factions together.

However, there is a broader question as to how, or even if, one were to create a tournament Dragonship. For my own part, I struggle to gauge the historical Branthodon sizes adequately; let alone thinking of which size/age of Dragonship to base a TC on, or what changes might need to be made in order to scale it up (or down) to fit.

So, if the Branthodons had to go on the pile of "unworkable" factions (from a tournament perspective), perhaps that might allow the Alunda and Hivers to go on without them?

In which case, a revised "starter" TC list could look like this: Mæsron, FRA, Koligahr, Trobrin, Vari, Probr, Alunda, and Hiver.

That would provide eight "starter" TCs; or nine (or even ten) if you added the Iridani or Zosmans (or both at once); and more if you allow the Andromedan and/or Jindarian TCs into the mix.

-----

By the way, should a Hiver TC be based more on the CA (with a Move Cost of 1/2) or the BC (with a MC of 2/3)? Is it better for it to have Barb-1s or Barb-2s? And would it be as well to stick with the "orthodox" Hiver weapons (wide-angle phasers and Sting torpedoes), or might it be worth allowing Hiver players to consider taking any of the "heterodox" Hives' weapon options (particle phasers, tachyon guns,and/or particle beams)?

On a side note, I wonder if those "heterodox" Hiver ships have more to distinguish them aside from their weapons loadouts; as in, do they have more or fewer Barbs, or added (or reduced) numbers of APRs - akin to how the Hydrans distinguish between their fusion, hellbore, and "mixed" hull types. But then, that's probably not a topic worth pursing in this thread...

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - 08:10 am: Edit

Gary wrote:
>>Part of the reason why I would not have wished to include the Alunda in a proposed set of "starter" TC SSDs was that I felt it better to wait until they could be added in a later expansion, alongside their Hiver and Branthodon rivals.>>

The Alunda ship is, while interesting and a little wacky, actually fairly straight forward. And as such, already reasonably balanced. I think the current version (10xBB, 4xPW, 36 static power, 3 A-Btty, 4 dam con) is pretty solid.

The Hiver is problematic to balance, as the fighters. I think the current version is a 1/2 move cost DD size ship with 26-26-22-22 shields and 3 or 4 Barb-2 (depending on how it shakes out). The previous version (a 2/3 MC BC hull with 2 or 3 Barb-2) was kind of a nightmare, so pared back.

The Branthodon are likely impossible to make a viable TC out of. They are just too weird.

>>By the way, should a Hiver TC be based more on the CA (with a Move Cost of 1/2) or the BC (with a MC of 2/3)? Is it better for it to have Barb-1s or Barb-2s? And would it be as well to stick with the "orthodox" Hiver weapons (wide-angle phasers and Sting torpedoes), or might it be worth allowing Hiver players to consider taking any of the "heterodox" Hives' weapon options (particle phasers, tachyon guns,and/or particle beams)?>>

As noted, the current one is 1/2 MC CA hull; something like 3xST, 4xPW1, 4xPW3, and either 3 or 4 B2 fighters. I tried it out once or twice. It seemed ok. B2 fighters are clearly the way to go. But how many is an issue. And trying to balance out a smaller ship with fighters is difficult. As historically, Hiver ships are actually kind of scary, as they have a lot of extra power, and STs are kinda nuts.

As there are no existing published versions of Hivers with anything other than ST+PW armaments, and the discussion of them using other weapons is basically just a historical footnote in their description, probably best to ignore that all together.

By Barry Kirk (Barrykirk) on Friday, October 14, 2016 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Andy,

I know we keep going back and forth about the "new" TM modules for the Maesron.

Having said that, Remember that the TM is a modular missile.

The large frame size has 12 space points.

There are already general purpose PW-3 modules that can be put into a TM per the existing published rules.

I could with the existing rules, create a TM that has all the characteristics I wanted, IE, the speed I want, the armor I want, the explosion strength I want, the tractor resistance I want, and 3 instead of 4 PW-3.

The current TC has two missile types.

1) Speed 24, Armor 12, Explosion 16, Anti-Tractor 1

2) Speed 24, Armor 16, Explosion 8, Anti-Tractor 1

What I'm proposing is to add a third type with

3) Speed 24, Armor 12, Explosion 8, Anti-Tractor 1, Phaser Defense Module with three or four PW-3 that can only be fired at size class six or seven targets.

I don't think that is out of the realm.

From the Omega Master Rulebook, the following missile is perfectly legal.

Huge 12 space frame with the following modules.

Speed 32 propulsion module 4 space points.
Armor 12 costs 2 space points.
Explosion 8 costs 2 space points.
Three PW-3 costs 4 space points.
Anti-Tractor costs 0 space points.
Effective speed is 24 ( 32 - 8 )

This missile is almost identical to the phaser defense module I'm proposing, but is perfectly legal according to the Omega Master rule book.

However, it can fire it's phasers at a ship.

In contrast, the module I'm proposing can only fire it's phasers at drones and fighters.

I just don't think it's that much of a stretch.

Yes, you keep saying to follow the drones in and shepherd them into the target.

The problem with that, is that one of the common droners is the Kzinti.

The last thing your going to want to do is to close to knife range with that ship.

The Maesron really isn't a knife fighter.

In spite of the TG doing 16 points of damage like a photon, it can only do 16 points at a max range of one. Charging the TG up to that level is dangerous. If for some reason, you can't get to range one, you can't shoot, and the holding cost is sixteen power for four TG.

Realistically, the TG is never charged up past six or seven points of power and your looking at about 10 to 12 points of damage per TG.

Remember that the Maesron already has the max amount of power for a TC, 40 power.

It already has a maximum phaser suite of eight PW-1 and four PW-3.

The reality is that the TG while it's different than the photon is just not as good as the photon. The PWs are also, substantially weaker than alpha phasers.