Tiny little thing about E4...

Should it ever move out of playtest and to an actual product (C7? With the Borak?), could we change the name of the Guppy to the Perch and the Minnow to the Pike, respectively? It's a bit more aggressively named, and in keeping with the alliteration (and Pike was in my original draft as an earlier -- albeit unbuilt -- fighter design).

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, May 22, 2018 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Is there any idea as to when this might pass out of playtest, and be formally published? i.e. months, years, maybe, not?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, May 22, 2018 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Actual Playtest Reports might move it along.

Most people who have Modules E3 and E4 seem content to use them as is and not send in reports.

Myself, I am worried about the balance and BPVs and whether things like the Borak Fighter-bombs really work in play.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, May 22, 2018 - 05:23 pm: Edit

I can tell you one thing I'd recommend, right off, after having kicked it around in various pickup games over the past decade-plus:

(JR1.18) Peladine Scout Cruiser: Rip two of the Special Sensors off of the wings (dropping it from eight to six total), without a reduction in BPV. The thing plays like a Fed SC+ on steroids, because of the amount of power it has available to channel into sensors; it's just too good, and I kick myself every time I look at it for going for the full eight in the design.

Beyond that, there's the TC issue.

(JR1.T) Peladine Tournament Cruiser:
Short version: it doesn't work.
Long version: it has nothing that can reach out at range, which leaves it easy prey for a sabre-dance. Pretty much the only viable tactic with it is to charge in and try for an anchor; there's just not much room for subtlety with the thing, given the G-torp/F-torp/ph-2/drone combination.
And no, I don't have a good solution. Putting S-torps on it makes sort of an upgunned Gorn (since it does add those drones to the mix).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 22, 2018 - 06:43 pm: Edit

I suppose range 5 bolt strike is a thing?

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Tuesday, May 22, 2018 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Guilty (with apologies) for the lack of playtesting reports.

TBH: despite the variety of them (cannon & mega), the idea of "Just phasers" with the Borak has left me kind of "eh..." about playing them.

Also, preconceived notions (on my part) about "Plasma vs. ESGs" has long left me feeling that the Peladine would not be point-balanced against the Lyrans.

Even as bad of a tactician as I am, picturing a fight between a pair of Peladine Destroyers (JR1.6 type, not the DW JR1.25 type) and a pair of Lyran destroyers would lead to the shotgunned G-torps having four plasma-F torpedoes slamming into EACH Lyran ship at range 5, before the Lyran would be able to execute an ESG ram.

Should the Lyran ship(s) manage to survive the forest of F-torps, the Peladine would rake them with their phaser-2s before the Lyrans would do the centerline overrun with their phaser-3s.

In a "Turn & Burn" dogfight, the "Two-Turn-Eff" rule would again enable the Peladine ships to hit at range 5 tremendously hard; harder than the Lyrans would be able to respond with.

This is in addition to the massive power demands of the ESGs against the plasma torpedoes, which are (in terms of amount of damage per point of energy) among the most efficient weapons in the game.

For this reason, I've not playtested the Peladine either, and for that, I do (again) apologize.

On their behalf, however, I do see a "Storytelling" situation where they're something astounding; when the ISC reaches that part of space, how many warring peoples have they run in to. How much pain and disillusionment would the crews of their echelons have suffered through. I feel that they would find the Ranel and Phelen living and working together peacefully as a symbol of hope for their grand quest.

As such, I'm inclined to have a Peladine ship (or two) among their echelons when picturing the ISC with my "Mental Movie Escape" thing.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - 10:33 am: Edit

Against the Lyrans, it becomes who can wait the longest: the Lyrans to fire up the ESG, or the Peladine to launch plasma. If the Lyrans can get the Peladine to launch first -- particularly if the Peladine pick one "special friend" as the target in hopes of picking off a ship entirely -- then the Lyrans can draw off those torps and *then* make the ESG run.

Or, the Lyrans can play the nickel-and-time game with disruptors at range, and use the ESGs to deal with any torps that they haven't simply run out.

There's a fair lot of options here, and it's going to come down to the respective captains how this all pans out.

That said? I love your image of the ISC taking heart from the Ranel-Phelen peaceful co-existence.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - 11:20 am: Edit

Uh ... has there been a rules change of which I am unaware?

I have checked (G23.81), and it still says that there is no interaction between an ESG field and a plasma torpedo, whether the mighty plasma-R or the lowly plasma-D (and that means also the even lowlier plasma-K).

The upshot is that I have no idea at all what you are saying when you talk about "use the ESGs to deal with any torps that they haven't simply run out."

A quick glance at Module E4 does not turn up any special "Peladine plasma torpedoes versus ESGs" rule (and I doubt we would allow such a rule).

So I am at this juncture very confused.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Respectfully, the plasma-versus-disruptor-at-extreme-range thing is another one of those that I see as bad news for the Lyrans, expecially where the Peladine are concerned.

I've long held that the Klingons, at ranges 13 to 15, have a tremendous advantage against the Federation in terms of heavy weapons because their disruptors hit on a 1-4 for 3 points of damage each, WHILE FIRING EVERY TURN, where the Federation photon torpedoes (proximity fused) hit on a 1-3 for 4 points of damage; statistical equals, but with the disruptors firing twice as often.

With the Peladine plasmas versus Lyran disruptors, the plasma S at that range (assuming it hits) is still doing 22 points of damage (minus, of course, the phaser damage done to it, but even that's seldom truly significant AND it takes away from damage done to the enemy ship), while their disruptors do so much less damage AND are hitting only half the time.

To make matters worse, in that long ranged duel, the Peladine are almost assured of having EW superiority, not only because of the lower power demands made by their heavy weapons but also because they can be protected by ECM drones.

With the Peladine CA having two plasma S torpedoes, they can fire one every other turn while at the same time having one in effective reserve if the Lyran attempts an overrun on the turn following the launch one AND both engine mounted plasma F torpedoes.

Should the Lyran in question try charging them, they'll still have the pseudo-torpedoes to royally screw up Lyran attempts to defend themselves against the plasma they've got coming in.

However, in fleet actions, I do see the Lyrans as being able to concentrate all disruptor fire on a single target each turn and, should the Peladine attempt to do the same thing with their plasma, it would be an effective use of Wild Weasels (as the other ships in the fleet could protect the one targeted ship using the weasel).

Please don't take this criticism the wrong way, Jessica. I LIKE the Peladine; I just think they'd have worked better in the Eastern part of the Alpha Octant, and when they're released in a "C" module, I'll definitely buy it, despite having learned personal accounting from Jack Benny...

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Don't mind me, Steve. I'm running on bingo caffeine.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Jeffrey George Anderson:

Minor correction.

I assume you mean you learned personal accounting from Jack Benny's "On Screen Persona." He himself was known as a generous individual.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - 05:47 pm: Edit

I played the Peladine recently in a campaign run by Matt. We played out the battles in SFBOL. As Matt set it up vs historical races at first. I was playing vs Klingons Kzin and lyrans.

The Peladine were great at pushing some one away from an objective. All of those seekers are wonderful. However i found that the Disrupter armed ships would pound me at range and run out the Torps. As for the drones they handled them very well as they use drones themselves.

With out a real direct fire threat the Peladine have problems. Yes Bolting the torps is a viable plan but iffy in a ECM environment. As well as getting that close means you are going to eat a lot of disrupter fire. I found that yes i could push them away from a objective. I could overwhelm fixed defenses with drone and plasma launches. Taking out his WWs very quickly. But even with plasma S the lack of phaser 1s was murder in a saber dance. Also the cost of the refitted ships vs the Disrupter armed ships. Gave me less ships to use in engagements.

As for the lyrans ESG. They used them to kill my drone launches and hit me with mid range disrupter and phaser Fire. Easly getting into range. The only answer I had was to launch plasma to meet the Lyran/klingon ships at range 15 are 8. Yes they can get that range but will have to eat plasma. With a mix of fake and real torps It was hard to shoot them up are lab and run away the one targeted ship.

I enjoyed playing them in the campaign other then the cost of the refitted ships. As i found myself buying smaller ships so i could have more.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, July 05, 2018 - 06:58 pm: Edit

(SL261.0) CL36 - Klingon - Strike Force #2 - The D6VB should just be a D6V as there is no B-refit for the D6V. - Ken Kazinski, 05 Jul 2018.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, July 06, 2018 - 12:16 am: Edit

(SL265.2) CL37 - Should the CC Excalibar be Excalibur? - Ken Kazinski, 05 Jul 2018.

(SL269.0) CL37 - The Nehra is fitted with a standard skid is that the same as a GS - Standard Skid? - Ken Kazinski, 05 Jul 2018.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, July 06, 2018 - 02:16 am: Edit

(SL275.0) CL38 - Should the ISC DD's be DDX's? - Ken Kazinski, 06 Jul 2018.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, July 06, 2018 - 07:10 pm: Edit

(SL261.0) Yes, the D6VB should just be a D6V.

(SL265.2) Yes, Excalibar should be Excalibur.

(SL260.0) Yes, the standard skid is a sloppy name for the General Skid.

(SL275.0) No. While the cruiser and frigate were advanced technology ships, the destroyers were not. No more than the Tholian destroyer and patrol corvette accompanying their advanced technology cruiser were. Advanced technology ships are somewhat rare, and while the concept of keeping them in advanced technology-only squadrons was espoused, you fight with the squadron you have, not the squadron you wish you had (to borrow and modify a phrase). The ISC had an advanced technology cruiser and advanced technology frigate available, and added two available destroyers when the situation came up, but the destroyers were not themselves advanced technology ships. Same story for the Tholians. Advanced technology ships sometimes serve as the centerpiece of a task force, just as a cruiser, instead of being part of a squadron of cruisers, might serve as the centerpiece of a task force made up of frigates and/or police ships or other light units.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, July 08, 2018 - 03:22 am: Edit

In SL296.2 (CL42) The Federation Sargon is listed as a DDM, but MSSB-R2 shows the Sargon is only a DD. Is this supposed to be a Guided Weapons Destroyer? - Ken Kazinski, 08 Jul 2018.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Sunday, July 08, 2018 - 12:47 pm: Edit

A guess, Ken...

The Guided Weapons Destroyer is listed as DDG, not DDM. IIRC, the designation of DDM is meant for a mid-years Destroyer. If Sargon is outfitted as such, she has two of her standard four photon torpedo tubes deleted. They are not replaced with phasers, hull, or anything else; they're just not present.

I think the ship was presented in an earlier Captain's Log (although which one escapes me right at the moment).

If anyone knows better, PLEASE correct me.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, July 08, 2018 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Found the answer

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, July 08, 2018 - 04:47 pm: Edit

What was it?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, July 09, 2018 - 12:09 am: Edit

Sorry to a different question. Still need the DDM question answered.

In SL319.2 (CL46) - The WYN have a DW Blue Sword listed but there is no DW listed for the Wyn. Is this the ZDW? - Ken Kazinski, 08 Jul 2018.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Monday, July 09, 2018 - 02:02 am: Edit

The line art shows the fish DD. The entire class seems to flip back and forth between the two designations.

I don't believe the ZDW can leave the cluster anyways.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Monday, July 09, 2018 - 02:06 am: Edit

Just Orion ships, and WYN fish ships can leave the cluster I think.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Monday, July 09, 2018 - 02:43 am: Edit

The WYN ships can go just outside the cluster, (R12.1F) Deployment Limitations.

By Eddie Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, July 09, 2018 - 11:17 am: Edit

Ken check the date on the scenario, the DDMs came along in 130. most DDMs were converted to other configurations starting in 160. The Master ship book says 5 were originally built as DDs the rest as DDMs, so check the date of the scenario, if prior to 160 then it is just a DDM. Check CL 33