Huh. I was pretty certain that there was a 2TRH/6P2/4BTTY version in there at some point. It isn't impossible that I am deluded, however.

That being said, if it didn't exist, I suspect that 4 battery is enough batteries to not have any issues with panel management, and as such, probably too much with the TRHs.

Steve wrote:
>>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.>>

I dunno--I can see the appeal of the 3TRL, assuming a ship that can take some internals and keep fighting. I could certainly see a ship that has 3xTRL (and maybe) 7xP2 that has better panel management and 4 batteries as a ship that might have legs and be reasonably effective, as opposed to the 2xTRH/3xBTTY version. I mean, again, I'm totally in favor of the 2xTRH/3xBTTY version, assuming it got 2 more power. But if the 3xTRL version seems more attractive to some folks and there is a way to make it work, I'm not opposed to that.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Saturday, April 23, 2016 - 04:35 am: Edit

I would like to see (an additional T-Bomb) as a Power Absorber Mine (M10.0) as an option.

(with purhaps only 10 points effect to reduce the warhead strength)

I think it would add (more flavor and balance) to the current Andromedan Tournament playteast ship.

At present the 3x TRL, 6x P-2, 4x battery (current version) is a capable Tournament ship.

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Saturday, April 23, 2016 - 07:50 am: Edit

Peter, the only difference I see between the 3 TRL and 2 TRH version is that after losing one heavy weapon to internals the 3 TRL version is now paying more power to arm its heavy weapons than the 2 TRH version would (4 vs 3). I suppose if it lost 2 heavy weapons it would be better off, but by the time a galactic ship does that kind of damage to a 2 TRH andro it will most likely be badly crippled, if not destroyed.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Saturday, April 23, 2016 - 12:15 pm: Edit

And yet I'm seeing another option, the TRH/2xTRL, pretty much untested. Arcs withstanding, this is really not a bad idea, IMO. I'm mixed with the batteries, but I'm leaning towards 4 batteries. Why am I feeling like I'm the only one proposing this option? Please don't say its because I am. I just want to maintain the flavor of the TRH, TRL deliciousness.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Saturday, April 23, 2016 - 03:11 pm: Edit

Don't mess around with the 2 tractor-repulsors. When I sell out to score a bunch of internals I want them to take out half the firepower.
The Andro is such a tough nut to crack. When you finally do there has to be meat inside.
If it fails to displace you still have to kill it. It doesn't just die because it rolled a six.
2 TRH, 6 p-2, however many batteries it takes to make it viable. No TRLs.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Saturday, April 23, 2016 - 09:07 pm: Edit

At present the Andromedan that is up for playtesting (in the Tournament downloads) is the 3x TRL, 6x P-2, 4x battery.

The one Glenn Hoepfner has put forward as an option, could be put to play-test.
(It is nice to have at least one TRH).

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Sunday, April 24, 2016 - 04:29 am: Edit

As i have said the Andromedan 3x TRL, 6x P-2, 4x battery is the current version.

I do think it would do well with a power absorber mine(M10.0), ( with 10 point effect to reduce the warhead strength).

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Sunday, April 24, 2016 - 01:45 pm: Edit

The very last thing that the Andro needs is more defense (in the form of a PA mine, which was tried once and then removed). Restore its heavy weapons and give it the right amount of power and it is competitive without being overpowered. 2 TRH, 6 P-2, 3 batteries and a few extra power and maybe some padding would be a decent ship.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, April 25, 2016 - 07:35 pm: Edit

>>I would like to see (an additional T-Bomb) as a Power Absorber Mine (M10.0) as an option. >>

That is a horrible plan. Big Plasma is already fighting a significant uphill battle against a viable Andro. And it reveals pseudo plasmas (which is even more important than the warhead reduction). The ship had a PA mine for a while, and that was just a nightmare.

>>At present the 3x TRL, 6x P-2, 4x battery (current version) is a capable Tournament ship.>>

The problem is that it is not actually that capable at press time. It is ok against folks who don't know how Andros work, but against the ships that are already pretty good against it (Fed, Orion, Lyran), it is completely hopeless; against ships that the Original Andro was reasonably good against (Klingon, Kzinti, Shark), the Andro is fighting a mostly losing fight; against Big Plasma, the 3xTRL version is still not a slam dunk.

The reason folks are in favor of the 2xTRH/6xP2/3xBtty version is that it has a fighting chance against the ships that are good against it (Fed, Orion), and isn't a total walk over against Big Plasma (as it can't just move speed 31 all the time, sometimes has to slow down, and it can't completely empty panels on a low plasma turn), and can actually hurt Disruptor/Drone ships, even if it has to use most of its phasers against drones.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, April 25, 2016 - 07:40 pm: Edit

>>At present the Andromedan that is up for playtesting (in the Tournament downloads) is the 3x TRL, 6x P-2, 4x battery.>>

Most of the playtesting of that ship happens on SFBOL, where there are, like, 6 different playtest Andro versions, accumulated through the years. I think the 3xTRL/6xP2/4xBtty is the mostly likely current "sanctioned" version.

The 2xTRH/6xP2/3xBtty version (which is on SFBOL) is the likely most playtested version of the last 5+ years. As noted, it is almost a viable ship, but probably needs a couple more power (and maybe a couple more cargo).

>>The one Glenn Hoepfner has put forward as an option, could be put to play-test. (It is nice to have at least one TRH).>>

The problem with that one is the need for weird, non traditional arcs. If the TRs are TRH FH, TRL RS, TRL LS, the ship is probably too good (as being able to fire TRs directly backwards is a horrible idea for that ship). At which point you need to have FA/L, FA/R arcs (giving it essentially full 40 point TR firepower most of the time anyway which is a problem if you also have 4 batteries for clearing panels), or weird, non traditional 120 degree arcs.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, April 25, 2016 - 07:45 pm: Edit

Steve wrote:
>>Peter, the only difference I see between the 3 TRL and 2 TRH version is that after losing one heavy weapon to internals the 3 TRL version is now paying more power to arm its heavy weapons than the 2 TRH version would (4 vs 3). I suppose if it lost 2 heavy weapons it would be better off, but by the time a galactic ship does that kind of damage to a 2 TRH andro it will most likely be badly crippled, if not destroyed.>>

This is probably true.

I think the thought here (at least from my POV) is that the 3xTRL, 7(?) P2 version has a little less firepower (About 8 points less of an Alpha at R4-5; about 5 points less at R0-3) than the 2TRH/6xP2 version, which might make up for having the 4th battery, giving it more ability to manage panels (and more power longevity). I guess?

Again, like, I think the 2TRH/6xP2/3xBtty version would be totally sound with 2 more power and (maybe) 2 more cargo. But, ya know, if there was enough support for a 3xTRL version that had 4 batteries for better panel management, I could see that as possibly viable.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Monday, April 25, 2016 - 08:23 pm: Edit

The 2012 Tournament book came out with the 3x TRL, 6x P-2, 4x battery version, which would of been the one to play-test/use in tournaments for the last 3+ years.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, April 25, 2016 - 08:28 pm: Edit

>> The problem with that one is the need for weird, non traditional arcs. If the TRs are TRH FH, TRL RS, TRL LS, the ship is probably too good (as being able to fire TRs directly backwards is a horrible idea for that ship). At which point you need to have FA/L, FA/R arcs (giving it essentially full 40 point TR firepower most of the time anyway which is a problem if you also have 4 batteries for clearing panels), or weird, non traditional 120 degree arcs. >>

Well, since the most popularly tested version of the 2xTRH has only 3 batteries, then I see no reason for the 1xTRH, 2xTRL version to have just three batteries. As far as the it essentially has 40 full points in the FA arc, the current version also has 40 points in the FH arc.
I don't see a problem with the odd arcs for the TRLs (minor tweaks have been done to other tourney ships for balancing purposes). I think the FA+L and FA+R works fine (at least to playtest to see if it really does work or if its broken from the get-go).
On the side, I'm not aware of any other tourney ship that can lose half its heavy fire power with a single lucky internal.
In short, I'd rather have 3 heavy weapons, and one of them a TRH, because an Andro is not an Andro without a TRH.

That being said, I'm thrilled that this option is actually being talked about. I've fought for this idea in the past several times and only heard crickets.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, April 25, 2016 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Peter you may be thinking of the 2006 Andro, 2xTRH-FH, 6xP2 and 3 battery.

This is the version we used at Council of Nations 2013.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, April 25, 2016 - 09:40 pm: Edit

>>The 2012 Tournament book came out with the 3x TRL, 6x P-2, 4x battery version, which would of been the one to play-test/use in tournaments for the last 3+ years.>>

We were playtesting the 2xTRH/6xP2/3xBtty for years 'cause the Powers that Be said that was the thing to do. Really. We aren't making this up. It is on SFBOL listed as:

Andromedan TKC-2011-Andromedan Krait (Offical ADB Playtest)

That is the ship that has been likely playtested most, most recently. I realize that the download page here has the 3xTRL version. That one was a playtest version that was kicking around and wasn't overpowered, and as such, likely ended up in T-2012 as it wasn't going to break anything.

The ship that saw the most play in the last few years as a concerted playtest effort, however, is the 2xTRH/6xP2/3xBtty version (as seen on SFBOL).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, April 25, 2016 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Glenn wrote:
>>On the side, I'm not aware of any other tourney ship that can lose half its heavy fire power with a single lucky internal.>>

The thing is with the Andro is that, well, losing a TRH on a single lucky internal isn't really the thing that kills the ship (and, again, the ship won endlessly with 2xTRH before everyone realized it was broken, in the time of "it won the world championship, got downgraded, won the world championship again, got downgraded again, and then won the world championship a third time...").

Losing 1TRH is certainly a significant loss of firepower, but in all likelihood, if the ship has 2xTRH to start with, if it is taking any internals at all, it is also probably doing, like, 20-30 in return. Which is significant. And even down a TRH, it can still do significant damage with 1xTRH and a few P2s through a flank shield. Or kill the enemy through the down shield. Or play stay-away long enough to repair the TRH.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - 09:42 am: Edit

The flip-side to losing half your firepower on a single volley is being able to repair all your weapons while the galactic ship can only wait for you to come back.
I like hunting the two TRH version.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - 09:49 am: Edit

I once played in COQ and lost both TRHs with 4 points of internal damage in two volleys, 2 impulses apart. My opponent took about 20 internals and lost one of three heavies. end of game.

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - 09:57 am: Edit

Yeah, see...
Sometimes a deity ruins your day.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - 10:22 am: Edit

>>I once played in COQ and lost both TRHs with 4 points of internal damage in two volleys, 2 impulses apart. My opponent took about 20 internals and lost one of three heavies. end of game.>>

Sure. But if you are flying a Conqueror, you are probably fighting about 250 BPV of opponents (COQ is 170 BPV; add in a COB and you got about 250 BPV; conversely, if it is being non historical and flying without a satellite ship, it is still probably fighting a BCH, which is bigger and scarier than a TC). And the Andros are always hosed by scale of force.

In a one on one game between a CC and a ship like the Andro TC, it is really difficult to do two small volleys of internals. Is it impossible? No. But unlikely. And getting two TRHs hit on 4 internals is also very unlikely. I mean, it isn't like that ship is a Lyran or anything.

Yeah. With 2xTRH, it is mathematically possible to lose both TRHs on 2 volleys of 1 internal each. But really unlikely. And when the ship was winning all the tournaments, losing TRHs to stray internals wasn't really a problem.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - 11:14 am: Edit

Sorry, I was responding to Chris Proper's post. What he wrote simply reminded me of this one (and only) double whammy I received.
I concur, the tourney environment is completely different.
Sorry for the confusion.

BTW, it was a Conquistador in a multi-player free for all. I knew I was doomed but I didn't really know it was going to be that bad, that fast. I felt like a declawed cat.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 - 08:26 am: Edit

Ok, so this is only really interesting in so much as looking at the history of TCs and the tournament in general is interesting (to me), but I recently fell into a bunch of old Nexus magazines, including Nexus 6 (late 1983/early 1984?) that has, what looks like, the first information on SFB the tournament and tournament ships. Which I'm sure I must have read at the time (a buddy had a subscription to Nexus in the early 80's), but have no memory of.

So the initial tournament was meant to run for 2 hours per round. The rules set was *mostly* the same, except I'm unclear on if the Orion got free EW (it isn't mentioned in the article); there is a note that between rounds all ships were repaired and reloaded but only got *one* replacement shuttle (which certainly would reduce excessive weasel use). There was a tournament barrier.

The ships, as presented (as just a list of modifications for existing ships):

-Fed TC: Fed CC, add 2AWR, 2P3 360, *two drone racks*. The Fed won the first tournament in 1984. There were multiple notes about removing one or both drone racks. The racks were gone by the time the first TC SSDs were printed in CL#6. (Which might suggest reason for reluctance to add a drone rack to the Fed TC...)

-Klingon TC: D7C, change some stuff to get closer to the current TC. I think it still had P2s in the wings. It had no ADDs (they both got turned into P3s).

-Romulan TC: There was no FH at the time, so it was a edited down Superhawk (?) with no fighter boxes. Seems like it was about the same as the current TFH.

-Gorn TC: Gorn CC, minus 2 warp. Seems like it is about the same as it is now, but down 2 power.

-Tholian TC: Tholian C with 2 extra disruptors and a couple more P1s, no web capabilities (WC hadn't been published yet), more warp, a couple more hull, MC1.

-Orion TC: Raider with an extra front option mount.

-Lyran TC: CA with a bit of extra power (+2 APR?) and 2P3 into P1 (so 6xP1, 4xP3).

IIRC, that was all of them. They all had standard TC shields (30-30-24-24), 4 shuttles, and 5 batteries.

In the discussion about the ships and tournament in the next couple Nexuses (Nexi?), the Fed lost a drone rack (maybe 2), the Plasma ships lost pseudo F torps almost immediately (I think they lost those *during* the tournament...), and in the second tournament listing, they lost the F tubes (so they each only had 2xS torps as heavy weapons?!?!). The Lyran was described as "hopeless". The Orion and Tholian were removed from the tournament for the second Gold Hat (1985) for being too difficult or generally unplayable.

Interesting history.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 - 09:25 am: Edit

Oh, yeah, also the Hydran:

-Lord Marshall, remove all the fighter boxes. I think that's it (it was, like, 2HB, 4xFusion, 4xP1, no fighters at all). Maybe take a hull out?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 - 03:49 pm: Edit

And also, also the Kzinti (that'll teach me to write stuff at work...).

-Kzinti CC, all drones are type IM (for Klingon too; no fast, no heavies); no SP is mentioned. Single drone control as well? I'm unsure exactly what the Kzinti CC looked like in 1984. It might have only had 36 power at that point (IIRC, they added a couple APR in Captains?).

The ISC hadn't been published yet; the WYN didn't have a TC available (as they hadn't published the AuxBC yet--that was in Volume III which was yet to exist); the Andros existed but didn't have a TC (again, the basis of the TC, either the Python or the Conquistador, didn't see publication till Volume III, which I think came out in '86).

So there were 9 original TCs. The Fed, Klingon, Kzinti, and Gorn changed a little along the way, but were more or less the same basic ship (although drones got a big upgrade); the Lyran got upgraded to a CC from a CA; the Hydran got a couple fighters; the original Tholian was scrapped and turned into the NCA after Volume III came out; the Orion got scrapped and turned into a BR version (also Volume III); Romulan got scrapped and turned into a FH version (again, Volume III, although the Superhawk variant probably wasn't too far off from what it ended up).

The TCs that we mostly know and love were all originally first published as SSDs in CL#6 (the B-10 issue), and other than some tweaks here and there (and the Andro being completely changed at some point; it was originally a Python in CL#6). But it is certainly interesting to see how this all started out. Especially that the Fed originally had 2 drone racks. Which were an issue even at the time.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 10, 2020 - 08:53 am: Edit

Ok, so back to the Andro!

In the current Saphire tournament, we are using the 2011 Playtest version, but with 2TRL instead of 2TRH. I suspect that version of the ship is unlikely to be capable of winning in all but the most corner case situations. The 2011 Playtest version has:

-6PA panels (standard).
-6P2 (standard).
-28 power (24/2/2 fairly standard).
-3 batteries (the main downgrade for the 2011 playstest).
-2TRH (that was the standard version of the 2011 playtest).
-6 Hull, 2 Cargo (light internal fortitude).
-1 disdev (standard).
-A Hangar box (with a note that it is completely ignored in tournament play).

We played that ship a lot at the time. It seemed almost a viable ship on both "playable" and "play againstable" levels; it could win games with some fancy maneuvering and a bit of luck, but the 3 batteries were a significant limit on its ability to just take a hit and empty the panels. With only 15 battery capacity, doing even a minor panel dump was incredibly difficult, which meant that in mid length games, the Andro inevitably had to slow down to, like, speed 20, at which point the Galactic ship could catch up to it and paste it. In numerous games with this ship, I'd end up in a scrappy game vs a Plasma ship, and end up getting killed by an enveloper I couldn't avoid, as I had to move speed 12 due to lack of power.

With 2TRL, the ship is hard pressed to even take down a back shield at R3 (something like 30 damage average, which might do an internal after battery reinforcement). Which means the only move is basically try and take down a back shield, get chased for a turn, try and shoot that same back shield for a second volley. Which may or may not work. But probably won't. And then by about T5, the ship is likely to be out of power.

The version that is posted on the Official Tournament Download page (and the one that shows up as the basic Andro Tournament ship in SFBOL) has:

-6PA/6P2/Disdev/28 power (like usual).
-4 batteries (limiting the ship, but certainly not as much as 3 batteries).
-3TRL (not as hard hitting as 2TRH, but can possibly take down a forward shield in one strike).
-9 hull/6 cargo (fairly robust internals).

I remember trying this ship a few times, and fighting against this ship a few times in tournament play; IIRC, it was moderately playable, but still probably a little strong vs plasma.

I'm 100% gonna give the 2011-2TRL version a whirl in the current event (and imagine I'll crash and burn, especially given that my first round opponent is a Fed :-), but interested in reopening the discussion on this ship, and seeing what might make it work.