Archive through November 01, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB General Discussions:
Archive through November 01, 2020
And I missed a 5 out of 6 narrow salvo to pop the second SP with narrow salvoed disruptors.
I would take a hammer to those Dice.....
Thank you to Steve, Stewart and Garth.
I'll also be watching that Shapeways thread for the Heavy Shuttle data.
Cheers,
Russ
Mark, you need to take lessons from Ryan Opel regarding the disciplining of dice.
Russ, I posted it about half an hour prior to your last. I hope that was what you were looking for.
Garth L. Getgen
Been wondering a bit recently...
"Partial Refits."
We've all seen a few examples of "Partial Refits;" the "Partial X-Refits" and the Gorn W-Era ship upgrades* come to mind.
What about other folks making some use of "Partial Upgrades?"
My reason for asking is something I've noticed about Hydran escorts, in particular, their CLE. Without a refit, that ship has two Gatling phasers FX and two RX. The refit moves the two RX ones to LS/RS; for most CL variants, that improves coverage, but the CLE doesn't need those Gatlings phasers for coverage of the FA and their repositioning reduces Gatling phaser coverage in the LR and RR arcs.
While the rest of the Hydran CL refit (improved Warp engines, additional shield boxes, and upgrading the FA phaser-2s to phaser-1s) is beneficial (BIG time) for the CLE, IMO, the repositioning of the Gatling phasers (slightly) weakens the 360 degree close in defensive firepower of the ship and (again, my opinion) detracts from her primary mission.
With that in mind, would it be not unreasonable to ask if the Hydran CLE were to receive only the other three elements of the upgrade, and NOT the repositioning of the Gatling phasers?
Just a thought... 
(* W-era Gorn warships start with lasers and missile racks and are upgraded to phasers and plamsa bolts, but there are some Gorn ships with the plamsa bolts that still use lasers)
Gorns are a weird special case. Partial X refits were a mistake that should not have been published. I have no interest in repeating mistakes or in applying special cases to general situations.
I agree Partial X refits are weird.
BUT, it would be interesting to see a few examples, maybe with note saying something like "these are the only classes that ever got X refits; other classes were not refitted due to handwavium issues...
So "the D7C Extremist got X batteries and drone racks, but these were the only partial X refits ever applied to any D7 or D6 class vessel..." Studies showed that it was a better value to build X ships from scratch rather than refitting existing ships due to the severe economic limitations all empires were under after the Andromedan era.
I guess I am in the minority on this. But I personally don't think Partial X refits were a mistake and an glad they were published. I don't expect to convince those who don't like XP, but I at least wanted to describe why I like those rules, even if others don't agree.
1) "Real-world" miltary history demonstrates many examples that are analogous to SFB's XP-refits. Numerous World War I and inter-war ships designed and built before radar were refitted with radar during World War II. And some WW II cruisers designed with guns as their primary armament were refitted as missile-armed warships during the early Cold War period. Many Cold War era fighters that were originally designed with pulse-Doppler radars have been or are being refitted with full AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar suites. They also typically have upgraded fire control systems to handle advanced weapons like the AIM-120 AMRAAM. the M-1 Abrams was originally fielded with a 105 MM gun. Current versions use a 120 MM. And the Abrams did not have depleted uranium armor when first fielded. It is very common for real-world systems to be upgraded with more advanced technology during their service life. And sometimes the improvements are very dramatic, much more on the order of an SFB XP-refit than a Fed CA+ or Klingon D7B refit.
2) XP-refits increase opportunities for players to experiment with their forces, which I think makes the game more enjoyable as long as it isn't unbalancing. Those who have been around long enough to remember the former, unlamented, "S3.3" rules can probably recall a few horror stories when a S3.3 upgrade broke the game because the actual improvement was so out of proportion with the increased BPV cost. But XP is more restrained than S3.3 was in terms of what is allowed. I am not aware of any similar "game-breaking" upgrades, though I can't say for sure that none exist, which I just haven't thought of. Certainly XP-upgrades can make a ship significantly stronger, but also more expensive. But if that upgrade isn't "game-breaking" in the way the worst S3.3 abuses were, I as a player like having that option. And as I already argued in 1) above, I think it is a realistic option.
Personally, I'm no fan of X-ships in general, and think the partial X-refits are a way to "Munchkin" ships.
Still, I'm glad they were published as well. While I may not like them and never use them, there are folks who do both like and use them.
Then again, there are folks who don't like Megafighters; something I'm quite fond of. There are also folks who don't like Bombers; something else that have a warm spot with me.
I'm glad all of them are out there as options for us.
As far as the partial refits I brought up earlier goes, that was never meant as anything more than an observation for discussion, and the way it'll complicate things needlessly is DEFINITELY a good enough reason to forget the whole thing.
Jeff,
I guess the difference is that I kind of like players having the ability to "Munchkin" their ships, as long as the ability is limited. Unlimited "Munchkinability"* can easily ruin a game but I think the limits on XP-refits are sufficient to prevent the worst abuses. But obviously opinions will vary on that matter.
I agree with you about Megafighters. I like those too. Bombers? Ehh... I can take them or leave them.
*I doubt this word exists. But it ought to.
Like some I am not really fond of x-ships, but I enjoy the XP refits, we generally have limited them to a certain number of points available.
"Munchkinability"
I like it.
In the name of honesty, I gotta admit to Munchkinizing ships from time to time...
(... Aaaaand I suspect that if I were to try and post any examples of these crimes against the SFU, I'd at best be thrown in The Booth for the rest of my unnatural life.)
A few times when X2 has come up ADB and people who seem to be much more 'in the know' than me have mentioned it would entail totally new construction hulls (rather than retrofits like X1).
My question is, how different is different?
Are we talking Fed CL compared to Fed CA different? Or Fed YCA compared to Fed CA different?
Personally I'd like something very different (but I didn't grow up with Star Trek and sort of found the show through the game rather than the other way around, so the Enterprise doesn't emotionally resonate with me or provoke nostalgia the way it probably does with most everyone else), maybe even ditching (or overhauling) the saucer-and-nacelle design.
What does everyone else think?
Same general hull shape, but things will be ... different.
In terms of starship design, I do wonder what way the Romulans might go in the new era. Perhaps there could be an opportunity to introduce a fourth "series" of X2-ship designs: neither Eagle nor Kestrel nor Hawk, yet something which draws from the lessons learned from all three prior design series.
Maybe certain other Alpha empires could potentially go in new design directions. For example, since the Y-era ISC ships had two prongs and their "modern" counterparts had three prongs, perhaps their X2-ships could take the next step and have four-prong hulls?
In any case, I look forward to seeing what doors Module X2 would open for SFB itself; for its younger "siblings", such as Federation Commander; and perhaps also for the ongoing ADB Shapeways project.
Gary, why stop at four prongs when five fingers would be so much better?
(
)
Garth L. Getgen
Because a human hand only has four fingers....and a thumb. :-)
Who says that's a Human hand, Paul?? Not many Humans living in ISC territory!1
()
Garth L. Getgen
I agree with the five hulls idea. Also, I'd like to see the central one be significantly larger than the other four; it would send a message.
So would the new Hydran X-ship have three prongs with 3 appendage each??
I'm not sure what the original intent behind Hydran ship design was, but I've always really liked the combination of diverse ship design and simple geometric shapes.
It makes me think of Space Invaders, Galaga, Gradius, Star Force, and other early space shooter type games that depicted alien space ships as being simple shapes.
The Hydrans have flying diamonds, triangles, ovals with wings, and rods.
Whatever the Hydran X2-ships look like, I hope we get a variety, and I hope they keep their simple geometry.
Question for Andromedans fights
Could Andros load up one of their Queen Snake cargo ships with explosives and turn them into Suicide Freighters?
ALA a Missionary comes up with 3 Bulls Snakes, transports them right next to a base station on i31/i32. Then they self-destruct at the beginning of the next turn. The CARGO boxes filled with the same explosives as Alpha suicide freighters and doing similar damage.
C3A has rules for turning Andro cargo ships (including some of the bigger ones) into suicide bombs.
deleted
Some musings on "obsolete lahguage"...
I recently purchased the Tholian Master Starship Book, as well as the PDF versions of several other products (rulebook and Modules G3 and G3A) that I already had in hard copy. I have been quite happy with the result and intend to buy the other empires' Master Starship Books and PDF versions of the SSD books in the near future. But in reading through the Tholian Master Starship Book, I noticed the following sentence in the description of "Combined Refits". "The DPW dreadnought web caster and photon refit (R7.69) [an old-type dreadnought (R7.5) with both photon and web caster refits] was the most powerful non-X Tholian Holdfast ship ever in service." That statement was certainly true when the DPW was first published but it isn't true anymore. The DHW (Archeo-Tholian heay dreadnought with web caster refit) is now "... the most powerful non-X Tholian Holdfast ship"; having substantially more power (though also a higher movement cost), an additional phaser-1, and losing two photon torpedoes but gaining four disruptors in their place.
I don't have the other empires' Master Starship Books yet, though I do intend to buy them. But it wouldn't surprise me if there turns out to be similar "obsolete language" in some ship descriptions. I suspect the "background text" for some older scenarios may also contain obslete language that was correct when the scenario was first published.
As long as this obsolete language occurs in background text, as opposed to an actual rule, I don't think it's a big problem. If language in an older rule contradicts language in a newer rule, that needs to be elevated to ADB for resolution. But calling the DPW "... the most powerful non-X Tholian Holdfast ship" does not cause similar problems even if it is no longer strictly speaking true.
I doubt whether it would be a profitable use of SVC or SPP time to correct all the obsolete language in background text. My intention with this post is something different; a warning to both myself and others about quoting from background text when arguing some point. I know I have sometimes quoted background text on this BBS when arguing some point and will doubtlessly continue to do so in the future. But I think it's good to keep in mind that with a game as complex and evolving as SFB, some of that background text, especially from older sources, may no longer be correct.
Just my .02 quatloos worth.