Yess one can, if your lead ship has a CR rating of 4, one could have up to six ships (lead, 4 ships plus free scout) ... Most DWs (or DWLs) should be good for that ...

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, November 05, 2022 - 05:58 pm: Edit

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have been musing on a revision of the Hiver group; a revision that has three potential controversies. Before going in to them, please allow me to introduce Hiver 3.0

Hiver Patrol Groups 31 and 33

CA (75): 2xBarb-2 (+20/28), 2xT-Bomb (+8), Commando Squad (+1) = 104/112
CA (75): 2xBarb-2 (+20/28), 2xT-Bomb (+8), Commando Squad (+1) = 104/112
CA (75): 2xBarb-2 (+20/28), 2xT-Bomb (+8) = 103/111
CA (75): 2xBarb-2 (+20/28), 2xT-Bomb (+8) = 103/111
SCL (60/40): 2xT-Bomb (+8) = 68/48
SCL (60/40): 2xT-Bomb (+8) = 68/48

Total: 550/542


POTENTIAL CONTROVERSY #1

The two scouts are LPW status. Normally, according to the rules (S8.44), only one ship with production restrictions should be allowed to be used in a battlegroup. HOWEVER, the rule for RPL (S8.444) does permit for more than one to be used, but only if the players agree to allow more.

Given how, well... Pathetic... The Hiver SCL is, does anyone have a problem with there being two of them? With only one Special Sensor each, it does take two of them to match up to the standard number of Special Sensors on even normally weak Frigate hulled scouts.

POTENTIAL CONTROVERSY #2

The group was constructed using the split economic and combat BPVs. While on the surface, this appears to be legit to me, I still have a deep feeling that this may be tweaking the rules to maximize the group.

In short, the part of me that believes in fair play thinks that I really ought to have constructed the group using the higher of the split BPVs for ALL units as the fairest way.

If anyone feels that I am out of line with figuring the split BPV, please let me know and I'll re-revise the group.

POTENTIAL CONTROVERSY #3

This one is directed mostly at Hiver creator Dan O'Connor.

As someone who tries writing, I have a certain emotional attachment to that which I create, and when/if someone does a block change that I never envisioned, it often bothers me.

My intent is to present the group as a combination of two scout groups. Each scout group consists of two Heavy Cruisers and one Scout. The Scout is meant to watch the border and the two CA are meant to make sure it is able to do so without being harassed.

Basically, the Hivers (IN MY VISION OF THEM) have to make use of a number of scout/patrol groups like this, partly because their "Small Bases" (their Landing Platforms) lack the Special Sensors to monitor the borders, and partly because their ships are small enough that a normal CA on border watch would be overwhelmed, even if it does have fighters aboard much of the time.

Also, by using several small groups (like the two presented here), the Hivers can cluster them up (as two were clustered for the group I currently have) to deal with larger threats.

Again, this is just me being a dingbatty would-be hack writer, and Dan, if it's out of line with your vision for the Hivers, I'll happily try to rewrite the group.

OH! One more thing...

The Hiver CA has a F&E CMD Rating of five. Even with the group having six ships, it appears to still be within S8 limits.

Again, as with any of this, if I'm off base, please feel free to post (or email me at storm61285@gmail.com) and I'll happily revise things.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, November 05, 2022 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Addressing #1, I vote no. You cannot have two SCLs.

Addressing #2, in purchasing fighters, you must pay the combat BPV. In purchasing an SCL, you must pay the economic BPV, if I recall correctly, unless it is in combat by itself or something like that.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Sunday, November 06, 2022 - 12:52 am: Edit

I vote that all rules for the battle group as written should be followed, period. I am sure each player would like to make changes outside the structure.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Sunday, November 06, 2022 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Jeff Anderson,

(S8.35): There can be no more than one scout.
(S8.351): This second scout could be a regular scout if the total battle force has 8 or more ships
(S8.352) A PFS counts as a PF, not as a scout, unless the owner voluntarily agrees it is a scout
(S8.354) drone bombardment ships not a scout (unless owner wants it to be)
(S8.55) FLG counts as a scout unless it is leading two POLs

The Battle group is one force

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, November 07, 2022 - 02:32 pm: Edit

First, let me say thank you for your opinions and insights. As someone who is still pretty new to participating in Battleforce projects, I do have a pretty steep learning curve and I appreciate the help I'm getting.

Second, let me say, "Shazbot!" because I had been getting excited about the group I had put together.

Third, let me say, "BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!" over working up a revised group. I'm still mulling over some Commander's Options, so it's not quite ready to post yet, but we have until November 30, so there is time left to clean things up.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 01:23 am: Edit

Module C6 Paravian Alternate Timeline, Orion force (Penzance, Star, or Cirentus-TA cartel as appropreiate)
Jeff Guthridge Little Rock, Arkansas

Ship	OPT Mounts	CMDRs	Subtotal	Total	Balance
Double Raider (DBR)	A: AWR, B: AWR, C: QWT-FA, D: QWT**, E: QWT**	1 TB	100+0+4	104	104
Double Raider (DBR)	A: AWR, B: AWR, C: QWT-FA, D: QWT**, E: QWT**	1 TB	100+0+4	104	208
Light Raider+ (LR+)	A: AWR, B: QWT**, C: QWT**	1 TB	73+0+4	77	285
Light Raider+ (LR+)	A: Ph1-FA, B: PlasD-LS, C: PlasD-RS	1 TB, 3 extra PlasD	73+6+7	86	371
Light Raider+ (LR+)	A: Ph1-FA, B: PlasD-LS, C: PlasD-RS	1 TB, 3 extra PlasD	73+6+7	86	457
Light Raider Scout+ (LRS+)	A: Probe	none	93+0+0	93	550

None of the ships have OAKDISC or a Cloak, all four Light Raider hulls have the plus refit. Its my understanding that an Orion with Plas-D racks firing in

Weapon Arc Note: Neither C6 nor the MRB are very clear about QWT torpedo arcs when placed in Orion wing option mounts. LS/RS is implied by the wing mounts. LP/RP would be acceptable alternative. If the mounts would be limited to either LF+L/RF+R or FA, I would elect for FA across the force.

Orion Cartel Note: There are possibly three named Cartels in the region of space where the Paravans would have been had they survived. The Cirentus-TA Cartel is probably the more likely, though my knowledge of such things is very limited and I request assistance in placing the the group under the proper Orion banner should the edit need made.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 04:58 am: Edit

Is it legal to take a force like this? It seems dubious to me.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 07:40 am: Edit

Why AWR instead of APR?

IIRC none of the weapons listed use warp power specifically...

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 09:43 am: Edit

QWTs use warp for overloads.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 09:54 am: Edit

According to the Orion Cartel note listed under (R18.N3) in Module C6, the Omega Cartel would treat "Mapsheet P" Paravian space as its home territory, and both ISC and Gorn space as operating zones.

However, while waiting for an "official" answer on the subject from SPP, I might suggest erring on the side of caution, in terms of restricting quantum wave torpedo arcs in Orion "wing" mounts to FA or LF+L/RF+R.

I'm not so sure about foregoing so many potential QWT mounts to make room for those AWRs, however. The torpedoes only use warp power to overload, and Orion ships already have the ability to double their engines if necessary.

-----

Also, do AWRs not cost +1 BPV to install?

While working up the Zosman battle group, I was under the impression that APRs are +0, but AWRs were +1 (due to the added usefulness of their providing warp power), and thus costed them appropriately.

Is this not correct?

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 09:58 am: Edit

Per annex #8B: APR and AWR are both 0. I agree with not using option mounts for power on an Orion.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 10:04 am: Edit

I'm dubious that you can take QWTs (or Carnivon weapons) in Orion option mounts without the permission of your opponent's girlfriend or some such.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 10:07 am: Edit

Are simulator races allowed in this Battle Group? If so then I don't see why QWTs would be banned while other non-historical options are allowed.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 10:08 am: Edit

I just double-checked the playtest Zosman SSDs in Captain's Log #50; while the APR* mounts in the provisional "weapon" modules do pay +1 BPV per AWR, the APR** boxes in the provisional "system" modules pay the Annex #8B adjustment instead.

I have to say that the idea of an AWR being "free" relative to an APR for any of the historical "option mount" factions (Orion, WYN, Jumokian, M81 Pirate, or Zosman) does not sit well with me. But since that appears to be the case, I might have to adjust the costings of my Zosman force to match.

-----

Also, since Module C6 empires are permitted in this round of submissions, I would agree with allowing Orion - and, by extension, WYN - forces to gain access to those weapons which (a)historically were not restricted to their respective "lost empires".

Which, according to (R19.N3), would mean the Cluster Cartel would treat the on-map "Carnivon Empire" as part of its operating zone. Although, since (E23.143) gives the "lost empire" WYNs access to the disruptor cannon in Y140, would that mean DCs would be part of the suite of weapons the Cluster Cartel has access to from their "home" territory inside the WYN Cluster?

That said, since heel nippers and death bolts are listed as restricted Carnivon technologies, those should remain off-limits to the Orions and WYNs in this instance. (But since Module C4 battle groups are permitted here, would the simulator Barbarians be permitted to use those weapons?)

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 11:47 am: Edit

Seems I sparked some interesting thoughts with this notion.

First off, the first paragraph under the table is truncated. I was saying that it doesn't appear that Oakdisc is needed for defensive use of Plas-D racks. I could adjust Commander's Options if needed to buy it if I'm wrong about that.

Richard: If I have erred please help me understand. I put a fair bit of thought into this and if I'm wrong I'd like to learn from it. FQ1.14 specifically allows for it, and FQ1.141 allows for it in wing mounts.

Mike: Ginger is correct, it preserves the utility of overloads without added BPV cost.

Gary: Thank you for the heads up on the Omega cartel. In all honesty, I just looked enough to know there was at least one cartel that operated in the area that would provide the home zone with the weapons I wanted. I've no problem with which it might be provided said group is still available to build a force for.

Your point about arcs is well made and exactly why I added the paragraph myself in the force post. I'm 'showing my work' as-it-were, and if it comes out that 120 degrees of arc is all I can get in a wing mount, then FA is fine.

As for your final point, I find myself wondering if I would run out of engine to double before this hidden enemy runs out of ability to mitigate stronger waves of QWTs. Frankly I don't know the answer, so I designed for a force that should be able to put up a decent attrition fight. And that is why I elected to put reactors in option boxes.

The DBR only has 19 power stock, separated into three 5 box engines and two 2 box engines. The LR is even worse off with 12 power over two 5 box engines and a single 2 box impulse. Doubling will self-cripple these ships far to quickly for an attrition weapon like the QWT to be useful, while allowing for a hard decisive blow if the opportunity presents itself. Ships as fragile as these, attrition tactics should be a viable raiding tactic.

Ginger: In effect, this force is the result of the discussions on Paravian tactics from your posts. One of my takeaways from that discussion that if you keep your speed up, dance around and let the QWTs fly into danger first your enemy has to decide where to apply their weapons. That and they are much more robust than drones and faster to reload than plasma. In other words attrition tactics, and these Orion ships just don't have the legs otherwise.

It will be interesting to see just what the OpFor will be.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 12:15 pm: Edit

I dunno.

You aren't gaining all that much in terms of generated power from those AWRs, relative to the amount of latent firepower you're giving up by not taking the QWTs instead.

Bear in mind that even if you do swap in those QWTs, you don't have to launch them every turn. You could keep some of them in reserve either as damage sponges or as a source of added firepower should the attrition battle go your way.

Which, as it happens, might mirror the challenge faced by "Middle Years" Paravian ships, as they often don't have the luxury of maintaining a high battle speed while launching all of their QWTs every turn.

But of course, whatever option mount selection works best for you is entirely your prerogative - so long as ADB approves the selection made, that is.

-----

Actually, if or when there were to be an "update file" for the Paravians of Omega someday, one could perhaps see as many as four potential QWT-oriented forces in a future round of battle groups:

a "lost empire" Paravian force;
an Orion force using "lost empire" weapons;
an "Omega's Lost Futures" Paravian force;
and perhaps a Zosman Marauder force in (or adjacent to) Omega-Paravian space.

Plenty of "ifs" in that list to get through first, I admit...

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 01:06 pm: Edit

My thought experiment here is to try and find the right balance between consistent volleys-per-turn and squadron speed without doubling (doubling only when you run in for overload shots)

I could swap one of the AWRs for another QWT (both cost zero BPV) on the DBRs and they would drop their fire-all-the-QWTs-every-turn speed to 19 which would match with the LR+. That's a consistent ten QWTs every turn at speed 19.

If we get an answer on the arc question, I may well do that, though the notion of using a reactor in at least one option mount to buttress the normal power budget is somewhat integral to the force idea.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 06:45 pm: Edit

Whatever the rulings I wish you the best of luck with them. I've yet to get QWTs to work. Then again one of our players pulls out a Hydran every time I pull out a Paravian.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Guven that rule 9 specifically allows C6 to be used, I see no reason Omega Cartel Orions using Paravian load outs would be prohibited.

9. Battle groups may be constructed entirely of ships from ... in Module E3 (Boark Star League), Module E4 (Peladine Republic), or Module C6 (Paravian Raiders and Carnivon Hordes).

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 09:19 pm: Edit

My 0.02 Quatloos worth...

IF this were a Cartel in Canon universe between Gorn and Federation spaces and the OPT mounts currently holding Quantum Wave Torpedoes were holding Photon Torpedoes, there'd be no question as to its legitimacy.

AND module C6 is allowed.

With these two bits as rationale, I say, "Why not."

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, November 08, 2022 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Kist because C6 is allowed doesn't mean Orions can use their weapons in option mounts... ditto for Lost Empires I'd think.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Wednesday, November 09, 2022 - 11:41 am: Edit

RE: Quantum Wave Torpedoes in Orion option mounts

In C6, FQ1.14 states that had the Paravians not been lost, the Orions would have the tech and even provided it to the WYN.

FQ1.114 states that QWTs are a one space weapon that can go in wing mounts.

FQ1.143 gives Y135 as the availability date for Orion use of QWTs. WYN gets it in Y140, and its available for Barbarian use in Y168.

Please help me figure out what I have missed.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Wednesday, November 09, 2022 - 01:28 pm: Edit

A question, The Paravians were lost before the year of the scenario, but can be used. Yet when I put a Fed fast DD in the fleet it was explained I could not use it because it had been destroyed prior to the date of the scenario. Just a question.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, November 09, 2022 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Hiver, take FOUR.


HIVER PATROL FORCE

By Jeff Anderson, U.S.S. California

CA (75): 3xBarb-2 (+42*), 2xT-bomb (+8), 1x Commando Squad (+1) = 126
CA (75): 3xBarb-2 (+42), 2xT-bomb (+8), 1x Commando Squad (+1) = 126
CA (75): 2xBarb-2 (+28), 2xT-bomb (+8), 2x Commando Squad (+2) = 113
CA (75): 2xBarb-2 (+28), 2xT-bomb (+8), 2x Commando Squad (+2) = 113
SCL (60): 2xT-bomb (+8), 2x Extra Boarding Parties (+1), 1x Commando Squad (+1), 2x Extra Probe (+2) = 72

Total: 550 points.

SCL needs the extra Boarding Parties in case of attempted capture. CA have their intrinsic BP already, plus Commandoes can be used as standard (defensive) Boarding Parties.

All ships retain at least one ADMIN shuttle; these things are just too darned useful. I don't know if we'll have to land troops planetside, but ADMIN can assist for that. I don't know if we'll be facing a monster, but ADMIN are useful as lab substitutes.

It is with the thought of monsters that I equipped the SCL with an additional pair of probes; with no LAB boxes on any of the ships, probes and shuttles will be important assets for gathering data points on the monster; even more than the Special Sensor aboard the SCL.

If anyone has any problems with this group composition, it's not yet set in stone, and I'll be happy to address any concerns.

(* Between us, I seriously doubt the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and, well, EVERYTHING is "How valuable are a trio of Barb-2 Fighters?" but you never know. )