Hmmm, income, well at it's base the LDR is 7 vs the Tholian 22 so that's more than two but ME's trade brings the LDR up to 15 and vs 22, it's not twice (just under a quarter better) ... (g)

Also, I think the key word was 'space' not 'income' ... (gg)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, November 11, 2020 - 03:17 am: Edit

Jeff,

To be clear, the inability of the CAN to pinwheel is not the reason I dislike it. The Tholian CA and CC cannot pinwheel and they are fine ships, especially the CC. I don't think the pinwheel should be the "go-to" Tholian tactic in any case. It is a specialized tactic to use in a few special cases. I dislike the CAN due to its low speed, which puts it at too great a disadvantage in some circumstances.

The CAN has movement cost of one and generates 35 points of power. But the additional power over the standard CW is from APR. With the standard CW engines, the CAN has an absolute maximum speed of 25. Now, I don't always fight at high speed; it depends on the tactical situation. But I want ships that are capable of moving at high speed if necessary. A maximum speed of 25 cedes too much initiative to the enemy.

More to this; at even moderate speeds the CAN is unable to arm as many weapons each turn as the CW, since it pays more for movement. At speed-15, for example, the CAN pays 19 points for movement+housekeeping. It can only spend 16 points per turn on weapons/EW/etc. The CW spends 14 for movement+housekeeping, yielding 17 points per turn for weapons/EW/etc.

The CAN does also have two more batteries than the CW. If both ships use their batteries and don't spend power to recharge them, the CAN gains a one-turn advantage, 21 to 20. But as far as sustained firepower over multiple turns is concerned, the CAN only really outguns the CW at speeds less than 12 due to power limitations.

The CAN is described as assigned to defend Tholian bases, a role for which the low speed is less critical. But the weaponry is... questionable... for that specific mission. Phaser-1s are vastly superior for base defense, since the ship will usually be behind webs. And it has no more phaser-1s than the CW. IF it were configured as a "phaser boat" with all six disruptors converted to phaser-1s, it would indeed be a great web-defense ship. But as it is, those disruptors only come into play when the web has been breached. With six extra phaser-1s firing every turn, the Tholians would do far more damage while the Klingons are stuck on the outer web, making those Klingons much weaker when they finally due get through.

So, no, I'm not a fan of the CAN. Its power availability is poor for "open space" and its weapons are mismatched for base defense. If the CW isn't enough for some mission, don't use the CAN. Go with a CWL or CWH; two nice upgrades to the already-nice Tholian CW.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, November 11, 2020 - 03:17 am: Edit

Deleted - accidental double post.

By Jay Gustason (Jay20) on Wednesday, November 11, 2020 - 09:12 pm: Edit

Would these be mini modules

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 11, 2020 - 10:37 pm: Edit

As promised, I spoke today at lunch with Steve Petrick about Andro escorts (and fast tholians) and pointed out that even if "stupid and impossible" and "unworkable within the context of their mission" that players were actually willing to give money to us for them.

It was noted that "most players did not want any conjectural ships" but that "most players wanted what they wanted even if conjectural was the only way it could be done."

He was in a good mood (I bought lunch, paying off a bet on a non-SFU matter) and seemed to tacitly agree to think about it one more time.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 08:01 am: Edit

Count me among the "want more stuff" brigade. I'd rather it not be conjectural but if it's in pdf form it doesn't matter what it is: I'll buy it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 11:52 am: Edit

We are always mystified by people who don't want conjectural ships. Naval minis gaming is full of them (USS Montana is a perennial favorite). You guys get furious if we "change the history" but you want the ships you want even if history doesn't allow them, then don't want them to be conjectural and oh by the way don't dare change the history. We cannot win that circular argument.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 11:59 am: Edit

Perhaps a better way to look at it is: You can't please all of the people all of the time... So do what you think is right and let the naysayers say nay prior to pounding sand!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 12:09 pm: Edit

If we do what we think is right ... people complain that wasn't what they wanted.

If we do what people say they want ... people say we didn't do what is right.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 12:35 pm: Edit

While I prefer "historical" ships, I don't so much mind "conjectural" ships that are "unbuilt variants"; ships that the empire in question never built, but could have under different circumstances. So I don't have a real problem with Fed PFs, or battleships for empires other than the Klingons. But though I'm not quite sure why, I've never liked the "impossible" ships like heavy PFs or X-tech light dreadnoughts.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 12:38 pm: Edit

@SVC: Then let them eat cake!

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Addendum to the previous: Still, I prefer historical ships to conjectural, unbuilt variants; even if the historical ship was a "Unique" or LP2 ship.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Regarding "changing history": It seems to me there are still some "gaps" in the history that would allow new ships. Obviously the history is very explicit that the Federation never built PFs. Making the "Thunderbolts" historical would change history. But consider the "Ranger" class Battlecruiser published in CL48. It is an unbuilt variant, intended as an RTN hunter, with Special Sensors in the dorsal weapon positions, rather than drone racks or Type-F plasma torpedoes. This ship makes a lot of sense to me and I think it should have been historical rather than conjectural. And prior to CL48, the history was silent on the existance of such a ship, neither confirming nor denying any such ship ever existed. So making it real would not have violated history. And given the time frame, introducing it as a real ship would not have upset F&E. The ship was only contemplated during the Andro invasion, and only after the nature of the RTN was discovered.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 01:18 pm: Edit

I love conjectural ships, I have always seen every ship as conjectural, some just more than others. How about a battle group article with conjectural ships only or at least part of.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 01:26 pm: Edit

I don't think that a few conjecturals here and there slow down X2. There are reasons why X2 hasn't happened (which I have stated many times, that no matter what we print 2/3 of you will complain we did it wrong) and they have nothing to do with other products. But for those reasons, it would have been done a decade ago. I just got tired of getting my teeth kicked in every time I tried to work on it. There were always those who said "never mind them, just do SOMETHING and do it now" but vast overwhelming majority declared "do it MY WAY and no other way no matter what anyone else says do it my way or I will hate you forever."

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 02:01 pm: Edit

The history of the SFU is very well defined after 40+ years of products, so there is narrowing scope for more "real" Alpha Sector ships. Now part of being a good game designer is finding more spaces that aren't immediately obvious to the rest of us, but that's still only gets but so far. Mixing conjectural ships in helps extend that supply, and gives other interesting options. Plus, in the case of things like fast Tholians,they have use for non-historical campaign play.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Meh. It's a sci-fi game. You can always retcon what is conjectural and what is not - though doing so is a PITA because of the canon of prior products.

Easier just to call stuff "conjectural".

The only reason why it matters is to some campaigns that might exclude "conjectural" ships.

Perhaps a way to address that is to call an otherwise good new design "a prototype" that was ultimately rejected for whatever reason. Thus, give it the "UNQ" designation so that it's part of the "real" canon, but you don't have to go through and retcon an existing canon.

Or whatever. Personally, I don't care.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Something I have noticed is that a lot of player input is based on: "I need you to publish something that forces my local opponent to use the ships and rules I want to use."

Anyone saying he doesn't want conjecturals is probably in some kind of campaign where those are not allowed. Which meant there were two sides to the argument and you want me to overrule the winning side.

Don't expect me to order your opponent to use your rules. And don't expect me to order him to let you date his sister (which I was asked to do, once).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 05:28 pm: Edit

I think I am to the point of telling the "do not want conjectural ships brigade" that I just cannot accommodate their wishes any further, whatever their reasons for those wishes may be.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 07:53 pm: Edit

There's already more ships in the game than any of us are ever going to be able to fly in or against in our lives - whether a given ship or collection is "real" or "conjectural" seems kind of moot in the face of that. We have the unbuilt variant and similar designations so the line itself isn't that sharp, either.

And if X2 is one's big want - as SVC describes it is a very hot button project that people want very different things from, and from a design POV making second-gen X-ships something more interesting than just first-gen X-ships BUT MORE is a large ask. I see it as closer to designing a new game that runs on the core SFB engine much more than "here's a collection of cool ships". Especially keeping in mind the original X1 and the updates that had to be made to it to make X-ships play as something other than massive phaser boats. And I doubt ADB will have the same opportunity to redo X2 if it drops with the same kind of flaws as X1.

Compared to that, knocking out a handful of obvious variants isn't a significant diversion of effort. If anything, it's a creative break that keeps the team from burning out by focusing on one large, complex project.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Thursday, November 12, 2020 - 08:55 pm: Edit

That's why I would like to see a Dark Futures module. Contain ships that only existed as part of the dark future where are the Andromedans defeated the Galactics.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Friday, November 13, 2020 - 03:03 am: Edit

Mybr asins have nothing to do with caring about the history. I know some people who won't use conjectural ships. That means if I buy then then I won't be using them with those people. The "real" ships thus can get more use.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Friday, November 13, 2020 - 10:13 am: Edit

That's what happens when I post at 3:00am.

"My reasons."

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, November 13, 2020 - 10:42 am: Edit

X2. I want X2.

Will I get what I want? Eventually.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Friday, November 13, 2020 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Here's my view of both the cloud of discussion around X2 and the conjectural question.

I think about these sorts of issues in terms of the problem of local maxima.  For those unfamiliar with the ideas of local maxima and local minima, think of a mountain range. There are many peaks and many valleys. If you wanted to climb to the top of the tallest peak you might say to yourself "I will follow the rule 'always climb up' since the highest peak is at the highest point and therefore it is always 'up.'"  And if you follow this rule, you will fail. You will end up at the highest point on the closest mountain, and be confused as to why you can still, in the far off distance, see a higher peak.

The point is that in order to go up, sometimes you have to go down first. When you find yourself at that local highest peak (local maximum), you need to climb down to the ridgeline in order to then climb to the top of the higher peak.

I have preferences when it comes to both conjectural ships and X2.

I want you (ADB) to give me what I don't want, so that I can have what I really want.

I'd rather have a historical production ship than a unique ship. I'd rather have a unique ship than an unbuilt ship. I'd rather have an unbuilt ship than a conjectural ship. I'd rather have a conjectural ship than an impossible ship.

All of those preferences are secondary to simply wanting a cool and interesting new ship. In order to give me what I really really want (finding the highest peak, having a cool and interesting new ship), you must violate my local, less important preferences.

X2 is similar. I'm not sold on the 50%/200% damage rule.

I want X2, even if it is built around that 50%/200% damage rule.  The cool new ideas and ships that come with X2 will more than make up for the violation of my local preferences.

I prefer historic ships to conjectural, and I (unfortunately) think I might count as someone who Steve Cole was thinking of when he said "I just got tired of getting my teeth kicked in every time I tried to work on it."

Put another way, Star Fleet Battles has been around since 1979. It is, in 2020, still owned by (more or less) the same people, and those people are producing a new module this year.

41 years is a long time. This product has stood the test of time. I trust that the people who make it are smart and talented enough to produce something that I'd want to buy, even if it has some elements that in some local sense I didn't want, since I know that the overall end product will make up for it. I trust the design vision, I trust the skill, and I trust the wisdom of the people who spent 41 years making this game what it is.

I only speak for myself, but I suspect that those with complaints or negative reactions to some design element here or there are probably, consciously or not, running some similar mental program.