| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 01:03 pm: Edit |
Jack wrote:
>>My vote would be a fixed map but am open to the idea of a different shape of some sort.>>
Yeah, an open map would be a disaster for any sort of competitive game. The last time I played on an open map, we were trying to do a Frigate Captain's Game campaign/tournament on SFBOL, and my F5 had to fight a WYN fish ship FF. And the game was (in the hands of my WYN opponent) "I fly around on this open map at high speed at R22, zinging with disruptors and letting drones run out of endurance. After a dozen turns, I score an internal and disengage! I win on Standard Victory Conditions!", until I pointed out that disengaging scored me a 25% VP score vs his 10% (from a point of internal damage), which became a debate as to whether or not disengaging on an open map counts as disengaging, etc.
That was pretty much the end of the Frigate Captain's Game.
| By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 01:46 pm: Edit |
What was the rationale behind open map disengagement being any different than fixed?
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 02:31 pm: Edit |
It was a long time ago. I think it was more along the lines of "It doesn't count as disengagement if I just leave."
As noted, it was a silly argument.
| By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 02:39 pm: Edit |
Yes, if you 'just leave' you disengaged. If you don't want to give up the 25% VPs, you can't 'just leave'.
Some people will argue anything to win though.
The more people I meet, the more I like my cat
(and I don't have a cat).
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, April 02, 2020 - 05:46 pm: Edit |
On the off chance that anyone was wondering why I was considering Middle Years ships for this proposed setup, I should mention that it spun off from a conversation which myself, Paul, and Barry were having on last week's Talkshoe recording, in regards to Barry's efforts to work up various Omega tournament ships.
The point I was trying to get at was that, for the most part, the current crop of Omega Octant SSDs are for "middle years" designs - the Vari command cruiser and wing cruiser in Captain's Log #23 being notable exceptions. Thus while considering the various challenges and limitations of the Omega empires as they currently exist in print, it's worth going back to the Middle Years ships in the Alpha Octant (and out in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud) to see that things were by no means as refined in those areas as might seem when looking at the more tricked-out options players have in the midst of the General War.
Or to put it another way, if one could take the proposed historical ships listed in my previous post and then offer a similar list of historical Omega cruisers, and put those ships in a similar "round-robin" using standard victory conditions and a different type of map, that might provide an interesting set of options.
Say, if you offered the following hull types:
Mæsron: heavy cruiser (115),
Koligahr: heavy cruiser (115),
Trobrin: Diamond heavy cruiser (135),
Vari: heavy cruiser (112),
Probr: Steel heavy cruiser (112/122),
Chlorophon: Great Oak heavy cruiser (118),
Drex: battlecruiser (136),
Alunda: Huntship (124),
Hiver: Heavy cruiser + 4 Barb-1s [75+(4*8/12)= 107/123],
Sigvirion: Invasion cruiser (140),
Loriyill: Firecruiser (118),
Iridani: Galleon + VIP Module + Weapons Module (124+12/8+10= 148/142),
Ymatrian: War Axe heavy cruiser (117),
Worb: heavy destroyer (115) or escort cruiser (130),
Federal Republic: armored cruiser (125),
Singer: heavy cruiser (116),
Bolosco: merchant cruiser + large self-defense pod (155/130+24/16 = 179/146),
Branthodon: Mature dragonship (126),
Zosman: heavy cruiser (95).
As with the Alpha Octant empires, these ships would have none of the refits offered for their respective empires, such as they are at this time.
One could even go so far as to remove the TM racks on that Bolosco ship, as outlined in (OR20.022); that would reduce the BPV to 151/126+24/16 = 175/142. Or, to make things interesting, one could keep the TMs and offer the MC by itself (with no pod), with a Guild cruiser plus a large self-defense pod (130/110+24/16 = 154/126) as an alternative.
As certain empires like the Andromedans and Seltorians aren't a factor in the Middle Years of the Alpha Octant, I was wary of throwing the Souldra into this mix. I'm also wary of adding the Ryn and Qixa, given how their combat ships are so heavily oriented towards fighting in their respective home territories.
By the way, the cost of the Zosman ship listed above is before any of the phaser and weapon mounts are accounted for, so the "final" cost may be subject to further adjustments.
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, April 02, 2020 - 06:28 pm: Edit |
Speaking of the Zosmans, I'd be wary of obliging players to limit their weapon options more than is already the case under (OR23.RA61). But given the limitations of a "tournament" (or "league") setup, I wonder if it might be an idea to provide a set of pre-packaged weapon options, based on which "primary territory" (OR23.RA62) the Zosman player were to select.
For example, the Zosmans historically operating in Mæsron space would rely primarily on Mæsron-sourced weapons: wide-angle phasers, tachyon guns, and/or tachyon missiles (which, for this particular setup, I might limit to TM-A racks). While an historical Zosman Marauder cell may select secondary (OR23.RA63) and/or tertiary (OR23.RA64) weapon sources, I wonder if it would be best to limit Zosman entrants here to a single primary source a a time. The upshot would be that separate Zosman entrants could pick different primary sources of weapons and end up flying their ships quite differently as a result.
Actually, Zosman ships "at home" in the Phi Sector (OR23.RA66) themselves rely solely on Mæsron-type weapons, so wouldn't have any "secondary" or "tertiary" weapon options to choose from in any event.
| By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 05, 2020 - 08:32 pm: Edit |
Gary,
Where do you find the OR23.RA rules?
| By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, April 06, 2020 - 11:38 am: Edit |
Ken, I found OR23.RA in Captain's Log #50, page 93.
| By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, April 06, 2020 - 01:58 pm: Edit |
... Aaand, as always, I made an oopsie... 
Much of what Gary posted about has its rules in Captain's Log #52. The Zosman Marauder update starts on page 72.
| By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, April 06, 2020 - 03:29 pm: Edit |
Thanks
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, April 06, 2020 - 04:17 pm: Edit |
To clarify, four playtest Zosman SSDs (for the heavy cruiser, light cruiser, destroyer, and frigate) are in Captain's Log #50, which also has rules for the Stealth field; though some of the more specific interactions are over in the CL50 Supplemental File. Captain's Log #52 includes the Zosman update file mentioned above, along with two more SSDs (for the Fence cruiser and Syndicate base).
To go back to the Alpha Octant, one other ship I forgot to mention was the Lyran Royal Panther early battlecruiser, which was introduced to Federation Commander in Briefing #2 and brought over to Star Fleet Battles in Captain's Log #39.
That might make for a quirky alternate option for Lyran players to consider in this proposed Middle Years setup.
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, April 17, 2020 - 12:34 pm: Edit |
Last night's Talkshoe recording discussed potential options for making a tournament cruiser out of the Federal Republic of Aurora's battlecruiser (OR17.6) - or, at least, as much as could be discussed in the midst of various technical difficulties.
There were a few thoughts which were mentioned in particular:
*It was proposed to increase its warp engines from 14 boxes to 15, so as to let the ship fight at Speed 31.
*In terms of shuttle bomb usage, it was suggested to replace the admin shuttles in the BC's port and starboard shuttle bays with pairs of shuttle bombs, but to start with the most "basic" shuttle bomb version to see how things go. (This would also apply to any shuttle bombs allowed to would-be Bolosco and Zosman TCs.)
*Over in the FC Omega playtest project, the current setup for tachyon missile racks is to provide all ships with TM-A racks as standard. Since these cost the same as short-range cannon mounts in historical Star Fleet Battles, having a tournament BC with the option of using TM-A racks rather than TM-B racks in place of its SRCs would leave the ship with the same "BPV", so to speak.
*The historical ship has weaker shields in the #3, E4, and #5 arcs, but has armour and a large battery deck to back hem up. I'd argue in favour of retaining this for a would-be FRA TC, rather than boosting the shields (and/or reducing the number of batteries); this would, in my view, retain more of the distinct character of the ship itself.
*In terms of alternate FRA cruiser options, there is an SSD for their latterly-acquired Klingon D7 in Captain's Log #53, as (OR17.A1). If for nothing else, that might give players the opportunity to fly a Klingon-built hull with photons in place of its disruptors...
In any case, I'd argue that one could find a means of making an FRA tournament cruiser work in a way that stands apart from the Fed TC, while providing newcomers to Omega a semi-familiar option to take or a spin. Whether or not anyone agrees with me on this is, off course, another story...
| By John Hall (Fedf111fan) on Sunday, May 03, 2020 - 03:45 am: Edit |
Where would be the best place to get playtest Magellanic Cloud tournament ships? Were they ever released?
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, May 08, 2020 - 02:24 pm: Edit |
Last night's Talkshoe recording discussed a potential TC based on the Bolosco Merchant Cruiser (OR20.2).
Some thoughts on this ship were, in no particular order:
*Upgrading the warp engines to let it fight at Speed 31, but not bothering with a pod.
*Sticking with the same tachyon missile options to be offered to other TM-equipped empires.
*Allowing the historical shuttle bomb deployment (a maximum of one admin shuttle to be swapped out for shuttle bombs), but limiting the shuttle bombs themselves to whatever standard is made available to the FRA.
*Perhaps setting the "lock the bulkheads" (OR20.033) rule on by default, so as to reduce some of the amount of padding the ship can rely on without having to start deleting boxes from the actual SSD.
*As an adjunct to the above discussion (or not), perhaps replacing the repair, fabrication, and works boxes with the type of box they are treated as on the DAC. I think that would be lab for fabrication and cargo for repair and works, but I might be mistaken.
*Perhaps limiting the choice of phaser types which may be selected for the ship, if any particular type was found to cause more trouble than the others.
The resulting ship would retain its impressive range of tractor-based options, short-ranged and power-hungry they might be. Still, it would be interesting to see it line up against a would-be Zosman tournament cruiser.
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, May 09, 2020 - 04:04 pm: Edit |
John wrote:
>>Where would be the best place to get playtest Magellanic Cloud tournament ships? Were they ever released?>>
There certainly were playtesty Magelanic Cloud TCs in existence at some point; yeah, I just looked in the SFBOL library, and there are totally Magelanic TCs there, listed as (Playtest). There is a Maghadim, Baduvai, and Eneen. I can't look at them right this second, but at least they exist.
I bet they are available somewhere.
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 - 07:14 pm: Edit |
So far as the "lost empire" Paravians of Module C6 go, I've been wondering if the command cruiser (R18.15) might work as the basis for a would-be Paravian tournament cruiser in Alpha Octant play.
However, in light of the recently-printed Omega-Paravian preview material in Captain's Log #54, I'm also wondering if perhaps an antiproton variant of the CC might make for an interesting addition to the proposed Omega TC lineup.
The CC has five QWT mounts, which could be swapped out for an antiproton lance plus three antiproton beams. This would give a would-be antiproton variant the optimal 3:1 APB:LNC ratio. The phaser-1 and phaser-3 mounts would be swapped out for AP-1 and AP-3 mounts respectively. The resulting ship would be quite dangerous at close range, most especially along the front "hex row of death"; but it would face the same problems as other antiproton hulls out there, in terms of how sharply its direct-fire damage output drops off at medium and long ranges, or what happens if an opponent is not so obliging as to line themselves up along the front hex row...
It isn't formally spelled out at this time of writing, but I would also suggest allowing a phaser/QWT-armed Paravian TC to stand in as an option for the Omega-Paravians - as in, to allow them to take either the torpedo or antiproton variant to the battle - and, in turn, to allow a would-be Zosman TC to consider phaser-1s and QWTs for its own option mounts, on top of any other Omega phaser and heavy weapon types the Marauders would have available to them in a tournament context.
Of course, even getting to the point where something could be done with a viable crop of would-be Omega TCs is a challenge in and of itself. I defer to the tournament experts in terms of considering whether the Omega-Paravians (in either weapon loadout) would benefit such a project or not.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |