| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:50 am: Edit |
David Kass
There is a max limit of 2 PFTs per turn, by any means, for any race. One of these can be done during production and one can be done by conversion (at least, that’s how I read (432.42)). Note that SCS, BCS, probably the DCS, and now maybe Heavy Fighter Carriers (being discussed in Fighter Operations development) all count against the PFT limit. Would a Strike Tender count again the PFT limit as well? Probably. However, maybe I could talk SVC into making them “one per year outside of the PFT limit” J.
Quote:As near as I can tell, the limit is on the number of PFT that can be built, so each Strike PFT is going to replace a standard PFT. It won't give extra PFTs (at least that is my understanding based on the Lyrans in F&E).
Here I disagree, as a normal PFT is pretty toothless by itself, so having the firepower of a CA along could be quite handy. I admit that having SpecSens help the normal PFTs on patrol, but since SPFTs will be patrolling the front lines / border areas, there are usually enough bases to help the ship find a target.
Quote:Sure the Strike PFT will make a nice patrol unit. But it costs three times as much as a standard CA while patroling the same space. A standard PFT can do a better job at the patrol role. It has the scout sensors to cover significant extra terrain (perhaps enough to make up for its cost difference compared to a CA). The firepower difference between a the PF flotilla by itself and the PF flotilla plus Strike PFT is small and irrelevant against the types of things a patrol expects to encounter.
Cost-wise, the Strike Tender is expensive, but I don’t believe it has the same combat firepower of a “fast ship or X-destroyer/frigate”. While the cruiser alone would be a close-to-even match, adding the PFs (which is what was done with the cost comparison) makes a fast ship or X-destroyer/frigate seriously outgunned.
Quote:Note that your strike PFT costs twice what an X-cruiser costs and triple what a fast ship or X-destroyer/frigate costs. And all of them have the same 2 SE pin equivalents and much the same firepower.
I wouldn’t want to risk a normal PFT in an independent raid, however, the SPFT is powerful enough to fight in conjunction with the PFs, meaning that they all have a better change of survival.
Quote:Based on the SFB material, scout sensor are required for PF raids (see (K2.0) or (SH152.48), for example). I suspect this is partly due to the weaker PF sensor suites. I don't think these raids are represented yet in F&E (or perhaps since all but command PFT have sensors, its been subsumed into the current rules).
The basic idea of a PF raid is to not risk the PFT in the raid at all. By the time PFs are available all races (except for the Feds--who don't have PFTs) are exhausted and cannot afford to risk their ships in such operation, so the PFT doesn't go along at all to avoid as much risk as possible. The problem is that if the PFT comes along and is then killed, not only has a cruiser been lost, but so have all its PFs (since they don't have the legs to get home on their own). And my guess is that many targets of PF raids are capable of killing even a cruiser (PFs represent between 2 and 3 cruisers worth of firepower).
I can see personal preference playing a role. While I generally don’t mind EW, I really don’t like special sensors. As things stand right now, if you want to bring a flotilla of PFs, you either have to bring a Scout-PFT (special sensors, most without much offensive capability), an SCS (requires escorts, reducing combat ability), BCS (requires escorts, reducing combat ability), the upcoming DCS (special sensors and escorts), or a casual flotilla (which requires you have at least 3 other ships, which may be a larger battle than you wanted). A CA-based, non-scout, PFT would allow PF operations without some of these hassles.
Quote:This is why I think that for a squadron, the choice is going to be a standard PFT + CWL + CW + 3 DW versus Strike PFT + 2 CW + 2 DW + FFS (or maybe, if lucky, a DWS). For most races where you're proposing Strike PFTs, I think I'd prefer the first force. This is a close call, and definitely at the level of personal preference (I like EW). As I stated earlier, the squadron command role is the one place where a Strike PFT has some potential.
I realized my mistake about an hour after I posted that, but it was too late to change it (I hoped no one would notice J).
Quote:Um, the rule in SFB is the same as in F&E, its 3 squadrons of attrition units. So it would be SCS + PFT, providing 2 PF flotillas and one fighter squadron. This is the standard operating force (see the Kzinti force in Operation Remus, led by the SCS Titan and the PFT Unicorn as a classic example). In a full fleet, even the D6S is streached for EW support (and most fleets have to make do with a weaker CWS), so the extra scout support from the (standard) PFT is very necessary. For example, as a Kzinti, I find I like to have a MSC, MPF and a SDF for scout support (I'd take a CD instead of the SDF, but just can't justify having them assigned to fleets).
Quote:There is one other place the Strike Tenders could see action. By the rules, SFB fleets are allow (IIRC) 3 flotillas of PFs in a single fleet. How are you going to fill out these slots? An SCS and 2xPFTs? Perhaps, but then again, perhaps by using a Strike Tender could give you more direct combat power and give you a 3rd flotilla at the same time. Food for thought.
I didn’t catch that discussion, which is unfortunate. Maybe the Kzinti SPF could be an UNV, the Hydran a UNQ, the Fed CJ, and the Gorn a Limited design. Then again, maybe I’m just letting this discussion go on for too long
Quote:Back when there was discussion of adding the R10 NCA ships to F&E (before R10 was published), there was a discussion of what the NCA-PFT factors would be (this came out of several players wanting to see the ships included as soon as possible). Many alliance players hoped/wanted things like 6-8P or 7-8P (and the SSD to support such). The flip side was that the Alliance PFT philosophy was to not include heavy weapons on their PFT. SVC made a comment to the effect that all the races would follow their philosophy. This is very obvious when R10 was released (I don't know what the actual factors are but my guess is they're something like 3-8P). My guess is that the alliance races can't afford the loss of a hull, so they won't build a PFT hull that might be risked in combat (or at least any closer than the scout echelon).
Quote:...I had the choice of a 8-9P COMPOT Strike Tender or a 2-7P MPF (Kzinti here), I think the choice is obvious (the scout sensors give a bonus in Small Scale Combat, but not enough to overcome a 6 COMPOT difference IMO).
Due to the Alliance race design philosophy, I would argue they would never build a strike PFT to start with. It does not match their concept of PFT design. This effectively eliminates the Kzinti, Gorn, Hydran and Tholian designs (as anything other than conjectural).
.42
| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:05 am: Edit |
BTW David,
After looking over my designs again, I have decided that the ISC CCT and CTC need to be downgraded to CVS weapons. I don't have the R5 rulebook, so I didn't realize the BCS and BCV used a different hull than the CC.
When I started designing these ships, I originally planned to start with the CVS and just convert them to PFTs. However, as I went through the various races it became apparent that the conversions weren't that easy. Looks like when I got to the ISC I just went with the "already has PFs" hull for the design. I'll upload the newer version later this evening.42
| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:54 pm: Edit |
I've updated the Klingon BPV and ISC ships on the Strike Tender page.
I've also created an alternative Tholian version (not linked on the page) that uses the PC-PFT as a base. I'm not a big fan of it, but I created it in response to some of the comments posted here.
NOTE: I didn't change the BPV on either the ISC or alt. Tholian.42
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:16 am: Edit |
Robert Cole:
One suggestion concerning aesthetics. I believe it would look better if the exterior lines remained straight and instead the repair boxes were moved to the inside. Imagine that the junction between the two hulls is moved from its current location just below the FA+L/FA+R Ph-1s up to a line roughly equal to the two FA disruptors. The webcaster would be placed on that line between the disruptors and the four repair boxes would be in a 2*2 cluster approximately where the webcaster is now. I think this would make a more attractive SSD.
| By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 02:13 am: Edit |
I personally really like the strike tender idea and have watched it grow from Robert's ideas (scarry).
The Romulan ROC is the perfect example and it makes perfect sense to me.
| By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:16 pm: Edit |
I'm hoping someone can help me here, because I must be misunderstanding something.
A strike tender has no special sensors. Therefore, it can't loan to its flotilla. How is this a tender?
Would it not be easier to simply add additional casual mechlinks to an existing hull (i.e. provide a rule allowing more than two casual links in limited circumstances)? You don't have the repair, but so what? It would be easier to say that one PF can be serviced of the shuttle bay using a collapsible whatever, but only between scenarios.
It's just a couple of minor rules changes with limited applicability.
| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit |
The same way an SCS/BCS is. Carriers and PF Tenders can loan EW to their flotilla without SpecSensors.42
| By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:33 pm: Edit |
With regard to fast tenders, I really don't see what the problem is.
Take a CW that already has excess warp. Modify it to be a heavy scout with repair and mechlinks. Modify the engines to upgrade them to fast (this may only be a non-SSD change reflected in the EPV).
BAM! You're there. The ship makes perfect sense as a raider, would be imminently useful by combining the late war heavy scout with a tender, thereby eliminating a hull, and it's a new ship type.
Balance issues arise when you do this with an NCA. However, it's a heavy scout and tender in one hull, which would have a high EPV. It makes sense instead of having two separate hulls. I think that addresses the balance question. Using two separate hulls, such as a heavy scout and PFT, provides more sensors (say 2 more), much more combined survivability and power (while the power CURVES of the two ships wouldn't match the Fast Tender, the combined EW "lendability" would), but those advantages come at the price of producing and maintaining two separate hulls. Plus they don't have the strategic speed.
A fast tender makes sense. The question is what type of hull to put it on (and two types could work, one DW one NCA). Remember this is a late war/Pacification era proposal, not something that floats around in Y175-180. Say the intro date is around Y182 (but I'm not good with years, so perhaps it comes out a couple of years after fast ships) when it became clear the PFT wasn't good enough in the scout role, but was too much of a scout just to support the flotilla.
| By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit |
Robert Cole:
Ooops. I know the PFS must use its ss to loan to the flotilla, and I confused it with the PFT having to use an ss to loan to the flotilla. I know a carrier does not.
I never use PFTs because they aren't good scouts and therefore, in my opinion, are a wasted hull (i.e. just use mechlinks) when I have limited points to spend. So my experience with PFTs is limited.
So, what the Strike Tender does is essentially what the Lyran BCH does - takes a BC and adds the tender facilities?
This is a decent idea, going to the opposite extreme of what I'm proposing.
I like it now, although I'm not sure the BC hull is the right one to use.
So, PFTs should be replaced with Strike Tenders (i.e. combat hulls) to support PF operations (i.e. can use heavy weapons without blinding the principal asset of the ss), and I suggest we come up with a heavy scout/tender combination. The Fast Tender can fill this role (justifying part of the utility of the fast tender), but it still has the independent operability I noted.
| By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit |
Carriers and PF Tenders can loan EW to their flotilla without SpecSensors.42
Carriers, yes.
PF Tenders, I don't think so. Better check on that one (no rulebook at work).
IIRC, PFTs and scout PFs need special sensors to lend EW, and the only ship (SC-4 and larger) that a PF-Scout can lend to is its tender.
| By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit |
Jeff:
I also don't have my rulebook, but I think Robert is right because the Lyran BCH is a "true PFT, that can lend to its flotilla" even though it has no specsens. I have to admit I was probably mistaken in my original post.
| By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit |
PF tenders can't lend EW without Special Sensors. (K2.52) Need one channel per flotilla.
Edited to correct an error.
| By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:53 am: Edit |
Robert Cole:
Your jedi mind powers will no longer work on me!
K2.52 does indeed require a specsens to loan to the flotilla.
Therefore, I raise my original objection to strike tenders. All you really need to do to carry out the mission of the strike tender is add more than two casual mechlinks to a CC. This could be done by a special rule exception rather than a new ship class.
What we need are tenders that can function as heavy scouts. Further, a fast tender adds significantly to the effectiveness of PFs by giving them a greater strategic striking capability.
| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 12:12 pm: Edit |
I stand corrected on the EW business, but that does not invalidate the Strike Tender design.
Both the SCS and BCS class (nor does the Romulan ROC or CH) have no special sensors, so obviously SpecSens are not required to make a ship a true PF Tender. While most of these ships will never operate alone (SCS, BCS, ROC) because of various rules in S8 (carrier escorts, DN rules) neither will they be required to have a scout. The Chicken Hawk is the best example, as the two ships are capable of independant patrol and Tender duties without special sensors.
Fast PF Tenders look good on paper, but I fear they would be very unbalancing due to the excess power. There is a reason normal fast ships have 1/2 of thier heavy weapons (and a similar reason why the Kzinti BF and NCF use D-racks), as it is a balance point. Special Sensors are almost self-balancing due to the power requirements, but if a ship has gads of excess power then the balance is a little closer to the edge.42
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 12:45 pm: Edit |
Marc Baluda and Robert Cole:
A few more points on Strike PFTs are in order.
First, note that except for scenario-specific special rules, casual tenders carry only standard PFs, not Leader or Scout Types. So three ships with two mech links each would carry a casual flotilla of six standard combat PFs. This has about 20% more firepower than the flotilla carried by a true PFT (and a ship can indeed be a true PFT without special sensors) but is less flexible due to lacking a leader and (more importantly) has much less EW capability. (Additionally, a Strike PFT could, as a true PFT, repair its PFs.) Note that since a PF flotilla is still subject to the six point lent EW limit, the PFS by itself could fully support the flotilla.
Second, a PFS can lend EW to its own tender. This would allow the PFS to support the Strike Tender without tying up special sensors from the fleet scout/heavy scout. Even though a PFS has two special sensors, it is forbidden from supporting its flotilla and its Tender at the same time. It would have to choose which option was most important based on the tactical situation. But the option is a useful thing to have.
A casual flotilla carried on mech link refits to standard warships is less capable than a flotilla carried by a True PFT. So let's consider two possible alternatives. The first alternative is a Command Cruiser plus a heavy (CW-based) PFT. The second would be a Strike PFT plus a heavy scout. Either alternative would require the use of one heavy cruiser hull and one war cruiser hull. The first alternative would have slightly more firepower since the Strike Tender loses either power or weapons or both compared to the CC. But the second alternative gives better EW support to the fleet since most CW-based PFTs only have two special sensors while CW-based scouts typically have four. Either alternative seems viable.
Robert Cole:
Did you consider the aesthetic change I suggested to your alternate version of the Tholian Strike PFT? Not a big deal since it's functionally identical to yours, but I do think the changes make a nicer looking SSD.
| By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 01:34 pm: Edit |
Robert Cole, Alan Trevor:
I agree that a ship can be a "true PFT" without specsens, and I understand the tradeoffs of the casual vs. standard flotilla (i.e. a PFS and PFL, plus group lending by the tender/PFS).
My point is this:
Option 1
PFS = 100EPV
PFT = @140 EPV
SC = @150 EPV
--------------
390 EPV (on a relative basis, excluding other assets)
OR
Option 2
PF = 22 EPV (although this represents an increase in firepower)
Fast tender/heavy scout tender = say 200 EPV
---------------
200 EPV (same assumption)
Why would anyone build option 1? It has few advantages (one being the added heavy weapons of the PFT, if any, but that is partially offset by the extra combat PF).
That's why we need a fast tender or heavy scout tender. Plus, the fast tender can do things strategically that none of the other ships can. And let me again clarify that the Fast tender would need a minimum of four specsens, preferably 6 to act as a heavy scout, thereby allowing it to support fleet ops.
Now, look at the strike tender. It is a CC/BC, but has 6 PFs that it can repair, and is a "true PFT" so it can have a standard flotilla. Is the loss in firepower on the strike tender worth the addition of the PFS and PFL? Why not maintain the firepower and just provide for a special mission rule allowing additional mechlinks on a standard CC/BC, even if it only provides 4 PFs? That's still as much firepower as the Strike Tender and its PFs (which, by the way, is not much more than a CW PFT). There is no PFS to lend to the flotilla OR tender on any given turn, but the standard CC/BC is so much cheaper to build. Also, a PFS could in fact be dedicated under a special mission rule, and the special mission configuration could allow one PF to be repaired via the shuttle bay between scenarios (in essence these being new rules regarding casual PFS and collapsible bays, but that could be something K2 addresses).
It just doesn't seem like the capability of the strike tender is worth the price, by a large margin.
I will admit that it is something that could be added to K2 as a one-off, but I just don't see the feasibility of this ship class.
| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit |
Alan Trevor:
I did, but since I really hate the look of the alternative I designed, I’m pretty much leaning towards giving the Tholians a weaker SPFT (their superior PFs can pick up the slack). Maybe I’ll put a note in the description that the addition of the Web Caster made the CCT too power hungry, which is why no others ever received one.42
Quote:Did you consider the aesthetic change I suggested to your alternate version of the Tholian Strike PFT? Not a big deal since it's functionally identical to yours, but I do think the changes make a nicer looking SSD.
| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit |
Marc Baluda: Please elaborate on you BPV comparison… I’m not sure I follow it (frex: option one has a PFS and a SC?, option 2 only lists 22 for a PF?).
A Fast Tender won’t get 6 Special Sensors. Period. 4 on some ships, but I’d be 2 on most (remember that Sensors usually replace heavy weapons and Fast ships have 1/2 the heavies of a normal cruiser).
Quote:That's why we need a fast tender or heavy scout tender. Plus, the fast tender can do things strategically that none of the other ships can. And let me again clarify that the Fast tender would need a minimum of four specsens, preferably 6 to act as a heavy scout, thereby allowing it to support fleet ops.
First I want to avoid special rules. They are fine in a scenario but I want my “pickup battles” and campaigns to be a straight up affair. Second, compare a Kzinti MPF against the proposed CCT.
Quote:Now, look at the strike tender. It is a CC/BC, but has 6 PFs that it can repair, and is a "true PFT" so it can have a standard flotilla. Is the loss in firepower on the strike tender worth the addition of the PFS and PFL? Why not maintain the firepower and just provide for a special mission rule allowing additional mechlinks on a standard CC/BC, even if it only provides 4 PFs? That's still as much firepower as the Strike Tender and its PFs (which, by the way, is not much more than a CW PFT).
Again, I don’t like special mission rules outside of a scenario. Also: don’t bet on PFs ever being able to fit in a shuttle-bay. Maybe a casual collapsible bay could be intro’d in K2, but that would make PFTs even less valuable.
Quote:There is no PFS to lend to the flotilla OR tender on any given turn, but the standard CC/BC is so much cheaper to build. Also, a PFS could in fact be dedicated under a special mission rule, and the special mission configuration could allow one PF to be repaired via the shuttle bay between scenarios (in essence these being new rules regarding casual PFS and collapsible bays, but that could be something K2 addresses).
After all this discussion, I think it’s obvious we disagree, which is fine. Hopefully I’ll be proved “right” should a K2 ever be made J. 42
Quote:It just doesn't seem like the capability of the strike tender is worth the price, by a large margin.
I will admit that it is something that could be added to K2 as a one-off, but I just don't see the feasibility of this ship class.
| By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit |
Robert Cole:
"Also, when compared to a standard CC, the CCT only lost 4xAPR, so a CCT + a PF flotilla is considerably more than a CC + 4 casual PFs. Of course, other SPFTs lost more or less than this particular ship, but the point still stands."
I was under the impression that the CCT sacrificed some heavy weapons, based on what I saw on the ISC SSD. If not, than what you are doing is simply adding boxes to the CC, which can't be done.
| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 04:34 pm: Edit |
Can't? I don't know why you say can't. IIRC, most of my SPFTs had a one-for-one box exchange. Most lost 1-2 phasers and 1-2 points of power, some lost more. The ISC is the only one to lose heavy weapons (and originally, even it didn't lose any heavies). The Kzinti is one of the few (the Gorn is another) that actually adds to the original box count.42
| By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 05:05 pm: Edit |
Oh, okay. I thought they all lost heavy weapons, which is why I equated the firepower.
So the SPFT class is analogous to the Lyran BCH?
| By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 05:17 pm: Edit |
Similar in that they don't lose many weapons, yes. Similar in the amount of weapons, no. Many of them are like a CVS, but with PFs instead of fighters.42
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit |
Robert Cole:
How about lowering the bottom line on the SSD outline slighly and then moving the web generators and entire impulse engine down one row? This allows room to split the six box repair into three repair and three APR. Base BPV (prior to snare/webcaster refits) should probably increase to 150.
Or if that's too much an even simpler solution would be to dump the two flank Ph-1s (LS/RS) and change those boxes to APR. This, incidently, would give the CCT exactly the same weapons and power as the CA/CAW (except that the CA has 24 warp, 4 impulse, 3 APR while the CCT would have 24 warp, 5 impulse and 2 APR - but 31 points generated plus three reserve in either case.) BPV shouldn't increase in this case since the loss of Ph-1s should at least cancel out the APR gain.
But with only 29 points generated power, I don't think the Tholians can justify refitting any of the ships at all with webcasters.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 09:05 pm: Edit |
Robert Cole:
One other thing I just noticed, given the YIS for these ships, Phasers no. 4 and 5 on the Klingon D7T should probably be upgraded to Ph-1, since this is after the K-refit which would, among other things, have converted D7Cs to D7Ls. (YIS for D7L is Y175.)
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 09:39 pm: Edit |
Regarding the idea of a fast PFT, I don't see why K2 couldn't include these as well, at least for those races that still had fast cruisers left when PFs appeared. I do think they should only be allowed 2 special sensors, replacing the heavy weapons. But since there haven't been many proposals so far for new PFs (and the few that have appeared haven't sparked much interest) there might be plenty of room in K2 for several different types of new PFTs, just as J2 had several different types of new carriers. Strike PFTs versus Fast PFTs is not an either/or situation.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |