|Archive through February 03, 2011||25||02/03 02:33pm|
|Archive through February 04, 2011||25||02/04 10:32pm|
|Archive through February 08, 2011||25||02/09 12:34pm|
|Archive through February 20, 2011||25||02/21 02:19pm|
|Archive through February 27, 2011||25||02/28 12:40pm|
|Archive through March 06, 2011||25||03/07 09:09am|
|Archive through March 08, 2011||25||03/09 11:31am|
|Archive through March 17, 2011||25||03/19 01:48pm|
|Archive through March 21, 2011||25||03/22 10:53am|
|Archive through March 25, 2011||25||03/26 01:58am|
|Archive through March 27, 2011||25||03/27 04:45pm|
|Archive through March 31, 2011||25||04/03 06:01am|
|Archive through April 05, 2011||25||04/06 12:39am|
|Archive through April 08, 2011||25||04/08 12:18pm|
|Archive through April 09, 2011||25||04/09 06:14pm|
|Archive through April 10, 2011||25||04/11 12:13am|
|Archive through April 13, 2011||25||04/14 01:20am|
|Archive through April 15, 2011||25||04/15 11:46pm|
|Archive through April 17, 2011||25||04/17 02:01pm|
|Archive through April 19, 2011||25||04/19 06:12pm|
|Archive through April 23, 2011||25||04/27 04:31pm|
|Archive through May 03, 2011||25||05/15 10:52am|
|Archive through May 17, 2011||25||05/17 03:58pm|
|Archive through May 19, 2011||25||05/19 12:37pm|
|Archive through May 20, 2011||25||05/20 02:21pm|
|Archive through May 25, 2011||25||05/26 02:36pm|
|Archive through June 12, 2011||25||06/12 07:41pm|
|Archive through June 15, 2011||25||06/17 02:06pm|
|Archive through June 29, 2011||25||07/03 07:22pm|
|Archive through July 14, 2011||25||07/14 12:35pm|
|Archive through July 14, 2011||25||07/14 07:52pm|
|Archive through July 15, 2011||25||07/15 04:12pm|
|Archive through July 18, 2011||25||07/18 09:23pm|
|Archive through July 21, 2011||25||07/21 11:22am|
|Archive through July 22, 2011||25||07/22 12:40pm|
|Archive through July 22, 2011||25||07/23 01:29pm|
|Archive through August 05, 2011||25||08/05 08:41pm|
|Archive through August 28, 2011||25||09/03 12:01am|
|Archive through September 29, 2011||25||09/29 09:52pm|
|Archive through October 02, 2011||25||10/03 03:04pm|
|Archive through October 21, 2011||25||10/22 02:56pm|
|Archive through November 07, 2011||25||11/15 12:32pm|
|Archive through November 21, 2011||25||11/22 03:14pm|
|Archive through December 16, 2011||25||12/21 04:09pm|
|Archive through December 22, 2011||25||12/22 09:40pm|
|Archive through January 10, 2012||25||01/10 07:40pm|
|Archive through January 16, 2012||25||01/16 06:41pm|
|Archive through January 28, 2012||25||01/30 01:05pm|
|Archive through January 31, 2012||25||01/31 05:20pm|
|Archive through February 26, 2012||25||02/26 04:31pm|
|Archive through February 28, 2012||25||03/01 04:56am|
|Archive through March 04, 2012||25||03/05 10:10am|
|Archive through March 14, 2012||25||03/16 11:33am|
|Archive through March 21, 2012||25||03/22 02:59pm|
|Archive through April 01, 2012||25||04/02 04:01pm|
|Archive through April 04, 2012||25||04/14 10:16pm|
|Archive through April 19, 2012||25||04/22 10:54am|
|Archive through May 26, 2012||25||05/31 08:53am|
|Archive through June 01, 2012||25||06/17 09:15pm|
|Archive through June 19, 2012||25||06/19 03:58pm|
|Archive through July 04, 2012||25||07/06 07:08pm|
|Archive through July 15, 2012||25||07/17 09:36am|
|Archive through July 29, 2012||25||08/09 07:06pm|
|Archive through August 14, 2012||25||08/16 07:43pm|
|Archive through September 04, 2012||25||09/11 08:03pm|
|Archive through September 12, 2012||25||09/12 09:54pm|
|Archive through October 24, 2012||25||10/24 01:41pm|
|Archive through October 31, 2012||25||10/31 09:44am|
|Archive through November 01, 2012||25||11/01 09:45am|
|Archive through November 03, 2012||25||11/03 10:52pm|
|Archive through November 28, 2012||25||12/01 10:26am|
|Archive through December 08, 2012||25||12/16 10:08pm|
|Archive through December 28, 2012||25||12/28 05:42pm|
|Archive through January 02, 2013||25||01/02 03:36pm|
|Archive through January 31, 2013||25||02/01 04:10pm|
|Archive through February 10, 2013||25||02/12 02:36pm|
|Archive through February 19, 2013||25||02/22 04:26am|
|Archive through March 08, 2013||25||03/09 07:23am|
|Archive through March 10, 2013||25||03/11 01:00am|
|Archive through March 11, 2013||25||03/12 02:12pm|
|Archive through March 13, 2013||25||03/13 03:09pm|
|Archive through March 30, 2013||25||04/01 03:39pm|
|Archive through April 11, 2013||25||04/11 10:37pm|
|Archive through April 12, 2013||25||04/13 08:44am|
|Archive through April 15, 2013||25||04/15 10:42am|
|Archive through April 15, 2013||25||04/16 09:02am|
|Archive through April 17, 2013||25||04/26 04:38pm|
|Archive through May 29, 2013||25||06/01 11:43pm|
|Archive through June 07, 2013||25||06/10 12:39pm|
|Archive through June 20, 2013||25||06/21 09:08am|
|Archive through July 02, 2013||25||07/07 02:26am|
|Archive through July 26, 2013||25||08/02 10:48pm|
|Archive through September 13, 2013||25||09/13 04:31pm|
|Archive through September 30, 2013||25||10/02 02:02pm|
|Archive through October 15, 2013||25||10/15 08:19pm|
|Archive through November 01, 2013||25||11/01 11:02pm|
|Archive through November 04, 2013||25||11/08 05:20pm|
|Archive through November 17, 2013||25||12/16 04:24pm|
|Archive through January 06, 2014||25||01/10 12:39pm|
|Archive through January 12, 2014||25||01/12 01:01pm|
|Archive through January 15, 2014||25||01/16 09:39am|
|Archive through January 25, 2014||25||02/10 03:15pm|
|Archive through February 26, 2014||25||02/28 09:16am|
|Archive through March 30, 2014||25||04/16 03:05am|
|Archive through May 06, 2014||25||05/06 08:17pm|
|Archive through May 07, 2014||25||05/08 08:48am|
|Archive through May 11, 2014||25||05/13 09:56am|
|Archive through May 14, 2014||25||05/14 10:36am|
|Archive through May 15, 2014||25||05/15 06:23pm|
|Archive through May 21, 2014||25||05/21 01:50pm|
|Archive through June 19, 2014||25||06/29 07:21am|
|Archive through July 01, 2014||25||07/02 06:11pm|
|Archive through July 04, 2014||25||07/05 11:36am|
|Archive through July 06, 2014||25||07/06 12:55pm|
|Archive through July 13, 2014||25||07/13 08:24pm|
|Archive through July 16, 2014||25||07/16 04:11pm|
|Archive through July 22, 2014||25||08/17 11:38am|
|Archive through August 18, 2014||25||08/18 06:43pm|
|Archive through August 20, 2014||25||08/20 01:11pm|
|Archive through August 21, 2014||25||08/21 11:53am|
|Archive through September 09, 2014||25||09/09 12:25pm|
|Archive through September 12, 2014||25||09/13 05:50am|
|Archive through September 13, 2014||25||09/14 03:15am|
|By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Saturday, September 13, 2014 - 07:50 pm: Edit|
thomas it was 1993 when carrier war came out, i was working in the retail hobby industry at the time and one copy of carrier war never hit the shelves
i do not possess the additional stuff beyond special operations (my sfb gaming group having split up and gone our separate ways a couple of years beforehand.).
im sure they do change the fundamentals sometimes quite a bit. im looking through a newbie lens here even if i've owned F&E for 26 years or so
|By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, September 13, 2014 - 08:06 pm: Edit|
There are some subtle differences between the effect of Carrier War on DF&E93 and Fighter Operations on F&E 2K or 2010. The bigger effect on either Carrier War or Fighter Operations is the removal of the out of phase CEDS retrograde. That has drastically changed how the game is played, especially from the Kzinti point of view.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, September 13, 2014 - 10:03 pm: Edit|
>>Peter, you do know those leftover CLEs are good for escorting the CVE? CVEs only need one escort and size does not matter. See (515.351).>>
Yes. But there are far more CLEs than there are CVEs...
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, September 13, 2014 - 10:12 pm: Edit|
>>im rambling and not making much headway towards a point but basically its all down to YOUR style of play.>>
Sure. The issue at hand is not one of play style, however. It is if there is something wrong with the Klingon FV, balance wise.
I'm not debating whether or not it is tactically a good idea to build FVs, free fighters or no free fighters. I'm debating that doing so is somehow unbalanced. Which I'm yet to be convinced is the case.
|By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Sunday, September 14, 2014 - 03:15 am: Edit|
i think paul just got used to the older ruleset and because theres been several changes to water down kzinti power (to my understanding of the situation the FV is one of those (well cve's overall as i think the point being put actually is.) changes.) in the early stages of the GW (using only basic F&E 2010.), he's thinking the balance of the game has swung too far in the coalitions favour. therefore this (the FV debate.) is a part of a larger game balance discussion.
i think (not having a huge amount of knowledge admittedly.) that each of the add on packs will be changing game balance as more is added to the game so it all depends on what set of rules you are using as to where the advantage lays and at what stages of the GW they most apply (the FV being an early stage slight advantage for the coalition in this case).
i cant speak for paul here thats for him to debate with you guys but he is trying to teach me and at the same time learn all the subtle differences thomas talked about a few messages ago (above) in basic F&E 2010.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, September 14, 2014 - 09:23 am: Edit|
>>he's thinking the balance of the game has swung too far in the coalitions favour.>>
Ah. I see. Yeah, see, here is the thing. The basic game has always been fairly pro-Coalition. The most recent version (2K10) seems about as balanced as it has ever been (although I'd still argue it is at least somewhat tilted in the Coalition's favor).
Perhaps this is just a discovery that the basic game in general is just more favorable to the Coalition than the expanded game. Which, well, I've been saying for years. But it isn't Coalition CVEs that are the cause of this.
|By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 09:25 pm: Edit|
I have to admit that I am nowhere near as experienced as most of you, but when I read that rule (526.315) it seems pretty explicit to me.
I would assume that had SVC wanted other units to be able to resupply combat happening in other hexes then he would have specifically mentioned them. Or not been so specific to mention FCR operating from a base.
|By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 06:33 pm: Edit|
Was it really haphazard or some attempted cheese? The rule reads pretty explicitly.
|By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 10:58 pm: Edit|
Jason, I was speaking in generalities, not about Ted Fay's question specifically.
|By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Saturday, September 20, 2014 - 10:41 am: Edit|
I am preparing to invoke the guidelines for this topic (no more than six months, no more than 500 messages). Please save what you want from the topic.
|By Steve Rossi (S_Rossi) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 08:47 am: Edit|
Where can I find the latest version of FOUR POWERS WAR?
I read that it had been updated recently.
Having been involved in 4PW from the beginning, I would like to give it a playtest. It would be really keen to submit a report like the good old days.
Thanks and best regards all around.
Steve Rossi, Veteran Staff, F&E Old Guy
|By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 09:07 am: Edit|
But the final version is pretty much set with publication of FO14 #2 on the current production list.
|By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - 04:44 pm: Edit|
Have old messages been saved? I would like to know prior to deleting things.
|By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, September 26, 2014 - 12:39 am: Edit|
Jim there will be a point fairly early in the game when you run out of DDs to convert to CWs. DWs have a lot more uses than FFs even in the base game only.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 26, 2014 - 07:57 am: Edit|
>>peter thats why im saying it looks like a 2 point conversion and not a three, i'd upgrade a DD to a CW anyday of the week because they are the same cost, if the dw was cheaper it would expand the possible strategies.>>
I don't know that I would convert FFs to DWs even at 2 points, myself (certainly in the base game). As noted, FFs are handy to have. DWs aren't something you want to fight with much if you can avoid it. And you build 3 a turn anyway. Like, in the basic game (without battle groups), Lyran DWs are good for non main line combat (i.e. a mob of 3xDWs beating up a FF somewhere, or attacking an undefended BATS or minor planet or whatever) and for being tougher than FFs to kill when holding or contesting provinces (although I'd still generally just sacrifice FFs for that, as while a DW is tougher to kill than an FF, a lot of times, the Alliance has nothing at all better to do than just kill province raiders, so it is going to get killed anyway).
>>the game im playing atm the Lyrans are suffering from a lack of attrition units (im not talking fighters here.) and i was looking around for a solution.>>
DWs are not the solution. You don't want to generally take damage on even compot ships if you can avoid it, as odd compot ships are much more efficient to take damage on--a CW, for example, costs the same to repair as a DW (1.5 EP), but absorbs 1 extra damage. So you really want to take damage on CWs way before DWs. The Lyran attrition units are CW/D5s and Klingon fighters (on Klingon ships). The Lyrans should not be viewed as an independent force. They provide big heavy ships (DNs/BC/CCs) and the Klingons provide fighters and attrition units (D5s to supplement the Lyran CWs) to take damage on.
>> the DW fits, but asi say the expense is too great to be a viable option even though the Lyrans are cash rich.>>
Turn all the DDs you have into CWs (as they are worth putting on the line and take damage well and repair cheaply). Turn lots of CAs to CCs (as they also take damage well and repair cheaply). Make sure the Lyrans have plenty of Klingon support from carriers and D5s and whatever. That is what makes the Lyrans work. Not more DWs.
>>i'll be quicker on the uptake next time i play to get the klingons lending a hand with smaller hulls/ attrition fighters.
that being said DW's for 2 EP conversion cost would most likely greatly curtail my need for klingon help.>>
You don't *want* to curtail the need for Klingon help. The Lyrans and Klingons exist to be fully integrated. Lyrans have heavy ships. Klingons have bulk, fighters, and lots of D5s. Don't look at the Lyrans as a separate empire to the Klingons. The Lyrans should be sending 20xEPs to the Klingons every turn. The Klingons should be fixing Lyran ships. The Lyrans should have MBs running through Klingon space already (a MB in the Klingon Capital and a MB in, like, 1407 or something at a minimum by the point in the game that you are).
|By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Friday, September 26, 2014 - 10:04 am: Edit|
the MB in 1407 got blown up and yes there's an MB in 1411.
im learning peter this is my 1st game. i'd already decided to start moving klingons into lyran space to help out before you started mentioning it recently. just didn't forsee the need til CT3's heavy lyran cripples and need to use 2 repair ships (very expensive). keep all the suggestions coming though as i'm needing them.
btw i have even less DW's because ive been building 1 DWS every turn so the Lyrans on CT4 have only 12 DW's whereas numbers of CW's are much bigger probably 21 + at this point. although that doesnt count the three hulls lost in combat.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, September 26, 2014 - 02:37 pm: Edit|
>>im learning peter this is my 1st game. >>
No, I know. I'm just handing out helpful advice. I mean, other folks probably disagree with me. But, well, I like to share.
>>btw i have even less DW's because ive been building 1 DWS every turn so the Lyrans on CT4 have only 12 DW's whereas numbers of CW's are much bigger probably 21 + at this point. although that doesnt count the three hulls lost in combat.>>
Yeah, again, the Lyran DW is, for my money, probably the least useful hull they have. Building them for 4EPs is totally reasonable, as they are efficient that way, but other than making DWSs (which makes hard to kill scouts that aren't difficult to replace if they *are* killed), DWEs (as they are solid, dense escorts), and then ones you already make, converting them isn't really worth it. Make all the CWs you can. Build the 3xDWs every turn, often as scouts or escorts (when you have that capability). Don't worry about making more of them. Don't worry about having a lot of them. You got what you got, and don't need more.
|By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, September 26, 2014 - 11:32 pm: Edit|
*[Chuckles]* Actually the Lyrans should be repairing Klingon ships as they can afford the FRDs and repairs.
Yes it means less EPs to the Klingons, but then again, they're getting more in ships repaired so they can keep their production and conversions up...
|By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, September 27, 2014 - 01:46 am: Edit|
Actually, you want the Federation to be repairing your Klingon ships. You just need to bribe them with enough banana pudding. They're probably happy enough to get the extra work and the overtime.
|By Byron Sinor (Bsinor) on Saturday, September 27, 2014 - 07:44 am: Edit|
So, how many Lyran players build a second Starbase in their capital early in the game to be able to buy a second Major conversion?
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, September 27, 2014 - 09:15 am: Edit|
Very few. Its very expensive to build the SB, and then after that each such conversion has a 5 EP surcharge. When you factor in the cost of the SB you might think of it as adding the cost of the SB to the first conversion. Kind of crazy.
Think of all the non-major trimaran conversions (or overbuilds) you could do with that money.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, September 27, 2014 - 09:28 am: Edit|
>>*[Chuckles]* Actually the Lyrans should be repairing Klingon ships as they can afford the FRDs and repairs. >>
It was simply an example of combined operations.
|By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, September 28, 2014 - 07:35 pm: Edit|
Hey guys I just posted a note of
"COME AND GET IT!!!" in the Cyberboard thread.
Simone posted the new Cyberboard GBX File at the top for you all to share and play nicely.
As always drop notes and feedback over there.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation