F&E General Discussions

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E General Discussions
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
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

From a post on February 13, 2006

This topic isnít archived, isnít "answered", is not processed. Itís just a place for quick questions and quick answers.

-- SVC

Please keep this in mind as you post here. This topic is to have a maximum of 500 messages, no more than six months old.
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

Jim wrote:
>>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

Jim wrote:
>>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

Jason wrote:


Quote:

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.




Occasionally situations arise that the rules don't cover or cover in haphazard way. This usually happens when a rule was added in an expansion module and not all of the consequences were thought of at that time. Thus we have the Q&A and Q&A discussion threads.

Even those of us who have played for many years have questions because of new things.

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.

Jean
WebMom

By Steve Rossi (S_Rossi) on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 08:47 am: Edit

Hello Everybody.

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

Steve,

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/32186.html?1370330912

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.

Jean
WebMom

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

Jim wrote:
>>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

Jim wrote:
>>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.

Enjoy.

As always drop notes and feedback over there.

Carry on...


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:  
Password:

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation