| By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 10:28 am: Edit |
The thing is even if the Hydran LP was a "DNP", that would be a "bad thing™". It's fighter squadron wouldn't count against fighter limits as they would be Hybrid.
Imagine 3xCAV (1xOS sqd), 3xLP (1xPF+hybrids), and 3xPFT (1xPF).
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 01:30 pm: Edit |
...are you saying then that the PALP is 'too good' and therefore cannot be added?
| By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 07:44 pm: Edit |
So what was the reasoning behind making the Lyran DNP 3 EPs instead of 5 EPs?
1. It was only adding PF carrying ability. (Same as the Pal->LP.)
2. ????? (Insert reasoning here.)
BTW, I'm not saying that you should change the cost on all of the Paladin variants that can be converted to a LP, just the Pal->LP. The other variants are making major changes like ripping out 12 fighter bays along with the Pal->LP changes and should cost the extra 2 EPs. I suppose you could look at it like this instead:
Lyran DNP: From DN 3 should be From DN 5. The Hydran DN->LP only adds PF carrying ability the same as this ship and costs 5 EPs for the conversion. Michael Lui 1/03/09
IE: Increase the DNP cost or reduce the LP cost, I'd be satisfied either way as long as its consistent.
| By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 10:06 pm: Edit |
Michael Lui, don't forget that the LP still has to have the carrier conversion cost (+2) added to the PFT cost (+3) even though it isn't adding fighters (look at the other Hybrid to carrier conversions)...
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 12:40 am: Edit |
...PFT cost (+3) and the CVA premium cost (+2): escort software interface (allows up to four escorts).
| By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 12:58 am: Edit |
Michael Lui, the Romulan CON to ROC conversion is also 3, and is a closer analogy to the Lyran DNP.
| By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 06:52 am: Edit |
No, it doesn't have to have the CV conversion cost added. All the other Hybrid to CV conversions are adding fighters to the ship and that costs the appropriate amount of EPs. The Pal->LP isn't adding any fighters at all.
Quote:Don't forget that the LP still has to have the carrier conversion cost (+2) added to the PFT cost (+3) even though it isn't adding fighters (look at the other Hybrid to carrier conversions)...
If that were the case then the ROC->PHX conversion would cost 4 EPs. 2 for the CV conversion to carry 6 fighters and 2 for the CVA cost. It does normally cost 4 EPs to convert a DN into a CVA.
Quote:...PFT cost (+3) and the CVA premium cost (+2): escort software interface (allows up to four escorts).
| By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 09:37 am: Edit |
"The Romulan PHX SCS cost 2 EPs (plus fighters) to add the ability to carry fighters to the ROC (Rom DNP)."
Because it is becoming a TRUE CARRIER.
How many times do we have to say it?
The PAL is NOT a True Carrier, and did not pay the 2-pt true carrier cost.
Get over it.
| By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 10:48 am: Edit |
Actually the LP's bonus of being a true carrier over a "DNP" is SOOOO much of an advantage.
It can use CEDS whereas a DNP can't. That should be worth the 2EP right their
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 04:06 pm: Edit |
Scott:
PFTs with proper escorts can use CEDS; see (515.43).
| By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 04:40 pm: Edit |
In that case the costs of all of the survey carriers have to be increased by 2 EPs as their conversion cost from ship to CV is 0 plus fighters (0+fighters and hybrid upgrade for the Hydran).
Quote:Because it is becoming a TRUE CARRIER.
The PAL is NOT a True Carrier, and did not pay the 2-pt true carrier cost.
| By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 05:14 pm: Edit |
The Fed survey ship costs are definitely messed up (at least the last time I looked).
Yes, all the survey carriers should pay 2 EP to become true carriers.
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 05:25 pm: Edit |
The problem with the Fed GSC is that is states it was designed to be used as a carrier in the event of war. So is the cost built into the GSC from the begining?
Quote:(R2.16A)Light Carrier (CVL) Galactic Survey Cruisers were designed for rapid reconfiguration into CVLs (and COVs) for wartime emergencies. This was a subterfuge by the scientific departments to get the military to pay for the ships. The plan backfired in the General War when the military was able to immediately commandeer most of them.
| By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 07:24 pm: Edit |
Ryan, are you saying that the Fed GSC designers planned ahead, and so they built in the cost of the CVL conversion ahead of time... but when the player builds new ones, there is no additional cost (because it was 'built in')?
By that logic, all Hydran ships have this advantage built in. They are all partial carriers, having the cost of the fighter bays built into the basic cost of the hull.
I gotta side with Michael Lui here. The fighter bay is already set up, there should be no 2 ep hull cost to turn a fighter bay into a fighter bay. Now the fighters replacement lines and supply crews have to be upgraded; that's why we pay the 6 ep to upgrade hybrid factors into real factors. But the actual bay is already there.
PAL to LP should only cost 3ep.
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 07:39 pm: Edit |
The 2 ep cost isn't necessarly just the setting up of the fighter bays. It's also the computer software to intergrate with the escorts and maybe even training of the crew for carrier operations.
If your primiary weapon is now the fighter it's different tactics for the ship then if your primary weapon is the hellbore or fusion beam or photon or disrupter or plasma-whatever.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 10:40 pm: Edit |
ML:
Go ahead and submit your LP line-item and a detailed rational for the next Hydran SIT report and the staff will review and recommend to ADB a course of action.
...now let's move on...
| By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 11:38 pm: Edit |
There is one last thinig to consider -
Pal cost = 16+6 / LP cost = 21+12(+PF)
Difference = 5+6(+PF)
| By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 01:46 am: Edit |
And what, then, do the Hydrans do for an SCS?
I think it better to ADD a hybrid DNP than to change what the LP is.
| By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 06:38 am: Edit |
The Lord Chancellor SCS. 10-12P(14)/5-6P(7)
10 attack factors because they're putting back the Hellbores they ripped out to squeeze the extra 12 fighters in. 2 more fighters than the ID because they're not putting the Fusion Beams back in. The IC already has 6 tractors and you would only have to change the adjacent transporters to repair to make this. It has too many transporters for a Hydran ship anyway. Although I'd really like to see a Steel Chancellor SCS 5-12P(8H14)/2-6P(4H7).
| By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 03:01 pm: Edit |
Oops. Steel Chancellor SSCS.
Actually that would still be correct. This is just another one of those "quirky" Hydran ships that is 2 points cheaper when building the hybrid ship and then converting it rather than build it directly.
Quote:LP cost = 21+12(+PF)
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 07:03 pm: Edit |
Please don't post proposals in this topic.
| By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 08:39 am: Edit |
Hydran PIV: Conversion from RN: 5 should be 5+4
(this is more a question than a statement)
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 09:07 am: Edit |
Hydran PIV: The RN already has the same fighters as the PIV. So no change is required. Ryan J Opel 13 Jan 09
| By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 12:29 pm: Edit |
Hydran PIV: 5+4 is correct. 5 for CA->Survey Cruiser +4 for Hybrid to Normal Fighters, since the PIV is a Medium Carrier. C. Tenhoff 14 Jan 09.
| By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 03:05 am: Edit |
Hydran SRV: Conversion from DDS: 3+8 should be 3+6.
Hydran SRV: Conversion from LN should be 5+6
Fabio Poli 14 Jan 09
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |