| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 02:17 pm: Edit |
I have noticed that generally, over the recent additional rule 'packs', the Coalition has gained units, and the Alliance has gained rules.
2010 and various Captains logs have altered what each Empire has gained, and I feel there may be room for some of those inbalances to be restored.
Examples
AO gave the Coalition super heavy Compot units (Romulan ROC, Lyran DNP and the REDHawk (34 Compot in 1 unit).
With the change in 2010 (no mauler benefit on uncrippled ships in form) those ships are now even harder to kill.
The Alliance gained heavy units - but all require escorts and the average compot is much lower than their counterparts - and Maulers are still as effective as ever against them (more so in persuit with limits on owed points!)
Therefore, what I feel would benefit the game are heavy compot Alliance units (I don't know SFB so some of these might be a dead horse suggestion).
Kzinti ship which has both heavy weapons and drone - and can use both (Kzinti DND for example).
Federation ship - X2 Ship (in the various Star Trek shows, the number of Federation ships which travel about in time is amazing!) - why not let one X2 (or X3, X4 class) remain for a while and be used in combat.
Gorn - No idea!
Hydrans - No idea!
With the Alliance gaining limited numbers of heavy compot ships, what pro-Coalition rules could be introduced?
Suggestions -
Puppet rulers
If a planet and several provinces are captured - allow the Empire owning them to set up 'Puppet Ruler'.
The may become more raid proof, rebellions would stop, long term capture could be easier, and limited ship production could be done (1 Frigate per Major planet for example).
I would also say, there should be a slim chance the Puppet Ruler rejoins their parent Empire (and the resulting provinces and planets are lost by the conquering empire!)
Or how about the first time Federation forces enter (original) Coalition space, the Coalition can accept the Federations offer of a truce (namely, the Coalition can't attack Federation forces for say 6 months, and the Federation can only defend key Alliance areas (Marquis Province, Federation space etc). It would buy a turn or two of respite for the Coalition.
Thoughts?
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 02:55 pm: Edit |
Paul, I disagree. Long Term Capture (438.0) and Annexing provinces (448.2) seem to benefit the Coaltion more than the Alliance. It is possible for the Klingons and Lyrans to annex some Kzinti and Hydran provinces. This is especially true if not using Raids (320.0) in Advanced Operations. Even then it can be done.
Survey Ships (542.0) seems to favor the coalition a little more as the Klingons and Lyrans have more EPs than the Hydrans and Kzintis to convert a ship to survey duty and send it off map. And that doesn't include the HDW-Q.
As to your comments about the APT/PTR and spare fighters. I think I do agree that it balances out in favor of the alliance. the replacement fighters for such a mission should atleast cost .2 EP per fighter factor, the same as replacing ones on the FCP.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 03:05 pm: Edit |
Referring to maulers here seems to be out of place because the Alliance didn't have maulers in the first place to kill them (limited exception to the Gorn DNT and even more limited for Hydran FS tug). Overall, the new form rule favors the alliance significantly by preventing use of the mauler in the form box against heavy alliance units.
Quote:AO gave the Coalition super heavy Compot units (Romulan ROC, Lyran DNP and the REDHawk (34 Compot in 1 unit).
With the change in 2010 (no mauler benefit on uncrippled ships in form) those ships are now even harder to kill.
Huh? Except on SB assualts, maulers are not effective against escorted units, except for small carrier groups.
Quote:The Alliance gained heavy units - but all require escorts and the average compot is much lower than their counterparts - and Maulers are still as effective as ever against them (more so in persuit with limits on owed points!)
Like the Hydran PAL? The Gorn DNT? How about a Gorn line of 11 point CCH's lead by a DN+ADM? (a very scary 146 compot line capable of absorbing damage efficiently). The Feds have positively *outstanding* lines, particularly when they get the Third Way.
Quote:Therefore, what I feel would benefit the game are heavy compot Alliance units (I don't know SFB so some of these might be a dead horse suggestion).
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 03:34 pm: Edit |
By the way, I used to scream bloody murder that the game was heavily pro-Alliance - but managed to get talked down from there by more experienced players.
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 04:01 pm: Edit |
My refernec to Raids (320.0) above should be Raids (314.0).
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 04:44 pm: Edit |
Thomas
I suppose what I am saying is that if the Alliance gains 'good units', the Coalition should gain more in new rules (and yes, those rules are very pro-Coalition!)
APT/PT - Actually, I think they are pro-Coalition. Hydrans and Kzinti don't have the cash to spend on them (and if the Hydrans start with them dotted around, so can't get several togethor easily - but not impossible) - and the Lyrans can afford to build stacks of them - and then stack them with the forward fleets!
Ted - X-Ships - yes they come in late, but so do the super heavy Coalition units. Prior to 2010, they forced the Coalition to escort them to protect them when X-Ships are around. Now they just put them in form!
Early on, I can see Kzinti carrier groups dying, if the Kzinti player isn't ultra-careful with them, Maulers in persuit will kill CVL groups fairly easily, and with good dice CV's could die.
(Crippled CV and CLE with an uncrippled EFF, with the maximum -3 owed dies with 21 damage if there is a 10 point mauler - thats a seperate discuission though!)
The Feds have a good rule in the 3rd Way - so give the Coalition something nice (but different and unique)!
Overall, any new rule set needs to be balanced - but I would like to see some good units for the Alliance!
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 05:32 pm: Edit |
Any new units have to get approved for SFB first, and you'd have to either find published SFB units or submit them in the SFB section for publication in future modules, then come back to F&E after they're published for SFB.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 05:48 pm: Edit |
Solution simple - don't cripple the CVL if you expect to be pursued with a mauler.
Quote:Early on, I can see Kzinti carrier groups dying, if the Kzinti player isn't ultra-careful with them, Maulers in persuit will kill CVL groups fairly easily, and with good dice CV's could die.
(Crippled CV and CLE with an uncrippled EFF, with the maximum -3 owed dies with 21 damage if there is a 10 point mauler - thats a seperate discuission though!)
Like what? The Alliance *DOES* have good units. I mentioned the PAL, Gorn CCH, and others. The Fed CVA is awesome, even with its escorts (ship density can be as high as like 11 or 12 or something). All alliance races also get DNH's. Is there something *specific* you're looking for?
Quote:but I would like to see some good units for the Alliance!
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 03:18 am: Edit |
SVC - OK!
Ted - Well, not knowing SFB well enough, no clear idea but this idea interests me -
(Yes, the CVA can be good - but think what a REDHawk would be, escorted by one of the other Modular DN's! - I think a 4 Ships Group RedHawk, Megahawk Escort, SPM, SKE = Average of 14.5!)
Federation Ship from the Future -
Limited War 1D6
Full War 2D6
When the X is reached (20) - USS Enterpise 1701G turns up.... Factors something like 22/20.
When it arrives, you keep rolling. When Y (10?) is reached - it vanishes again.
Keep rolling to get X again and so on.
Can't be self killed, be a Flagship (risk of vanishing in the middle of combat) and if direct killed - doesn't return ever (and probably an additional penalty too).
That sort of thing would be 'fun' I think!
| By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 06:44 am: Edit |
DNs cannot be used at escorts. See (515.33).
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 06:59 am: Edit |
Thomas
The MegaHawk and OmniHawk specific rule from Advanced Ops (525.64 - Module M's - Escort) overrule the general rule.
So, yes the Romulans can have two Escorts which are DN's!
Who said those scheming evil Romulans play by the rules anyway?
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 10:14 am: Edit |
Fed ship from the future: NO.
| By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 11:32 am: Edit |
I am not particualarly in favour of a new heavy unit..
But it may be interesting to explore possibilities like short-range ships. They move strategically like freighters, but fight normally and are not slow retreaters. Any unit like this would be tied up in a rule for various strategic speeds, such as that which has been long mooted for Eagle-class ships.
Strategically slow ships could perhaps have exaggerated attack, command or defence capabilities.
An 8pt heavy cruiser, for example, could have 3 point conversions to any of the following, with strategic speed 2 or 3, reaction just 1 hex if at all.
11-8, CR 8 (crip 5-4)
8-12, CR 8 (crip 4-4)
8-9, CR 10 (crip 4-4)
for the 11-8, think wyn/Ldr
for the 8-12, think more mobile monitor.
for the 8-9, think HDW-C equivilant.
I should stress that tactical speeds of these ships would be normal. Otherwise, their defence would be much lower in the manner of a monitor's low defence.
| By Andrew Bruno (Andybruno) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 11:46 am: Edit |
That sounds like the Armed Freighter Project...
| By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 01:50 pm: Edit |
No its not
Armed freighters will never move at fleet tactical speeds. I'm talking a strange beast here...
These ships - fast tactical, slow strategic
Monitors/freighters - slow strategic and tactical
Normal ships - fast tactical and strategic
In some ways, these ships could be regarded a little like monitors with PF warp attached. But I think the concept does not necessarily require hot warp per se. It just requires a warp engine that can only go full speeds for short, combat, periods of time. Maybe the boost is radioactive or something, so you only do it whenever you absolutely have to.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 07:00 pm: Edit |
This is inventing an entirely new thing, something I see no need for. And I cannot make the engineering work. Let's say NO.
| By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, April 30, 2010 - 04:40 am: Edit |
The NO is fine. But it least it was an "entirely new thing". I take that as a compliment. Considering how many ideas have happened over the years and going over old ground...
Engineering wise, I was alluding to LDR and WYN concepts where they are sacrificing range and taking on extra maintenance costs in order to get more guns and shields on the ships. Here, the suggestion was to sacrifice range and strategic speeds.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |