|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:38 pm: Edit|
The difference between the CS and BC (non Y-175 refit) is 3 warp (one each engine) two disruptors two phaser three 360s instead of phaser one 360s and the firing arcs on the disruptors and phasers of the CS are LF+L/RF+R and 6 points off each forward shield.
This might be worth making a new counter that is 7-8/4. Or not.
STRONG: I think we have already discussed the CS elsewhere on the BBS but I seam to recall 7-8/4 was considered already.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:42 pm: Edit|
A Lyran HFF costing 3 instead of the DD which costs 5 would be great for the Lyrans. The conversion cost (of both the HFF and HDD) being only one would also be pretty good.
As these ships were not selected, I suggest that making the conversion costs 2 and the HFF base cost 5 would help explain why they were not selected and built in greater numbers prior to the general war.
Generally, 5 point ships that cost 3 are much better than 4 point ships that cost 2.5.
|By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:43 pm: Edit|
Is the 1EW:6AF note correct for the D7E? Shouldn't it be 7AF?
STRONG: This needs to be properly reported in the SIT update topic.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:51 pm: Edit|
Comparing the Kzinti DN to the DNE, the difference in weapons is that the DN has two more FA disruptors, two more P-3s that are LS/RR and two more that are RS/LR, and that the DN has three ADD racks compared to a single type E drone rack on the DNE.
Otherwise the two ships have the same internals, drone control, type of drone racks (2C and 4B) and weapons (both have seven PH-1).
This seems to imply to me that the Kzinti DNE should not be a 10/5.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 03:51 pm: Edit|
I think you are right Howard (probably cut and pasted from the D6E?).
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 04:05 pm: Edit|
Comparing the Lyran DNE to the unrefitted Lyran DN.
4 DISR FA vs 4 DISR FA 2 FX
2 ESG vs 4 on the DN
Shields on the DNE are 4 points weaker in all facings (total 24 fewer shield boxes).
Same phasers on both ships (the 360 P1s on the DNE are NOT blocked from firing in the rear hex row).
DNE has 2 fewer tractor beams.
DNE has 2 fewer C Hull.
DNE has 1 less Flag and 1 less AUX box (having two of each instead of three).
The Sensor, Scannner, Dam Con and Ex Dam tracks have one less box each on the DNE.
Both ships have the same amount of power.
Note that the Lyran DN did receive significant power improvement when refitted (8APR and 2BTY).
Of the four DNs, the DNE is the one that seems to lose the most system boxes compared to the original DN. If any should have a defense of 11 as an uncrippled ship, this should be one of them - though I don't know if it's enough less that it should.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 05:45 pm: Edit|
Lyran HFF --- I'm okay for now with it costing 3.5 EP. It was noted that the HFFs were not successful in its description and 3EP for a 5/3 ship in the 4PW era is too good (I'm even flirting with recommending 4EP instead of 3.5 EP).
Additional rationale...why would anyone spend 5EP for the DD5/3 when you can build the HFF5/3 for 3.5 EP?......
|By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 10:21 pm: Edit|
Kzinti CA/CS is solved by the SIT YIS date of Y137. Previous discussion of the CS/CA/BC was a private discussion between Chuck and myself.
|By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 10:30 pm: Edit|
Isn't the TEM->TEM+ difference only the arc's on the P-Gs? So instead of RA, they are LS+RR/RS+LR.
I don't see how that's a +1AF over a regular TEM.
The thing has already *8* Fusion Beams. If it can't kill you at close range with those, I don't see how an extra P-G is going to make THAT much difference (in addition to it's P-2 compliment).
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 10:33 pm: Edit|
The Templar and Paladin refits do not change any phaser arcs. They've always had LS+RR/RS+LR arcs.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 01:04 pm: Edit|
So are there any other historical ship classes that may not have served during the General War but did serve in the 4PW?
Don't list survey ships as there is no survey income during the 4PW.
Can someone list in a table those 4PW ships we should include (include the DNEs).
|By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 01:40 pm: Edit|
Is the 1EW:6AF note correct for the D7E?
Howard & Rich, I just copied it wrong from the CL (or cut/ paste)...since it is on the official SIT I would not worry...they likely have it correct there. I merely included it in the list for the YIS and the fact that currently the 4PW has eliminated Survey at this time.
The Kzinti do not have a Survey ship until after the war. The Hydrans obviously surveyed the old colonies.(Probably more like scrounged and scraped for every single useful bit so they could rebuild and return.) With the GW rules about Survey in place it seems unlikely the Klingons were doing any survey prior to the rules given. Lyran had done some work sometime prior to the GW as they (and the Kzinti) have planets in the off map area.
I am good with eliminating the survey or severely restricting it due mainly to the supply issues portrayed in this pre-GW era.
|By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 02:56 pm: Edit|
The SIT is correct:
D7E: Survey Ship, Scout,(2EW:2AF)(1EW:7AF)
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 08:14 pm: Edit|
What is the YIS of a Kzinti FH (the shock variant).
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 08:24 pm: Edit|
The FH YIS is 160.
Strong: Lar -- please add the FH to the 4PW ships needed
|By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 09:25 pm: Edit|
Chuck, the FH is subsumed under the leader rule if not playing with AO. As the FFKs are in AO, and not in service during the 4PW then just add a note that the leader rule is in effect for the 4PW for the Kzinti FFs. See (303.52).
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 09:38 pm: Edit|
IIRC FHs are shock variants and not leaders as FF don't have true leader variant. Basic F&E subsumed the FFK but they are not true leaders.
|By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 11:18 pm: Edit|
In which F&E product do the Kzinti FH stats appear? I do not see it listed on the SIT. Must be a CLog?
EDIT: Rules reference number is R5.41 and the ship is in module R2
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 11:55 pm: Edit|
I've seen it in a starletter or old Captain's Log or Star Fleet Times somewhere, but it was a long long time ago.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 05:34 pm: Edit|
Recommended FH values:
5-4S/2; CR3 per MSC; Y160; From FF: 0.5; For FF 2.5, Salv 0.625; Notes: no shock at 4AF; limit one per turn by any means.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 05:57 pm: Edit|
Do we care about any national guard units during this time period?
|By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 07:01 pm: Edit|
NG ships: I would say not at this point. When they com out a note can be placed in that product.
|By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 07:17 pm: Edit|
Hydran carriers in this scenario are all based upon DD hulls. On Turn 2 the Hydrans can field the SRV not as a survey ship but within the fleet as an EW=2; single ship medium carrier. Adhoc rule will be in play because there are no escorts yet available.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 07:41 pm: Edit|
That's not the case actually.
The GRV is available and is not a DD hull (it is a YCA hull).
I think survey ships should not be available, as they're probably doing survey stuff (in a non general-war type way) in the various offmap areas.
If there is a note somewhere that they (of the various empires) were used that way prior to the general war, then they should be added, but otherwise I am doubtful.
|By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 11:38 pm: Edit|
I would agree. If it were changed that survey would be allowed it would have to be extremely limited.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation