Archive through May 13, 2013

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E PRODUCTS: F&E Future Products (Near Term): F&E WARBOOK: Warbook Update – Fighter Operations (FO) : FO - Section 600 Reports – Scenarios and Options : (607.0) Four Powers War - Scenario Reports: Archive through May 13, 2013
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 11:53 pm: Edit

I kind of started down the road of a SIT for the scenario. Here is what I have for the Hydran so far.

Designation SFB Ref# Factors On Counter Product Cmnd (754.0) Date Avail Base Hull; Size(755.0) Conversion Cost; Source Build Cost or Substitution Salvage (439.0) Notes
Hydran RN26-8(4σ)/4(2)F&E8Y133CA(3)From DG: 3+3Schedule: 6+4.52.0Base Hull (Fusion CA)
Hydran LC407-9(3)/5(1σ)AO9Y133CA(3)From RN: 2;From LB: 3+1;From LM: 1For CC: 7+32.25Command Variant
Hydran TG203-8(1σ)/0-4(1)F&E8Y139CA(3)From RN/DG: 4For CA: 6+1.51.5Tug
Hydran DG89-8(1σ)/4(1)F&E8Y157CA(3)From RN: 3Schedule: 8+1.52.0Base Hull (Hellbore)
Hydran LM198-9(3)/5(1σ)F&E9Y159CA(3)From RN: 2; From LB: 3+1.5; From LC: 1For CC: 8+32.25Command variant
Hydran LB3010-9(1σ)/5(1)F&E9Y161CA(3)From DG: 2; From LC/LM: 3For CC: 9+1.52.25Command Variant
Hydran PGZFuture3-7/0-4AO6Y150PGZ(3)From PG?: 2For DD: 71.75Original cargo variant of Pegasus;carries seven EPs
Hydran PGSCL223-7u/0-4AO6Y160PGZ(3)From PG?: 2For DD: 71.75Scout variant of Pegasus; EW=2 §
Hydran LN34-6(2)/3(1)F&E4Y133DD(4)From KN: 3+2Schedule: 4+21.5Base Hull (Fusion Destroyer) §
Hydran LNG652-6G(1)/1-3CO4Y137DD(4)From LN: 2; From KN: 2+1For DD: 4+11.5Commando variant of Lancer §
Hydran SR312-6(2)υ/1-3(1)SO4Y145DD(4)From LN: 5; From KH: 5+2; From DDS: 3For DD: 9+21.5Survey Ship; Scout; EW=2
Hydran KN96/3F&E4Y157DD(4)From LN: 3Schedule: 61.5Base Hull (Hellbore DD) §
Hydran SRG31B2-6(2)Gu/1-3(1)SO4Y158DD(4)From DD: 5;From DDS: 3;From SR: 1;From LNG: 5+1For DD: 10+21.5Survey Ship; Scout; EW=2;Commando ship
Hydran SRV31A2-6(4)u/1-3(2)SO 4 158 DD(4) From LN: 5+6; From KN: 5+8; From DDS: 3+6; From SR: 0+6 For DD: 9+8 1.50 Survey Ship; Scout; EW=2; single ship medium carrier
Hydran HN63-4/2F&E3Y133FF(4)From CU: 1Schedule: 2.50.625Base Hull (Fusion-FF) §
Hydran SC52-4u/0-2F&E3Y133FF(4)From FF: 1For FF: 3.50.625Scout; EW=1 §
Hydran HNG661-4G/0-2CO3Y137FF(4)From FF: 2For HN: 2.50.625Commando ship §
Hydran FFT1151-4U/0-2SO3Y150FF(4)From FF: 1For FF: 2.50.625Theater Transport Carry 4 EPs or pod.
Hydran CR415/2F&E4Y157FF(4)From FF: 2For FF: 3.50.875Command Variant §
Hydran CU74/2F&E3Y157FF(4)From HN: 1Schedule: 2.50.625Base Hull (Hellbore-FF) §
Hydran POL (GEN)393(1)/NoneCO3Y142POL(4)—NA—For FF: 2.5; Call up: 20.0Police Ship (531.0)
Hydran PV (GNV)921-3(5)/NonePO4Y150POL(4)From POL: 1+10For POL/FF: 3+10; Call up: 30.0Police Carrier
Hydran FLG (INS)701-3uG(1)/NonePO4Y150POL(4)From POL: 3For FF: 4; Call up: 20.0Police Flagship; Scout (EW=1); Commando Ship (one battalion).
Hydran GNV921-3(5)/0-2(2q)FO4Y150POL(4)NoneFor FF: 3+100.5Escort carrier variant of police ship.
Hydran GRV913-6(4)/1-3(2)FO8Y133GR(3)NoneFor DD: 6+81.5Medium Carrier; based on an old hull.
Hydran FCP220[27]/NoneCO+0Y138PalletNone(431.22): 4(+5.4)0.5Fighter Conveyor Pallet (513.5); Max one in service.
Hydran A-Pallet250GG/NoneCO+0Y140PalletNone(521.711): 40.5Troop Pod for tug or LTT; limit 2.
Hydran BP247-2(2)/NoneCO+2Y157PalletNone(431.22): 8+20.5Battle Pallet; Max 2 in service.
Hydran REP POD—0/NoneF&E0Y159Tug MissionNAReplacement: 50.0See (422.8)
Hydran MON2210-6/5-3CO6Y140MON(3)None(451.12): 82.0Monitor
Hydran FHLR1.620-4M/0-2SO0Y120LAux(3)NoneOne/Year: 41.0 Large Hospital Auxiliary; see (451.0)
Hydran FTLR1.191-4GGGG/0-2GGCO0Y135LAux(3)None(521.23): 61.0Large Auxiliary Troop Ship
Hydran REPRR1.250-1/NoneF&E0Y159LAux(3)NoneReplacement: 50.0See (422.0)
Hydran LASR1.770-4u/0-2AO0Y160LAux(3)None(317.1): 61.0Large Auxiliary Scout; (3EW)
Hydran FTSR1.180-2GG/0-1GCO0Y135SAux(4)None(521.23): 30.5Small Auxiliary Troop Ship
Hydran SASR1.780-2u/0-1AO0Y140SAux(4)None(317.1): 40.5Small Auxiliary Scout; (2EW)
Hydran APT80-1/NoneSO0Y125APT(4)NoneUnlimited: 10.2Armed Priority Transport; Can carry ADM; MG; PT; DIP; 1EP.
Hydran PTR671-2/0-1SO3Y130FT(4)NoneOne/turn: 20.0Prime Transport; Can carry ADM; MG; PT; DIP; 1EP.
Hydran CONVOY50-6/NoneF&E0Y135—NA——NA—(431.2): 60.0See (414.0); Cargo = 20EP
Hydran Commercial ConvoyNA0-10/NoneCO0Y135GroupNoneOriginal: 0Replacement: 50.0See (443.0).
Hydran SAF330-6/0-3CO0Y150GroupFrom FTL: 5; From FTS: 8; From 2xFTS: 6See (520.1): 100.0Special Attack Force
Hydran FRD101-4/NoneF&E0Y139FRD(2)—NA—(431.2): 100.0See (421.0)
Hydran TEM+ A16 8-12(6)/4-6(3) CL38 10 172 PAL(2) From PAL: 2 For PAL: 15+6 4.00 Alternative DN; Refit of TEM

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 11:54 pm: Edit

I only added the TEM+ for comparison purposes (the YIS is outside the era of this scenario).

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 12:44 am: Edit

Designation SFB Ref# Factors On Counter Product Cmnd (754.0) Date Avail Base Hull; Size(755.0) Conversion Cost; Source Build Cost or Substitution Salvage (439.0) Notes
Lyran BCE A18 8/4 CL39 10 150 CL(3) From CL: 4 For CA: 9 2.25 Obsolete design
Lyran HFF A16 5/3 CL37 3 160 FF(3) From FF: 1 For FF: 3 0.75 Historical: 2 were converted 1st in Y160 2nd in Y161
Lyran HDD A17 6/3 CL37 4 161 DD(4) From DD: 1 For DD: 6 1.50 Historical: 2 were converted 1st in Y161 2nd in Y162
Klingon D6E 46 6-8diamond/3-4 CL31 8 125 D6(3) From D6: 5 For D6: 13 2.4 Survey Ship; Scout; (2EW:2AF)(1EW:6AF)
Klingon D7E 43 7-8diamond/3-4 CL31 8 137 D7(3) From D7: 5 For D7: 13 2.4 Survey Ship; Scout; (2EW:2AF)(1EW:6AF)
Kzinti Prime Team G32 Prime TeamCO0Y120—NA——NA—(522.11): 50.0Prime Team
Kzinti FHL620-4M/0-2SO0Y120LAux(3)NoneOne/Year: 41.0Large Hospital Auxiliary; see (451.0)
Kzinti FTL191-4GGGG/0-2GGCO0Y120LAux(3)None(521.23): 61.0Large Auxiliary Troop Ship
Kzinti FTS180-2GG/0-1GCO0Y120SAux(4)None(521.23): 30.5 Small Auxiliary Troop Ship
Kzinti SASR1.780-2υ/0-1AO0Y140SAux(4)None(317.1): 40.5Small Auxiliary Scout; (2EW)
Kzinti REPR250-1/NoneF&E0Y159LAux(3)—NA—Replacement: 50.0See (422.0)
Kzinti LASR1.770-4υ/0-2AO0Y160LAux(3)None(317.1): 61.0Large Auxiliary Scout; (3EW)
Kzinti FH ? 5-4S/2 CL? 3 160 FF(4) From FF: 0.5 For FF 2.5 0.625 Shock Ship note: no shock at 4AF; limit one per turn by any means.
Kzinti SR 37 4-8diamond/2-4 CL31 8 166 BC(3) From BC: 5 For BC: 13 2.0 Survey Ship; Scout; EW=2
Lyran SR 32 3-8Tdiamond/1-4 CL31 8 125 CA(3) From CA: 5; From TG: 4 For CA: 13 2.0 Survey Ship; Scout; EW=2


I have not gone through the rest.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 07:25 am: Edit

The Klingon D6E Product is SO not CL31.
The Klingon D7E Product is SO not CL31.
The Klingon D7E Combat and EW factors are correct on the 2013 SIT as previously stated, not as reported by LB.

The Kzinti FH SFB reference is 41.
The Kzinti SR Product is SO not CL31.

The Lyran SR Product is SO not CL31.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 10:25 am: Edit

Crippled factors of D7E above are also incorrect...they are correct on the SIT.
Changes in my report doc to Chuck as noted.
Thanks oval shaped reptilian creature.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 11:03 am: Edit

Two OLD notes found in CL 16.
(These may be obsolete at this point and are included for reference only.)

607.43 May produce D6S in Y160+.
607.44 May produce CD anytime; may produce SDF Y160+.
STRONG: We will delete these references as the SIT now trumps them.

Also note page 82 of CL 18 has Q1801F - Q1808F. These are all questions regarding the 4PW.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Q1801F says that fighters on hellbore ships do not count as part of their attack factor for rule 607.182. It also adds that Klingon bases do not count towards the percentage of Klingons in the battleforce. (This clarification is currently not in the current version of the scenario).

Q1802F says Prime Teams are allowed, but no one starts with any. Command points are allowed, but no one starts with any, one is receive per turn as normal, max one per battle hex. (I would suggest two in a capital assault?). It also says to use commando ships use the Y168 set-up, Lyran CWG would be a DDG. (Currently, the scenario has no rules for Prime Teams and command points, the commando ships are currently in the scenario).


Q1803F: Says setup order is Lyrans, Kzintis, Klingons, Hydrans in that order. (This is in the scenario now).


Q1804F: Asks if SAFs are allowed. The answer was originally no, however the current scenario allows them and has rules for them.

Q1805F: Asks about the Vudar, answers that they had some police ships but nothing to affect the war.

Q1806F: Establishes that the Kzinti should have a CD and SDF at the Home Fleet at game start. The current scenario changes this, having the CD in the Duke's Fleet, no SDFs, but having multiple CLDs in various fleets.

Q1807F: Says everyone gets monitors, but no special pallets. This is in the current version of the scenario.

Q1808F: This rule specifices that if the Kzinti adopt a Hydran unit, then the Hydran unit cannot get replacement fighters until the turn the Kzinti get fighters. This is not in the current scenario but probably should be.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 01:35 pm: Edit

So I'll point out that as this scenario stands (i.e. as it is printed currently, and has been), it is mostly an unbalanced nightmare for the Alliance--there is nothing at all that prevents the Coalition from just completely demolishing the Kzinti early and often. The 4 hex supply range is not sufficient to keep them out of the Kzinti Capital, and if they can get into the Kzinti Capital, there is nothing at all to stop them from taking the Kzinti Capital (as PDUs don't have fighters until late in the scenario, by which point, the Kzinti are already doomed).

The Hydrans can be pretty effective and scary in this scenario (due to having fighters), but as opposed to the Coalition, the 4 hex supply range actually *is* a problem for the Hydrans, as there is only so much stuff they can hit before they run out of targets.

The last time this discussion came up, I (and various other folks) suggested some sort of "lack of cooperation" rule between the Lyrans and the Klingons. Without such a rule, this game is just the first 4 turns of the General War all over again, but without strong capital defenses for the Kzinti. Which is just silly.

The general suggestion is that the Klingons and Lyrans operate similarly to how they operate in the scenario where the Hydrans take back their Capital:

-The Klingons and Lyrans can't loan each other money.

-The Klingons and Lyrans can't enter each other's home territory.

-The Klingons and Lyrans can't be in mixed battle forces.

Or some such set of rules (adjust as appropriate). As it stands, this scenario is *really* not that viable.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 01:54 pm: Edit

The scenario you mentioned is The Hydran Liberation from CL#18.

Borrowing the Klingon-Lyran cooperation rule would be cool.

It still doesn't address the incredible weakness(imo) of the Kzinti vs. the coalition, however.

Another topic that was addressed if I recall was that the economy of the Klingons (and to a lesser extent of the Lyrans) would allow them to do a lot of overbuilds which would let them crush their opponents. I don't think the Kzinti can do much to save their own economy, so after a few turns it's going to be really hard for the Hydrans to fight off the coalition hoards.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Yes--Hydran Liberation (which I couldn't remember the name of at the time :-)

I played this scenario a couple times in years past (although the reports no longer exist, apparently, on the BBS), and the Kzinti just have no hope at all if the Coalition decide to kill them, and there is no reason at all for them not to. The Kzinti don't have enough ships, don't have any way to absorb damage, don't have the economy to repair the ships that get damaged, and don't have the defenses in their Capital to keep the Coalition from demolishing it and/or just capturing it.

Assuming this scenario wants to reasonably reflect "history" (i.e. that the Kzinti *didn't* get kicked out of their Capital before the start of the General war), there really needs to be something built into the scenario to prevent that. As currently, there isn't, and all aspects of the scenario heavily encourage a strategy of killing the Kzinti and just holding off the Hydrans, as eventually they run out of things to attack that they can reach, and the relatively massive Coalition economies allow them to outpace Alliance construction with overbuilds.

I don't know for sure that driving an artificial wedge between the Lyrans and Klingons would accomplish this, but it would certainly help--if, say, the Klingons and Lyrans couldn't move into the same hex during operational movement (which I think is a Hydran Liberation rule condition), attacks on the Kzinti Capital would be vastly curtailed by virtue of them being not particularly viable. Although, still, if the Coalition just alternate turns, the Kzinti still get smashed to pieces.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Lar and I are updating 4PW as part of the FO update. I'll let him provide a rundown of things we are considering such as reducing provincial income to 1 EP (0.5 if captured) (the pre-GW economic efficiencies are not fully developed during this time).

- I can see limits on fund transfers -- maybe 5 EP /turn?

- I could see a where there might be a lack of trust between the Klingons and Lyrans in this era and a reluctance for a potential future adversary roaming in your backfield. Maybe, retrogrades and retreats to your own points should be considered also.

- I could also see battle forces limiting foreign units to one in every five deployed.

Whatever limits we put on the 4PW must apply to all scenarios set before it so we must be careful. We will be updating The Hydran Liberation be not until after the 4PW revision and update.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 04:44 pm: Edit

We are indeed working on it. I too have played this and found similar issues as Peter. He played vanilla and i used the expanded rules (at that time).

Simply stated. The build schedules for all races are less than 50 EP but more that 30 EP depending on Spring or Fall builds. ALL involved have extra money...LOTS of extra money. The Hydran (with the fighters) begin as the aggressors and thus have a slightly higher EP burden.
Sure they have fighters which does help a great deal.
As an example the Hydrans can build the opening schedule and have more left than they spend to build it.

Peter if you can sift through anything you might have that has notes about this scenario it would be helpful for the analysis. This is especially true if you played it since FO was released (which did have a few rule revisions from the initial version).

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Most of my earlier discussions about the 4PW is still preserved in the F+E Proposals forum under Revised 4 Powers War.

My recollection of the games I played saw a ridiculous amount of overbuilding of ships on all sides (except for the Kzinti, most of the time...), the Kzinti getting demolished if not having their Capital captured, and the Hydrans starting strong and eventually running out of things they could realistically attack, especially given that both Coalition Capitals are essentially arbitrarily protected from attack (attacking either Coalition capital results in a huge pile of ships and money being released to the empire in question; there are no such protections for the Alliance).

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 05:42 pm: Edit

For what (little) it's worth, the issue of balance was one I tried to address in the "Altered Alliances" variant of the 4PW, mainly by looking at the kind of fleet activations the Klingons had on hand in that scenario.

I don't have my copy of CL38 with me at the moment (it's buried down in storage); but the intent was to assume that, in this time period, the Klingons would have felt obligated to retain more forces on the Federation border. (Historically, despite the "breathing room" which the Organians brokered by treaty, the real pressure on the Klingons' Federation front was mostly lessened once the Treaty of Smarba was signed.)

Of course, the nature of that alternate scenario would prevent it from being of much relevance here; though the concept of keeping a larger portion of the Deep Space Fleet inactive than seen in the current Four Powers War scenario might be a way to bring the Coalition and Alliance powers closer to the balance of power that played itself out in the "real" 4PW.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Here is a short synopsis of the two big issues with the 4PW as I posted in the earlier discussion (probably, like, 5 years ago :-):

"A) Ship number disparity. The Coalition starts with about 50% more ships than the Alliance. The Coalition can join forces against the Alliance. The Coalition can kill more ships than the Alliance. If the Alliance tries to make significant gains against the Coalition, the Coalition get even more ships (as more fleets are released).

B) Victory Points. The points awarded for devestating homeworld planets are wildly out of proportion--there is virtually nothing the Kzinti can do to prevent the Coalition from devestating all of their non capital homeworld planets, and they simply don't have enough ships to make it painful for the Coalition (in my recent game, the raid on the Kzinti capital system was the bloodiest single battle in the war for the *Kzinti*, as even with the fixed defenses, the Kzinti were outgun significantly in every fight, so the Coalition just directed BCs out of space over and over again), and the 25+VPs the Coaltion score there are simply something the Alliance can't overcome."

I also seemed to think that the actual overbuilding issues (using just the vanilla F+E rules) were mostly a zero sum--everyone overbuilt like crazy (except for the Kzinti who were constantly under water), with the Hydrans about matching the Klingons and Lyrans combined, in terms of overbuilding hulls (due to the Coalition needing to pay a lot more for repairs than the Hydrans). The big issue is, as noted above, that the Coalition *start* with 50% more ships than the Alliance, and maintain that advantage the whole scenario. And can combine forces, where the Alliance can't.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Ryan is going to send Chuck and I his notes soon.

I have pulled out all of the CLs for reference and 38 is one Chuck and I discussed yesterday.

I will look again at the Reports thread.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Actually, there was one other thought that came to mind, when thinking back to the CL38 scenario; in light of the recent updates to the LDR (gearing up towards the formal publication of Minor Empires), could there be a degree of scope added to one of the "real" 4PW's scenario variants allowing for some sort of participation in the conflict by the Republic?

I gather that the most recent batch of preview material for the LDR mainly looks at Y168 and onwards, but it would be interesting if the chance could be taken here to refresh the "early Republic" data that was included as a part of Altered Alliances.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 03:11 am: Edit

I just read "The Hydran Liberation" (THL) scenario and we can glean a few parts from it for use in 4PW; it also has many historical problems (like starbases and repair ships that are in the scenario before they really existed.)

I'm also not going to put any effort into upgrading the THL scenario at this time since it is more an Early Years war and I don't want to try to make it work as a contemporay era scenario -- there is higher priority stuff to work on right now.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 03:58 am: Edit

I have been putting some work into THL (as it is Michael Calhoon's and my scenario). I certainly don't expect that it is a priority though. My thought was that it might be useful in a future Captain's Log that was otherwise without an F&E scenario.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 04:29 am: Edit

Let's also take a hard look at the combat values for the four DNE and the Lyran BCE while we are at it since these units are also playtest. We need to compare the TEM/C6/Z-DNE to their 12-point GW sisters. How do they compare and contrast: TEM/PAL; C6/C8; Z-DNE/Z-DN? Do they fall in the same line as the Fed DN10 vs the Fed DNG12?

Comments/Data?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 04:36 am: Edit

I did those comparisons and posted them in this thread (not the BCE though).

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 04:50 am: Edit

Shouldn't the DNEs be compared to contemporary classes of other sizes, rather than to the GW DNs? Since the usually much weaker pre-refit CAs in the scenario are retaining their 8-compot rating, basing values for DNEs on comparison to fully refitted ships will probably undervalue them significantly in the 4PW scenario.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 06:47 am: Edit

Note the Fed DNE is in the game as the DN, and is a 10 Pt unit at the start of the General War. The following units are listed in Module G3 with their YIS dates.

The Fed DN has a YIS of Y148.

The Klingon C6 has a YIS of Y150

The Kzinti DNE has a YIS of Y150

The Hydran TEM has a YIS of Y150

The Lyran DNE has a YIS of Y150

The LYran BCE is not listed in Module G3

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Comparison of the TEM vs PAL.

The only difference between the UNREFITTED TEM and PAL is that the Paladin replaces four fusion beams with Hellbores. Otherwise they are the same ship.

The only difference between the REFITTED TEM and PAL is that the Paladin replaces four fusion beams with Hellbores. Otherwise they are the same.

This is very similar to the difference (in main armament) between the RN and DG which have a offensive combat differential of 3 (RN is 6, DG is 9). The DG and RN do exchange fighters for APR which is something the PAL and TEM do not do.
Based on this, I would suggest that a TEM has a combat potential of no more than three less than a PAL (aside from fighters).

At turn two of the general war, the PAL is unrefitted and is 11-12(6)/6. The refit was not done until Y172 and is ignored in F&E.

A Hydran RN has four fusion beams and 8 phasers. A Hydran TEM has eight fusion beams and 10 phasers. The RN has a combat value of 6 (aside from fighters). I would think the TEM would have at least 8 based on this.

Based on this, I would suggest that the uncrippled factor of a TEM (refit or not) would be 8(6)-12.

---

When crippled, the original fusion ships in F&E had a offensive combat factor equal to their defensive combat factor, perhaps to reflect the general toughness of Hydran fusion ships?

The RN, HR, LN, and HN all follow this pattern.

Some (though not all) of the Hydran ships added in later expansions do not follow this pattern. (The MHK for example). I suggest their crippled offensive compot be changed when the expansions are updated. With this in mind, I suggest that a TEM have a crippled offensive compot of 6.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Based on my earlier analysis of the 4PW early DNs, I suggest that the unrefitted state of the ships be generally ignored and that their defensive compot ratings be 12, except MAYBE the Lyran DNE at 11.

The FED DN vs DNG is a much more significant upgrade than that of the 4PW DNEs to DNs and is a ship that is significantly weaker than the rest.

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