|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 01:59 pm: Edit|
The difference between the Fed DN and DN+
2 crew units
6 F Hull
2 P-1s (in the saucer)
2 Photon Torpedoes (in the saucer)
2 shuttle boxes
1 tractor beam
1 type-G drone rack
36 shield boxes (6 on each facing)
The difference between the DN+ and the DNG:
The DNG gains:
2 crew units
2 boarding parties
1 level of better turn mode (D vs E)
Trades 4 LAB for 4 AWR
(8 phasers are improved from 120 to 180 degree arcs).
3 Type G drone racks
2 P-3 360 degrees
12 additional shield boxes (4 to each of the aft shields)
Trades 1 TRAN for 1 TRAC
All APR is AWR (this is a refit on the DN+)
Going from the DN to DNG adds quite a bit more than in other early DNs to their refitted general war counterparts (the DNG being fully refitted as soon as it was introduced), with six more power, a fair number of secondary systems added, TEN additional weapon boxes and 48 additional shield boxes. This is MUCH more than any other empire's DNEs to general war DNs, so it seems reasonable that the other empire's DNEs are stronger than the Fed DN.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 03:45 pm: Edit|
TEM-Y150 vs PAL-Y169: The better comparison is the Hydran LC vs LM; take a look and tell me what you think...
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 04:23 pm: Edit|
The LM gains one compot over the LC. The difference in the two ships is that the LC has 6 fusion beams while the LM has 4 fusion beams and two hellbores (identical arcs to the LC). The two ships are otherwise identical.
Going by that, one might say the TEM should not be more than two points in compot less than the PAL, but one could also say the LC compot difference from the LM was rounded down to one, if one wanted to have a three point difference between the PAL and the TEM.
|By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 06:58 pm: Edit|
The Lyran BCE is in CL39 (and the Compendium). I included the F&E Data from the CL (page 100) above (1st line of the post). The SSD is page 108 of CL39.
Here is the description from the CL (page 102) which does present some guideline limitations.
(R11.A18) LYRAN EARLY BATTLECRUISER (BCE): Similar to the DNE the BCE was based on a light cruiser hull. Few were built and none were in service by the start of he General War. The ships were only used by the Lyran Emperor's Marshals and were often kept in the Home Fleet. The appearance of one of these ships in a county indicated the Emperor s personal interest about "something". (It is believed the emperors sometimes sent a ship into a county just to "stir things up", i.e. perhaps panic anyone plotting something into revealing themselves because "the emperor must already know".) The ship's firepower was on a par with the command cruisers operated by the Dukes, and they were in essence a trump card in the stability of the Empire in that their mere existence gave the emperor more combat power than any one Duke. Unfortunately, the design had serious drawbacks, being as sluggish as the DNE and not as well protected.
Other Data: Breakdown 4-6; Spare Shuttles 2; Year in Service Y150; Docking Points 7; Explosion 19; Command Rating 10; Status LPW; Notes Y1.
While none of these ships remained in service into the General War we have included a theoretical "Plus refit" which shows what the ship might have looked like if it had been in service that long. This changes two of the phaser-3s into phaser-1 s, adds the ESG capacitors, and increases shields #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 to 30 boxes.
|By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 07:13 pm: Edit|
Beyond this scenario, the YIS of Y150 would permit the BCEs to take part in a "they who would be king" setup covering the Lyran civil war fought just prior to the Four Powers War, depending on the rules governing the activation of the King's fleet in such an event.
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 07:49 pm: Edit|
Just in the name of keeping folks focused, while nitpicking the various ships and factors involved in the units in this scenario is certainly worth doing, I think it is important to not lose sight of the really important issue here--the game needs to be balanced, and it needs to be balanced with large issues (economic factors and scenario rules), not small ones.
This scenario has the *potential* to be a fantastic, reasonably sized, interesting version of F+E. It is big enough and long enough to be interesting, yet simple enough and of the right scale to be playable in a reasonable amount of time, and by newer players, from start to finish. If the 4PW could be made into a balanced, dynamic scenario, and one that got played on a regular basis by many people, I suspect it would really open the game up to a lot more players, being a scenario that uses 4 empires instead of 8 and is 11 or so turns instead of 35 and limits the scope of rules used. As it stands, it has *really* significant balance issues, that keep it from being the excellent, reasonably sized and scaled scenario that it could be.
|By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 07:51 pm: Edit|
OK, quick comparison of various unrefitted Hydran hulls.
CPT - offensive/defensive compot on the F&E counter
INT - total internals
SHD - average shield strength, rounded to the nearest whole number
PWR - total power
DPR - discretionary power = total power less housekeeping and 16 hexes of movement
(NB: above do not include batteries)
PHS - offensive phaser count = number of Ph-1 plus 2/3 the number of Ph-2
WPN - number of fusions (F) and Hellbores (H)
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 07:58 pm: Edit|
You didn't compare it to the PAL though, which would also have an 11 defense by your chart. That is a big thing to ignore.
|By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 08:10 pm: Edit|
Chuck, see (R5.41) The FH was an unsucessful "leader"design. Granted it suffers shock effects in SFB, but to simplify things it should just use the leader rule for the 4PW scenario.
Strong: It doesn't get a bump in CR in the MSC so it can't use the leader rule; I'm going to keep it in.
|By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 08:19 pm: Edit|
I definitely agree that the Four Powers War might make for a good introductory scenario for F&E, once the scenario balance issues are addressed.
(Indeed, if the "Klingon Invasion" idea managed to get off the ground at some point, a more balanced version of the 4PW here might make for a good basis for conversion into that game system, which in turn could filter some increased exposure back into F&E itself.)
When it comes to the actual counters required for the "new" ships involved (like the Lyran BCE and DNE), could they be added to the re-done countersheet for Fighter Operations; or would that module's list of counters remain the same as they are at present?
If the time is approaching that ADB may run out of their current stock of countersheets for FO, it may be possible to have the new batch done with the same process that allowed the re-print of the core module's countersheets to include a wave of new ships (if I'm remembering things correctly, that is). If this was the case here, one would finally be able to play the Four Powers War scenario with all of the "correct" counters for each of the units involved, should enough space be made available on the re-done countersheets to accommodate them.
|By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 08:28 pm: Edit|
The PAL isn't included because it didn't exist at the time of the 4PW. The RN, DG, LN, and KN in the 4PW scenario are unrefitted designs, much weaker than their GW counterparts, but still use the standard F&E counters. Unless we want to do downgraded counters for all the ships in 4PW (counter addict's eyes light up! ) GW-era ships aren't the appropriate comparison point for determining factors for the TEM. It should be "normalized" to the other defined units in the 4PW scenario.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 08:50 pm: Edit|
You should still factor the fact that the Pal, with a defense of 12 has EXACTLY THE SAME number of system and shield boxes as the Templar.
The only difference is hellbores being swapped with fusion beams.
Neglecting to consider this is a case of missing the forest for the trees. o_O.
Part of the consideration process of the factors for early DNs IS a comparison to the non early DNs. Just include that as well and you'll probably see my point.
|By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 09:03 pm: Edit|
GW = apples
4PW = oranges
NOT the same thing, and trying to base the factors of the one by comparison to the other WILL produce incorrect results. If the undefined ship being dropped into the 4PW scenario were the DG (unrefitted), then trying to establish factors by comparison to the RN+ rather than the unrefitted RN would give values inappropriate to the 4PW scenario.
|By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 09:15 pm: Edit|
Also keep in mind that there are changes which occur over time that aren't represented on the SSD, which add to the danger of trying to compare ships from different time periods. One that comes immediately to mind is that 4PW Hydrans can't hold fusion beams.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 09:19 pm: Edit|
You may wish to re-read this thread.
The Templar and Paladin (both unrefitted) have the same number of hits to be destroyed.
The Templar+ and the Paladin+ (both unrefitted) have the same number of hits to be destroyed.
The differences in the two ships is the hellbores (and only that), which imo does not affect the defense rating. If a PAL (unrefitted) was in 4PW, I would expect that it would have a defense rating of 12. As a TEM is exactly as hard to kill, I would also expect that it would have the same defense rating as a PAL.
I don't know how to be any clearer on this point.
If you disagree, let's just agree to disagree and move on to comparisons of other ships of the 4PW.
|By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 10:16 pm: Edit|
Can someone find and post the R section for the Kzinti CLD? Thanks.
Peter I agree wholeheartedly with your post about balancing. The ships themselves are really ancillary to the scenario's balance but since FO is being revised and there is a chance for an expanded counter set with this 'fan favorite' scenario I would think that hashing out some numbers should be done.
Chuck and I played the first turn as a test after making a few changes. Somethings have done okay some things still need work.
We seek to find some way to keep the Kzinti SB (Homeworld) intact until the fighters (introduced on T8) make it impossible for the Klingons to take down. This fighter introduction historically ends the war.
|By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Monday, May 13, 2013 - 11:26 pm: Edit|
How about eliminating the opportunity (or extend the time it takes) to make captured planets part of your supply grid? Forces you to build bases (not PDUs) to extend supply.
STRONG: I like this -- Lar, let's use this idea as it slows the offensive.
|By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 - 12:30 am: Edit|
Actually (and unfortunate) the scenario does the opposite in that a MB takes two turns to set up.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 - 01:55 am: Edit|
After reviewing all of the above info here is what I'm going to recommend...
The Z-DN at (12/6) has 15 more internals than the Z-DNE: trades an E-Rack for 3xADD (2); adds 2xDisr, 4xP3, 3xAPR, 4xHull.
Z-DNE recommendation: factors (10-11/5-6); For DN: 14.0; Salv 3.500; Early DN. Upgrade to DN: 2.0. Comments: This DNE compares more with the Fed DN+ than the Fed DN.
The C9 (which is equivalent to the C8 in F&E) at (12/6) has three more internals than the C6: adds 2xDisr and ADD.
C6 recommendation: factors (10-12/5-6); For C8: 16.0; Salv 4.800; Early DN. Upgrade to C8: 1.0.
The L-BC-Y169 at 10/5 has six more internals over the L-BCE: adds 2xESG, 4xREP, 2xTRAC, loses 2xAPR. Interestingly, the CC at 9/5 has five more internals: adds 2xIMP, BRDG, 2xAUX, 2xTRAC, loses 2xHULL.
L-BCE-Y150 recommendation: Factors 9/5; CR10; Hull CL(3); From CL: 4; For CL: 10; Salv 2.500; Notes: Limit one per year by any means.
The L-DN-Y168 at 12/6 has 14 more internals over the DNE: adds 2xDISR, AUX, FLG, 4xREP, 2xESG, 2xHULL, 2xIMP, 2xTRAC, loses 2xAPR.
L-DNE recommendation: factors 10/5; CR10; Hull CA(3); From CA: 5 From CC: 4; Schedule:12 For CA: 12; Salv 3.000; Notes: Limit one CA/CC conversion or substitution per year.
The PAL-Y169 at 11-12(6)/6(3) has the same number of internals as the TEM but trades 4xHB for 4xFus.
TEM-Y150 recommendation factors: 9-12(6)/6(3). Upgrade to: TEM+: 1.0; PAL: 2.0; For DN: 16+6; Salv 4.000
Additional Hydran DN comparisons:
|Cost||For DN: 12+6||For DN: 12+6||12+6||For DN: 12+6|
|Convert||-||From TEM: 1||From TEM: 2||From PAL: 1 From TEM: 3 From TEM+: 2|
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 - 02:18 am: Edit|
I hate to interfere, but I don't think plus refits should be in the game for these Hydran DNs, but should just be assumed to be alongside the refit of other DNs (ie not really needing a new counter with new factors).
STRONG: I'm NOT advocating for the PAL+ to be added to the game; but if it was added I would have listed it as above. The above was to show what the PAL+ might look like.
With drone speeds added in, the Klingon and Kzinti DNs do spend more on the ships than just the phaser refits and whatnot.
I think in F&E the C9 would actually have the same stats as a C9A, which only difference from a C9 (with B and K refits) is the SFG replacing cargo boxes (!) and has the factors of 11-12/6. If this is the case then a C6 should probably have an offensive combat factor of 10.
It may be that when the C9A's factors were determined that it was just assumed that it was weaker than a standard C9 when in fact it was not. Given what you have said I think this might actually be the case (and a C9A in the next update of the product it is in should have a 12/6 factor, imo).
I also note that you made the crippled factor of the C6 as 5-6. Was this a copy and paste error and in fact meant to be 6? Most crippled ships have an offensive combat factor of half the non-crippled offensive combat factor (rounded up).
My apologies if I'm being too contrary, if so I do not mean to offend.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 - 02:37 am: Edit|
It has been ADBs policy NOT to change counter factors ONCE an actual F&E counter is printed. ADBs policy exception has been that only actual errors in factors would be fixed and changing factors as a lobbying effort would not be permitted.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 - 02:39 am: Edit|
Nod. They did change all those fighter factors involving half factors when 2010 F&E came out, so at least in a sense they COULD fix something if it was an obvious error (such as the Fed CLE).
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 - 02:51 am: Edit|
The half fighter factors was a correction to the basic set counters since the triangle factors didn't exist in the 1986/1990 basic game and counters. We added triangles in later modules and saw that we needed to correct the basic game ships to meet the new standard as the old factors where now obsolete. The correction coincided with the need to print new basic set counters -- so it worked out well at the time.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 - 03:00 am: Edit|
It was one of several nice improvements to the basic game.
|By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 - 06:06 am: Edit|
the PAL+ refit adds TWENTY BPV (over 10%) (this is not your daddy's routine "phaser-3 refit or Y175" refit!
Fed CA = 125; CAR+ = 143 (+18)
Hydran RN = 93; RN+ = 111 (+18)
Klingon C8 =211; C8K = 226 (+15)
+20 doesn't seem all that far out of line with a fair number of other wartime refits that are not represented in the game.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation