Archive through May 16, 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 16, 2013
By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:14 am: Edit

Kzinti CS Salavage should be 2.0 not 4.0

If adopting Jason's suggested factors for the Kzinti DNE then the cost should be 16 not 14. As is I believe the cost should be 15.

STRONG: Fixed - thanks.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:15 am: Edit

Chuck the DS should be CS. It was a typo by Jason.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:53 am: Edit

Re: Lyran HDD/HFF

The background of the Lyran HDD and HFF indicates that they were failed experiments that didn't take off the ground. In SFB, the HDD is arguably just plain better than the CL, for about the same cost, and the HFF is arguably just plain better than the DD, for about the same cost. The numbers above for F+E have these ships being identical to the CL/DD, but for the same (or in the case of the HFF), less cost--with these numbers, the HFF is pretty much completely superior (certainly in the 4PW era) to the DD (5/3 for 4 EP instead of 5/3 for 5 EP). Yeah, lower CR, but still.

I'd suggest making them more expensive to build. At least if the HDD cost 6 and the HFF cost 5, they'd be identical to the CL/DD combat wise for the same costs, but at least have a lower CR.

STRONG: I'm good with the numbers and the build limits set for these ships. In light of the future FF>DW and DD>CW build costs and conversion costs the values of the HDD & HFF are obsolete designs.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 11:45 am: Edit

Lar:

Scrub all Lyran FFTs from the 4PW OOB as the Lyrans don't have them prior to Y166; see SFB (R11.94).

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 12:26 pm: Edit

Those coalition fleet and income changes will improve the scenario (particularly Lyran civil war-related effects). IIUYC you are reducing Klingon income by partitioning the empire and sequestering the income - this works, but I felt an overall multiplier was a better idea - cut all income in half (prior to 166 or something). Another possibility is to force the Coalition to upgrade BS to BATS (with victory conditions). I would specify that captured planets cannot be incorporated into the supply grid.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 01:40 pm: Edit

At the moment, there is no scenario listed for inclusion in Captain's Log #47.

Would there be enough time before Origins to get a revised version of the Four Powers War (or, at least, a revision good enough to allow for further playtesting) into CL47?

If so, any data generated from that publication could then feed into the eventual revision of Fighter Operations itself.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>STRONG: I'm good with the numbers and the build limits set for these ships. In light of the future FF>DW and DD>CW build costs and conversion costs the values of the HDD & HFF are obsolete designs.>>

Fair enough. With the 1/turn limit on these ships, there won't be a ton of them, but I can't, for example, imagine that the Lyrans won't build the one allowed HFF a turn every turn of the war (the HDD is much less good, being identical to the CL with a lower CR and worse damage absorption efficiency than the DD it is made out of, but the HFF is a fantastic deal, relative to the DD). But if a few get killed, well, they'll end the war with a handful of HFFs. Which isn't a big deal.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Gary:

Why would we want to publish it in CL when it must be included in an update with FO. Besides it takes up six pages now and you're forcing all buyers of the CL to pay for twice for a test revision and the final FO version. We'll do it in-house and on-line with a dozen folks plus staff. Its also too much work to get a playtest scenario perfectly formatted, spell-checked, and edited only to change it the day after it is published.

While ADB respectfully has the final say, I just see it as a waste of six plus pages.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Chuck:

Re: Kzinti DNE factors and comparison to the Fed DN vs. DN+

Fed DN has average shields of 30 and 127 internals = 10 defense compot
Fed DN+ has average shields of 37 and 141 internals = 11 defensive compot

Kzinti DNE has average shields of 37 and 148 internals = ? defensive compot
Kzinti DN has average shields of 37 and 163 internals = 12 defensive compot

The difference between the F-DN and The F-DN+ is substantially greater than the difference between the Z-DNE and Z-DN. The change in number of internals is almost the same, but the Fed gets an almost 25% increase in shields with the upgrade, while the Kzin shields don't change at all Yes, the Z-DNE is a pretty close match to the F-DN+, but so is the TEM, which has been assigned a defensive compot of 12.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 06:31 pm: Edit

What all that means to me is that the Kzinti DN might be a bit low on it's own defense value. That isn't going to change however.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 06:45 pm: Edit

??? Brain is probably running slow after a day of reviewing very old archival file material, but if the Z-DN is a bit _low_ on its defense value, doesn't that support making the Z-DHE a 12-defense ship?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 07:18 pm: Edit

Yes, that is what I recommended earlier in this thread.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 07:21 pm: Edit

I can live with DNE's 10AF with vs the DN's 12 AF with it getting a E-Rack for 3xADD (2); adds 2xDisr, 4xP3, 3xAPR, 4xHull.

The 10% increase in internals also warrants the 11DF vs the 12DF.

I'm comfortable enough for now to recommend these factors.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 07:28 pm: Edit

So where are things standing on ideas for Klingon/Lyran lack of cooperation rules?

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 07:51 pm: Edit

In regards to the Lyran HFF/HDD, I'd go with no straight up build (N/A in Build Cost, conversion only)...

Don't forget that the YIS is Y160 which would limit them to a max of 6 or so (@ 1/turn)...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Chuck, Here's the notes from a previous discussion you and I had on limiting production of certain Kzinti ship types:

One standard ship type may be replaced by a Drone ship of the same hull type on Fall turns. No more than one CD per year by any means.

Can produce one CA per year by any means.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Stewart wrote:
>>In regards to the Lyran HFF/HDD, I'd go with no straight up build (N/A in Build Cost, conversion only)... >>

While I totally support this idea, it would be mostly unprecedented (are there other ships in the game that can *only* be produced by conversion?) and probably not worth the verbiage.

>>Don't forget that the YIS is Y160 which would limit them to a max of 6 or so (@ 1/turn)...>>

Ah--strong point! Mostly, since they published these ships in whatever CL that was, I looked at them and said "Huh. The HFF is just plain better than the DD, for about the same cost and the HDD is just plain better than the CL, for about the same cost...", and while the background fluff indicated that they were a failed experiment that didn't take off, nothing on the SSD indicated that this was a reasonable response to these ships. So since then, I have been hoping that something in F+E would justify them being a failed experiment. The HFF, costing 4 EPs (i.e. less then the 5 EP DD) jumps out as "Still, there is no reason at all that this ship wouldn't be produced at a maximum rate!". But, as noted, with a "1 per turn maximum" rule, not many will show up ever. And not too long after they are introduced, the tri-marans show up, making them mostly obsolete (and the FF/DD better, as they can be upgraded anyway).

Like, for example, the place where the background fluff matches up with F+E construction really well is the Kzinti DD--the DD is an excellent ship, but by the time the DD is available for widespread construction, the CM (which is bigger and cheaper) shows up, so the DD fails to see much construction (if any past what the Kzinti start with). Optimally I'd like to see something like this with the Lyran HFF/HDD, but barring that, the arbitrary limit on construction is good enough.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 08:57 pm: Edit

I think some of the Lyran CL variants in CL#46 have a YIS that would put them in the 4PW.

STRONG: Concurs. We will add the CLS and CLG from CL46.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 06:05 am: Edit

Richard:

OOPS! Sorry; I forgot who was arguing which side of the situation.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Chuck gotcha on the L-FFT.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Some ideas on limiting cooperation during this period include:

A. No mixed empire battle groups.

B. The formation and scout formation boxes can only be used by the empire supplying the flagship

C. Empires can only retrograde to their own retrograde points

D. Empires can only retreat toward their own supply points

E. No mixed empire reserve fleets

F. Drone bombardment can only support a fleet led by a flagship of the same empire

G. The empire supplying the flagship must make up 75% or more of the ships/units of the battle force.

H. Repairs of allied units at repair facilities is paid at the field rate (1:1)

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 01:28 pm: Edit

All of those sound very solid.

I'm assuming point A is referring to the Battle Group rule (as opposed to general battle lines).

Perhaps also a limit as to how many allied ships are allowed inside a given empire's home territory? I'd suggest "only expeditionary fleets can operate in allied territory", but I think there are no expeditionary fleets in this time frame. But something like that would probably be a good idea too.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 05:29 pm: Edit

F. I like this one. DB needs to be a horrible endeavor. Mostly the Klingons are going to build these for the scout function anyway.

We did limit construction of all Drone Ships further while giving the Kzinti a couple more at start units to take hits on, right?

I was thinking of possibly either a cost restriction or reduced effect (something like same cost for DB; effectiveness reduced by 50%...translation: each ship provides 2 pts of DB rather than 4 for the same cost).

Speed 8 drones are only fast if you are Romulan at this point in history .

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Speed 12 I think.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Type-IIIXX is speed 12...

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