|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 09:21 pm: Edit|
So are moderate speed drones which I believe are available in this time period.
|By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 06:12 am: Edit|
Medium Speed Drones Type IM, etc., are not available until Y167. See (FD2.223).
Before Y167 Drone Bombardment should only be used against slow or fixed targets like FRD's, Convoys, or Bases as provided in the original scenario rules.
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 07:32 am: Edit|
>>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).>>
That is certainly a good plan--as it stands, in this scenario, the Klingons get to use 12 points of DB pretty much at all times, as they have the money and opportunity (as they are constantly attacking slow or fixed targets). The Kzinti can only very rarely use DB (as they can't afford it and are only rarely attacking slow or fixed targets).
Giving DB a kick in the teeth is also something that will help out.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 11:24 am: Edit|
DB has already been dramatically reduced in its effectiveness so I'm going to be reluctant to recommend further changes. I will suggest that Klingon drone ship production be limited to one per turn by an means during this period.
|By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 12:34 pm: Edit|
I would say that is fine for the play-test. We can put the DB idea up on the shelf for now.
I would agree that if it gets 'nerfed' too badly then the Klingons will find other ways to spend their money, which is also not beneficial to the Kzinti or Hydrans in this scenario.
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 06:12 pm: Edit|
The issue with it being nerfed in the way that it is currently nerfed (i.e. you can only use it against slow or fixed targets) is that this does not remotely effect the use of DB by the Klingons while making it something the Kzinti can hardly benefit from ever--the attacker in a Capital assault can use DB (as they are attacking planets and bases and whatever) where the defender can't (as they are only attacking ships).
Maybe adjust DB so that it can only be used in battles that *involve* slow or stationary targets (i.e. if there is a planet or base, both the attacker and defender can use DB--really, speed 12 drones are just as good against ships coming into attack a base as they are against the base itself) as opposed to just in fights where you are *attacking* a slow or stationary target.
|By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 07:16 pm: Edit|
Pete, (607.181) does say '...involving bases, PDUs, convoys and planets.', so slow units would be included with convoys (so you're covered)...
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 07:37 pm: Edit|
That will encourage cheesiness as a player will bring a slow unit to the fight to enable the use of DB.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 08:31 pm: Edit|
Something may need to be done to avoid some of these problems.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 09:42 pm: Edit|
I could live with DB being used by both sides if there is a FIXED position unit (bases, PDUs, colonies, and planets -- including an FRD in this case) involved.
How about including this...DB can ONLY be used AGAINST other SLOW units (monitors, auxiliaries and overloaded tugs, etc) if they are included in the battle force by your opponent. If your opponent legally holds these slow unit out then any DB you put in the support echelon cannot fire DB as there is no target; you are also not charged since you didn't fire.
SVC SAYS USE THIS ONE.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 10:02 pm: Edit|
Basically, if a slow unit HAS to be in the battle force (ie convoy or FRD) then case 1 above, else case 2?
I'm not sure 'fixed position unit' is a defined term in F&E. I know what you mean, but that won't prevent, er, interesting rules questions, if you know what I mean.
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 10:21 pm: Edit|
>>Pete, (607.181) does say '...involving bases, PDUs, convoys and planets.>>
My copy says "...involving *enemy* bases, PDUs, convoys, and planets."
So the Kzinti defending their capital can't use Drone Bombardment according to the scenario rules (as written in Fighter Ops; it is possible that there is a different wording in, like, Carrier War or something).
I have no issue with wording that prevents abuse of slow units to allow DB. I just would like to see the Kzinti have the opportunity to use DB when, say, defending their Capital.
|By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 11:34 pm: Edit|
Nope, don't need a memo. I picked the answer. Check above for my decision/endorsement.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 03:16 am: Edit|
UPDATE: 4PW Historic Period Ships for F&E
|DNE||74||10-11/5-6||CR10||Y150||DN(2)||-||Schedule: 14||3.500||Early Dreadnought.|
|CS||2||7-8/4||CR8||Y125||BC(3)||-||Schedule: 8||2.000||Early Cruiser.|
|FH||41||5-4S/2||CR3||Y160||FF(4)||From FF: 0.5||For FF: 2.5||0.625||Shock ship; no shock at 4AF §. Limit one per turn by an means.|
|TEM||83||9-12(6)/6(3)||CR10||Y150||PAL(2)||From PAL: 2||Schedule: 16+6||4.000||Early Dreadnought.|
|PGZ||Future||3-7/0-4||CR6||Y150||PGZ(3)||From PG?: 2||For DD: 7||1.750||Original cargo variant of Pegasus;carries seven EPs|
|SA||44||4-5/2||CR4||Y145||HN(4)||From FF: 1||For FF: 3.5||0.875||Saracen: fusion leader variant §.|
|C6||105||10-12/5-6||CR10||Y150||C8(2)||-||Schedule: 16||4.800||Early Dreadnought.|
|D6C||A20||8-9/4-5||CR9||Y146||D6(3)||From D6: 2||Schedule: 8.5||2.550||Early Command Cruiser.|
|D6N||960||7-8D/4D||CR8||Y126||D6(3)||From D6: 2+DIP||Schedule: 8+DIP||2.400||Early Diplomatic Cruiser.|
|E4G||91||2-4G/1-2||CR3||Y126||E4(4)||From E4: 1||For E4: 2.5||0.625||Commando variant §.|
|E4J||39||3-4/2||CR2||Y135||E4(4)||From E4: 1||For E4: 2.5||0.750||Penal Ship §.|
|E3||18||3/1-2||CR3||Y120||E3(4)||-||Schedule: 2.0||0.500||Early Frigate §.|
|DNE||64||10/5||CR10||Y150||CA(2)||From CA: 5 From CC: 4||Schedule: 12||3.000||Early Dreadnought. Limit one CA/CC conversion or substitution per year.|
|BCE||A18||9/5||CR10||Y150||CL(3)||From CL: 4||For CL: 10||2.500||Early Battlecruiser. Limit one per year by any means.|
|CLG||A23||2-6G/1-3G||CR6||Y137||CL(3)||From CL: 2||For CL: 6||1.500||Commando variant §.|
|CLS||A22||2-6*/1-3||CR6||Y159||CL(3)||From CL: 3||For CL: 9||1.500||Scout variant §; EW=3.|
|HDD||A17||6/3||CR4||Y161||DD(4)||From DD: 1||For DD: 6||1.500||Limit one per turn by any means §.|
|HFF||A16||5/3||CR3||Y160||FF(4)||From FF: 1.5||For FF: 4||1.000||Limit one per turn by any means §.|
|By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 05:17 am: Edit|
Late comment: 7-8 for the kzinti CS seems high. It's missing half the disruptors of the BC (and those it does have have inferior arcs), missing the best half of the heavy phasers, has weaker forward shields and less power. It's substantially weaker than the Klingon D6 of the same era. Suggest 6-8 or 6-7.
STRONG: We typically don't change defense factors on units built on the same (or nearly the same) base hull because this factor is based more upon an abstraction of how well the hull can of the unit absorb damage. If you look at scouts and commando variants you will see the defense factors remain constant on ships with the same base hull. In the case of CS its hull is nearly identical to that of the CA much in the same way as the D6 hull is similar to the D7. So unless directed by ADB to do otherwise I will continue the practice and must make recommendations based upon it.
|By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 07:39 am: Edit|
D6 (unrefitted) weapons able to fire somewhere in FA:
4xDSR-22, 3xPH-2, 2xDRN-F
D6 (unrefitted) power = 37
D6 (unrefitted) "durability"
average shield strength = 20; internals = 84
CS weapons able to fire somewhere in FA:
2xDSR-30, 2xPH-1, 4xDRN-A
CS power = 33
average shield strength = 22; internals = 96
With _both_ better shields and more internals than a D6, the CS definitely merits a DF of 8; a DF of 9 could even be argued.
On Weapons, the D6 definitely has more DF weapons with better firing arcs, but the CS has longer range DF weapons and four times the drone launch rate. The D6 has more power, but with more DF weapons it needs more power. I could see an argument for the CS having a 6 AF, but 7 certainly doesn't seem to be unreasonable.
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 08:45 am: Edit|
>>It's substantially weaker than the Klingon D6 of the same era.>>
It really isn't. An SFB duel between a CS and D6 is a pretty even match up. Having them have the same numbers in F+E isn't at all out of the realm of reason.
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 10:54 am: Edit|
I have had several discussions with staffers several months ago regarding those factors and I'm good with recommending 7-8/4.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 11:09 am: Edit|
E4J and E4G probably have the wrong salvage values (E4J has the detachable boom). Should the salvage values of these units be swapped?
STRONG: Corrected - thanks.)
Lyran DN has same conversion cost whether a CA or CC is used. DNE uses different conversion costs for the two. Suggest it should be 4 for either hull. (CA and CC are both CR 9 if that matters).
STRONG: I can go either way since this is not a trimaran conversion. Let's see what playtesting says....
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 11:25 am: Edit|
I assume the new FO will have conversion costs for Kzinti DNE to CS to BC, TEM to PAL, SA to CR, C6 to C8 (C9?)?
Will the Kzinti FH be convertible to an FFK?
|By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 11:42 am: Edit|
The DNE to DN is the same as the Fed base-11 DN+ is to DNG base-12.
CS to BC is 1.
FH to FKx will be the same as any FF.
TEM to PAL is 2 (Same base hull; no change in CR).
SA to CR is 1.
C6 to C8 is 2 (Same base hull; no change in CR).
HDD and HFF conversion costs will be the same as the their FF and DD sisters.
|By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 02:43 pm: Edit|
Peter posted a question in the Kzinti tactics thread if the CS and the D6 were comparable.
Yes. In 1981, when everyone flew speed 10 because they didn't know in any better.
In practice, in a duel, the D6 need not arm all of his disruptors and still have a huge advantage in firepower outside of range 2. The A racks are easily drained. If the D6 keeps some speed, and focuses on outmaneuvering the drones and grinding down the CS at his own pace, the CS really can't do squat.
With regards to hull durability and number of internals, the CS is a fine ship. Its arcs, power, and balance of weapons are just horrible.
Consider that the CS's chase speed is 28 and it can like fire a P1 or put one point in tractor.
The D6 can go 28, have a better turn mode and shoot 2 disr and a p2.
If the CS somehow gains an overrun on the D6, well, then it can turn the tables surprisingly. Tends not to happen.
|By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 03:05 pm: Edit|
Otoh, the CS can go slower, reinforce the shield and there's not much the D6 can do to it at long range.
|By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 03:38 pm: Edit|
(Why isn't this discussion happening in the spot where it is appropriate?)
|By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 03:04 pm: Edit|
Possible addition for the 4PW ship chart:
Klingon D6C: Currently listed in the SIT only as the conjectural D6L version, CL20 gives the in service date as Y136 whereas the SIT currently says Y146, which means CL20 may be out of date. I thought I saw something that said the last of these served through the end of the 4PW, but I'm not seeing it right now....
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation